Texts collected in William Rusch, The Trinitarian Controversy (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), chapters 1-7.

Transcription

1 ARIUS The Develpment f the Dctrine f the Trinity ARIANISM AND THE COUNCIL OF NICEA I Texts cllected in William Rusch, The Trinitarian Cntrversy (Philadelphia: Frtress Press, 1980), chapters 1-7. LIFE OF ARIUS (SEE HANSON, 3-19) 256 Arius brn in Libya 290s Arius rdained deacn by Peter, bishp f Alexandria Pssibly studied with Lucian f Antich 300s Arius rdained priest by Achillas, bishp f Alexandria 318 Arius, priest in Alexandria, publicly criticizes his bishp, Alexander 318 Sme, perhaps Melitius, reprt Arius t Alexander 318 Alexander heard the sides f bth supprters and accusers f Arius 319 Alexander summned a cuncil f bishps wh draw up a Cnfessin f Orthdxy fr Arius t sign; he refuses 319 Arius gained supprt; he wrte his Thalia; Arius and his supprters traveled arund gaining supprters 320 Many bishps beynd Egypt jined Arius, including Eusebius f Caesarea 320 Alexander wrte a letter t all bishps warning them against Arius and Eusebius f Nicmedia 320 Cuncil was held in Bithynia declaring Arius s views rthdx 321 A cuncil was held in Palestine that vindicates Arius 322 Licinius banned all meetings f bishps 324 The ban was lifted 324 Alexander wrte t Alexander f Thessalnica denuncing the unrest caused by Arians; he als wrte t ther bishps and wrte a letter t Sylvester, bishp f Rme 324 Cnstantine wrte a letter t Alexander and Arius urging recnciliatin 324 A cuncil was held at Alexandria, led by Ossius f Crdva, n the celebratin f Easter 325 A cuncil met at Antich cndemning Arius 325 The cuncil at Nicea began in May and cntinued thrugh July 327 Arius appealed t Cnstantine 332 Arius signed a prfessin f faith and was readmitted t cmmunin by Cnstantine 336 Arius died ARIUS Texts Surviving texts: three letters, a few fragments f anther, lng qutatins frm his wrk the Thalia, written in Stadean meter (Hansn, 5-6) Beynd this, there are nly reprts frm his enemies, particularly Athanasius Even thugh it is said that he wrte ther wrks, It may be dubted, in view f this ttal dearth, whether Arius ever wrte any but the mst ephemeral wrks. (Hansn, 6) Develpment f the Dgma f the Trinity 3. 1

2 LETTER TO EUSEBIUS OF NICOMEDIA (318) See Hansn, 6; text in Rusch, chapter 2 He disagrees with Alexander, wh states: Always Gd always Sn, At the same time Father, at the same time Sn, The Sn ingenerably cexists with Gd, Ever-begtten, ungeneratedcreated, neither in thught nr in sme mment f time des Gd prceed the Sn, Always Gd always Sn, The Sn is frm Gd himself. Arius s wn claim, he says, is in agreement with Eusebius f Caesarea, Thedtus, Paulinus, Athanasius, Gregry, Aetius, and all the bishps thrughut the East wh say that Gd withut beginning exits befre the Sn ( qeς tu uiu anarcς). Thse wh cndemn this rthdx statement hld that the Sn is a belching r an emanatin. The Sn is nt unbegtten (agennets) r a prtin f the unbegtten in any manner r frm any substratum, but by the will and cunsel f the Father he subsisted befre times and ages, full f grace and truth, Gd, nly-begtten, unchangeable. And befre he was begtten r created r defined r established, he was nt. Fr he was nt unbegtten. But we are persecuted because we say, The Sn has a beginning, but Gd is withut beginning. Because f this we are persecuted because we say, He is frm nthing. But we speak thus inasmuch as he is neither part f Gd nr frm any substratum. On accunt f this we are persecuted. Yu knw the rest. I pray that yu are strng in the Lrd, recalling ur afflictins, fellw pupil f Lucian, truly Eusebius. LETTER OF PROFESSION OF FAITH TO ALEXANDER (320) See Hansn, 7-8; text in Rusch, chapter 3 One Gd, alne unbegtten Only-begtten Sn begtten befre eternal times Immutable and unchangeable perfect creature f Gd, submitted t Gd s will Offspring, but nt as ne f thse brn Nt an emanatin Nt f the same substance Nt a dividing f Gd Created by the will f Gd befre times and ages There are three hypstases: Gd/Father, the Sn, and the Spirit The Sn was nt befre he was begtten He is nt c-everlasting with the Father LETTER TO CONSTANTINE (HANSON, 8-9; RUSCH, CHAPTER 9) Pleas fr a return frm exile fr himself and Euzius The Sn came int existence befre all ages LETTER QUOTED IN CONSTANTINE S LETTER TO ARIUS OF 333 (HANSON, 9) There is an unriginated wrd f Gd s substance Alien nature f the bdy fr the sake f the carrying ut f divine activities Spirit f eternity was in the superir Wrd Gd is nt invlved in suffering Christ suffered QUOTATIONS BY ATHANASIUS OF THE THALIA: ORATIONES CONTRA ARIANOS 1.5-6, DE SYNODIS 1.5. The secnd seems t be quting Arius, cmpiled by ne favurable t Arius The first is an accusatin by Athanasius Develpment f the Dgma f the Trinity 3. 2

3 The Wrd is, like everybdy, changeable in his nature and he remains gd in his wn freewill as lng as he chses, but when he wishes he t can be changed as we can, fr his nature is alterable. (Hansn, 13, summarizing Or. Cn. Arians 1.5-6) The Sn and the Spirit are unlike the Father; they are nt equal (De Syndis 15, Hansn, 14) There is a Trinity, but these are three realities, unlike each ther, pssessing glry at different levels (De Syndis 15, Hansn, 14) Gd is mysterius t the Sn (De Syndis 15, Hansn, 15) SUMMARY Themes, taken by Hansn (20-23) frm Lrentz s Arius Iuaizans? Gd was nt always Father; he nce was simply Gd The Sn is called Gd nly analgusly t ur situatin The Lgs r Sn is a creature; Gd made him ut f nn-existence (this last element was the mst shcking) Gd is unriginate (agenets), everything else is riginated and thus created (genets); when the Sn is said t be begtten (gennets), this is just anther way f saying created (genets) (Hill, 43) There are tw Lgi and tw Wisdms and several pwers f Gd A superir Lgs wh is f the Father and nt separate frm the Father and an exterir Lgs, spken and created by Gd (Hansn, 10) The Sn is variable by nature but remains stable by the gift f Gd The lgs is alien frm the divine Being and distinct; he is nt true Gd because he has cme int existence. The Sn s knwledge f Gd is imperfect The Sn has been created fr ur sake, as an instrument fr creating us A Trinity f dissimilar hypstases exists Hmusius is incrrect It seemed t him that if this wrd were used t describe the Sn s relatin t the Father, then inevitably he was being represented as, s t speak, a brken-ff piece f the Father, cmparable t Mani s idea that bits f Gd are t be encuntered in all srts f places, even in vegetables and fd. (Hansn 24-25) In the same way, the Sn is nt an issue r a fire lit frm anther fire Sterilgy The Sn suffers in a way that Gd cannt First, the human limitatins and weaknesses f Jesus, the incarnate Sn f Gd, were a sign f his divine inferirity; his divinity was reduced enugh t be able t encunter suffering withut ceasing t be divine. And secndly, they insisted that in becming incarnate the Sn had taken t himself, nt a cmplete human individual, but what they called a sµa ayucn, a bdy withut a sul. (Hansn, 25) This prvided a way f talking abut a Gd wh culd suffer and thus wh culd nt be the Father (Hansn, 26) He culd nt be a mere man (anqrps yils), a man with a human sul, but had t be Gd (Hansn, 26) COUNCIL OF ANTIOCH Early 325, presided ver by Hsius Cndemned Eusebius f Caesarea The Sn is begtten, nt frm nthing but frm the Father as a true ffspring His begetting is ineffable Develpment f the Dgma f the Trinity 3. 3

4 He always is He is an image f the hypstasis f the Father; nt f his will Cndemned Eusebius f Caesarea Decree (Rusch, chapter 5) The faith is t believe in ne Gd, Father all-svereign, incmprehensible, immutable, and unchangeable, prvider and guide f all, just, gd, maker f heaven and earth and all that is in them, Lrd f the Law and Prphets and f the New Cvenant; and in ne Lrd Jesus, nlybegtten Sn, nt begtten frm nthing but frm the Father, nt as made but as prperly an ffspring, begtten ineffably and indescribably, wherefre nly the Father wh begt and the Sn wh was begtten knw; fr n ne knws the Father except the Sn, r the Sn except the Father [cf. Matt 11:27], wh always is and nt at a prir time was nt. We learned frm the hly Scriptures that he alne is the image, nt clearly as if he was unbegtten frm the Father, nr by adptin, fr it is impius and blasphemus t say this. The Scriptures say that he was begtten prperly and truly as Sn, s that we believe that he is immutable and unchangeable; he was begtten, r came int existence, neither by wish nr by adptin s that he appears t be frm nthing He is the image nt f the will r f any ther thing but f the hypstasis f the Father himself. ALEXANDER OF ALEXANDRIA Letter Hens smats (319) t the bishps explaining his excmmunicatin f Arius (Hansn, 16). Ayers suggests that this may have been written by Athanasius (43) Arius hlds that the Lgs derives frm nn-existence He teaches that there was a time when Gd was nt Father He hlds that the Sn is a creature and a prduct, unlike the father in substance He claims that the Sn is Lgs because he is derived frm Gd s wn lgs He asserts that the Sn is changeable He hlds that the Sn des nt knw the Father cmpletely nr des he knw his wn substance Letter (324) t Alexander bishp f Thessalnica (r Byzantium) (Rusch, chapter 4) Arius claims that there was a time when the Sn f Gd did nt exist (Hansn, 17) The lgs is f the same nature as the Father and eternal, but has a different hypstasis than the Father: Ayers argues that Alexander mst ften uses physis r pragmata t talk f the difference in Father and Sn and says that he never uses hypstasis in a technical sense, r that there are tw r three hypstases. The nature f the Sn is t mediate between the Father and creatin, while remaining uncreated (Ayers, 44) If the Father were withut the Sn, then the Father wuld be withut reasn and wisdm (quted in Ayres, 44, n 4) One cannt cnceive the relatinship between Father and Sn He is Sn by nature, nt by adptin T be begtten is nt t be created; his generatin is indescribable He is like the Father except in his being begtten He shares in the Father s incmprehensibility and all f his ther qualities (Ayers, 45) In additin t the Father and Sn there is ne Spirit ARIUS S SUPPORTERS In Athanasius and later writers Arius is synnymus with Arians and they d nt distinguish between what Arius himself taught and what ther similar writers taught (Hansn, 19) Wh were they? Lucian f Antich Develpment f the Dgma f the Trinity 3. 4

5 Eusebius f Nicmedia Asterius Paulinus f Tyre Athanasius f Anazarbus Thegnis, bishp f Nicea Gerge f Antich Narcissus f Nernias Achilleus Eusebius f Caesarea BIBLIOGRAPHY Jhn Behr, The Way t Nicea, vl. 1 f Frmatin f Christian Thelgy (Crestwd, NY: St. Vladimir s Seminary Press, 2001), Bris Bbrinsky, Le Mystère de la Trinité (Paris: Cerf, 1996), Jhn Farrelly, The Trinity: Rediscvering the Central Christian Mystery (Lanham, MD: Rwman & Littlefield Publishers, 2005). Alys Grillmeier, Christ in the Christian Traditin (Philadelphia: Westminster Jhn Knx, 1975), vl. 1. R. P. C. Hansn, The Search fr the Christian Dctrine f Gd (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988). William Hill, The Three-Persned Gd (Washingtn DC: The Cathlic University f America Press, 1984). Stephen R. Hlmes, The Quest fr the Trinity: The Dctrine f Gd in Scripture, Histry, and Mdernity (Dwners Grve, IL: Intervarsity Press, William Rusch, The Trinitarian Cntrversy (Philadelphia: Frtress Press, 1980), intrductin. Develpment f the Dgma f the Trinity 3. 5