The Arian controversy began in 318 at Alexandria when Arius, a presbyter accused the Alexandrian bishop, Alexander of teaching heresy. 1 Alexander had so emphasised the unity of God that Arius had considered his doctrine dangerously close to Sabellianism. 2 The response of Arius was to emphasise the distinct hypostasis of the Father and the Son but this was done to the point that the Son was reduced to a mere created being, subordinate to the Father, and of a different essence and only called God in a lower sense. 3 Because this doctrine gained quick popularity and was causing disunity in the empire, Constantine called the first Church council at Nicea in 325 in an attempt to resolve the issue. It was here that the Deity of the Son was upheld and the formula 'of one substance' (homoousios) with the Father was applied to Christ and accepted by the majority. Arius and those who had followed him were banished to Galatia and Illyricum. 4

Although the council of Nicea appeared to have succeeded in overthrowing Arianism it did by no means bring it to an end but merely drove it underground. 5 This was seen only months after Nicea when two leading bishops, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicea, enlightened the Emperor to their dissatisfaction of the creed of 325 and withdrew their approval of it. 6 Also at this time some of the dispossessed Arians from Alexandria returned to appeal their cause and found support in Eusebius and a neighbouring bishop, Theognis of Nicea. As a result, the appellants were dismissed and the two bishops were sent into exile in Gaul, where they remained for three years, and their former sees were transferred to loyal Nicene adherents. 7

From 328 Constantine had a change of mind over his previous position regarding the Nicene council and allowed the exiled bishops Eusebius and Theognis to return and re-occupy their former sees. 8 Even Arius himself was called before the Emperor for another appraisal of his doctrine. However, the profession of faith that Arius brought before Constantine carefully avoided any mention of the homoousios and therefore managed to avoid the primary issues that had been at stake at Nicea and convinced the Emperor to acquit him. 9 But despite his new found favour Arius died before he could be reinstated. 10

With the return of the exiled Arians Eusebius of Nicomedia became a prominent figure in the Arian party. 11 Eusebius was a competent leader who realised that a direct attack on the council of Nicea would fail because of Constantine's attachment to it, 12 so instead he turned his attention to discrediting those who were supporters of it (principally Eustathius, Marcellus, and Athanasius). 13 In the year 331 Eustathius was the first of Eusebius opponents to be deposed and this was further reinforced by Constantine who issued a second sentence of exile. 14 The main charge, that of heresy, originated in Eustathius' emphasis of God's unity which led to accusations of Sabellianism. 15

Eusebius' main opponent was Athanasius who had taken over the Alexandrian see after the death of Alexander in 328. 16 Athanasius, who followed the same theological convictions of Alexander, soon became known as the great champion of the Nicene faith. 17 In respects to his determination, courage, and endurance "no hero of Church history has ever surpassed him." 18 Opposition emerged against him in 335, at Tyre, when he was brought before a council dominated by the Arian party. Although he had arrived with forty nine bishops from Egypt who professed the faith of Nicea, they were not permitted to enter. 19 It was on account of such discrimination that Athanasius appealed directly to the Emperor himself and appealed for justice. 20 Contantine's solution was to call for the synod to re-assemble before him at Constantinople; but only four, the two Eusebiuses, Ursacius, and Valens, complied with the Emperor's wishes. 21 The four men brought a new charge against Athanasius by accusing him of scheming to hinder the capitals supply of corn which resulted in his prompt exile by the Emperor to distant Treves and Moselle. 22 Marcellus of Ancyra was also condemned at a synod in Constantinople in 336 for holding to Sabellian beliefs. 23 However, it appears that there was some substance to this particular charge which is reflected in Athanasius' attack on his doctrines in one of his works. 24

Just prior to his death in 337, Constantine, influenced by the Arian party, was baptised as an Arian by Eusebius. 25 After his death Constantine's three son's, ruled the empire. Constantine II and Constans shared their rulership in the West while Constantius became Emperor of the East. 26 Although the exiles were permitted to return, it soon became apparent that the new political situation in the East favoured Arian Christology. 27 However, Arianism had never really managed to flourish as successfully in the West because there was less fear of Sabellianism, and the formula "One God in three Persons" was common and in harmony with Nicene Christological thinking. 28 Political unrest emerged in the West between the two Emperors and continued until the death of Constantine II in 340. 29 Despite a further exile to Rome in 339 Athanasius was eventually allowed to return to Alexandria in 346 when Constantius became more moderate in his Arian convictions due to the influence of Constans. 30

From the death of Constans in 350, Constantius reigned as sole Emperor and through him a determined effort was made by his Arian advisors to bypass the Nicene doctrine with a formula that proclaimed the Son to be clearly subordinate to the Father (The Blasphemy of Sirmium 357). 31 For them, the Son was unlike the Father in all things, and of a different substance. 32 They argued that while He could be called God in a sense, this was merely used to describe His connection and activity with the Father. 33 But unlike Arius they believed that the Son did possess a form of divinity insofar as he was active in creation. 34 This section of the anti-Nicene party, who were to become known as Anomoeans, or extreme Arians, succeeded in getting their thoroughly subordinationist creed established in the East, and was enforced violently in the West. 35 Part of the formula that they proposed is as follows: "For it can be doubtful to none that the Father is greater than the Son in honour, dignity, splendour majesty, and in the very name of the Father, the Son Himself testifying "He who sent me is greater than I." 36 The creed also goes on to say that the Son is "subordinated to the Father." 37

Although it appeared that the Arians were victorious, many showed themselves to be dissatisfied. Those who had previously followed Eusebius of Nicomedia's Arianism, and rejected Nicea, had only done so not because of a true Arian conviction but because they had suspected it of being a form of Sabellianism. But with the Blasphemy of Sirmium, the more moderate theologians began show themselves from among their ranks 38 and reacted strongly against the Anomoeans attack on the Son's divinity. 39 These reactions appeared in Gaul, North Africa, and amongst the more moderate Arian circles in the East. 40 Many of these Eastern bishops held to a high Christology and had been influenced by Origen's eternal generation of the Son; it was only the Nicene use of the term homoousios that they found unacceptable. 41

The Homoeans (also called political Arians) emerged and reasoned that the Son was 'like the Father in all things' (although they later asserted that the Son was simply 'like the Father'). 42 Some in this group, such as Ursacius and Valens were extreme Arians who supported the Anomoean agenda when they could, but generally tended to avoid any discussion on the subject of the homoousios so that they would not have to define what they really meant by their statement 'like the Father.' 43 Others in the Homoean party objected strongly to the Anomoean statements about the Son and declared Him to be born of the substance (ousia) of the Father; but at the same time they refused to acknowledge Him as true Deity. 44 Basil of Ancyra emerged as the leader of the group who became known as Homoiousians when in 358 he gathered together a synod and proposed the term homoiousios to describe the Son as being of 'like substance' to the Father including His essential being (ousia). 45 With this proposal, the Homoiousians affirmed that the Son is to be considered next to the Father, not as a mere created being; but at the same time they avoided being misunderstood as Sabellians because they stressed a distinction between the Father and the Son. 46 This managed to win the approval of the Emperor from the Anomoeans. 47 Although the Homoiousians were initially opposed to both the Arians and the Nicene party their new term undoubtedly meant a significant move towards the view of Nicea. 48

Constantius, seeking reconciliation between the anti-Nicene groups called twin councils at Arminium and Seleucia in 359. 49 At these councils the term ousia was rejected and it was argued that although both homoousios and homoiousios had no Scriptural warrant the term homoios did, and meant the same as homoiousios. 50 By 360 bishops in both East and West had completely rejected the term homoousios as being unscriptural. This was the situation which instigated Jerome to write, "The whole world groaned and marvelled to find itself Arian". 51

With the death of Constantius, Julian the Apostate permitted all exiles to return and work out any differences theologically rather than politically. 52 With this opportunity Athanasius gathered a synod in Alexandria in 362 and to the surprise of Julian there was mutual understanding between the various groups. 53 The synod was a great success for Athanasius, although he was exiled again by Julian for a brief period afterwards. 54 Gonzalez observes how the Christological issue of the synod of Alexandria also opened discussion regarding the Spirit. 55 Although the majority of bishops had by this time accepted the divinity of the Son in one way or another, there were some among their ranks who insisted that the Spirit was not coequal with the Father and the Son, yet professed the deity of the Son. 56 Those who held to this position were called Pneumatomachians (enemies of the Spirit) and were condemned along with Arianism. 57 Therefore, by condemning both Arianism and Pneumatomachianism, an alliance was strengthened between the Nicenes and the conservative Homoiousians and the first steps towards Trinitarianism was affirmed. 58 But despite the new relationships formed between the two groups, clarification of terms were still needed, especially regarding the use of the words homoousios, ousia and hypostasis and how they applied to the Godhead. 59

Clearer explanation developed with the coming of three theologians, Gregory of Nazianzus and two brothers, Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa, who were to become known as the 'Cappadocian Fathers'. 60 Their primary concern focused on the terms ousia and hypostasis, and how they should be understood as being distinct rather than synonymous as was commonly thought. 61 The Cappadocian theologians interpreted hypostasis as an individual subsistence and ousia as the common essence, and went on to argue that in the Godhead there existed three hypostases and one ousia. 62 Consequently, with the acceptance of these terms by those in the West, and eventually the East, the Cappadocians were also able to demonstrate the faithfulness of the Christological term homoousios. 63

In the confusion and misunderstanding of terms since the council of Nicea, up to the success of the Cappadocians more controversy of a different kind had also emerged. Apollinarius, bishop of Laodicea, had raised the question of how the humanity and Deity were united in the one Person of Jesus Christ. 64 Jackson observes how Apollinarius propagated the teaching that the Logos took the place of the human soul in Christ which led to the belief that Christ did not possess a full human nature and that He was incapable of experiencing any real human emotions. 65

Apollinarianism, along with all of the various Arian and Arianizing deviations that had inflicted the Church for so long were soon to be placed under a ban and the faith of Nicea was to be accepted once again. Kelly notes how the final overthrow of Arianism started with the rule of Julian in 361 to the council of Constantinople in 381. 66 After the death of Julian in 363 to the acceptance of Nicea under Theodosius in 381, there emerged a long succession of Emperors who were either in favour of the Nicene party or at the least did not support the Arians. 67 Under the Emperor Theodosius, a firm attempt was made to bring unity once more to the empire with the calling of the council of Constantinople in 381. Being of a traditional Western bias, Theodosius urged that the faith of Nicea should be accepted by all his subjects. 68 It was the Cappadocian formula that managed to prepare the way for the acceptance and reaffirmation of Nicea, and Arianism, in all its forms, along with Pneumatomachianism and Apollinarianism were excluded as unorthodox heresies. 69

Although after the council of Nicea Arianism had continued to grow, it was inevitable that its apparent success as a Christological doctrine would be short lived. Every time the Arians expressed their doctrine in its most extreme form the Christian conscience would react strongly against what was regarded to be an attack on the true honour that was due to Christ. The faith of the Nicene party, although in a sense less rational than that of the Arians, and although it took more than half a century to define clearly its true meaning, was finally able to reaffirm its rightful place and profess with unhesitant conviction that "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself." 70

1 F.J.F. Jackson, The History of the Christian Church to A.D. 461 (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1965), 298.

2 Ibid. 3 Ibid., 299. 4 Ibid., 312-315. Jackson observes how Arius remained in Illyricum for about six years, and may well have personally taught Ursacius and Valens, who were to become strong defenders of Arianism in later years.

5 J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, fifth ed. (London: A&C Black, 1989), 237.

6 H. Jedin, History of the Church, vol. 2 (London: Burns & Oates, 1980), 29.

7 P. Hughes, A History of the Church, vol. 1 (London: Sheed and Ward, 1979), 193.

8 Jedin, 29. Although the exact reasons for the Emperor's change of mind are difficult to determine clearly, it is possible that Constantine's stepsister (Constantia), his mother (Helena), and Eusebius of Caesarea influenced him to some degree.

9 Ibid., 31-32.

10 R. Williams, Arius Heresy and Tradition (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1987), 81. According to Athanasius, it was a Saturday when the Emperor gave the command to Alexander to accept Arius back into Alexandria. As a result of this, Alexander, and a close friend of Athanasius, the presbyter Macarius, prayed in earnest that either he (Alexander) or Arius would die before morning. Subsequently, Arius died from some kind of internal haemorrhage or rupture which Athanasius saw as a judgement from God.

11 Kelly, 237.

12 Hughes, 193.

13 J.L. Gonzalez, A History of Christian Thought, vol. 1, 3rd printing (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970), 281.

14 Hughes, 193.

15 Gonzalez, 281-282. Other reasons for his condemnation included accusations of speaking disrespectfully of Constantine's mother and charges of adultery.

16 Ibid., 281.

17 Ibid.

18 Hughes, 194.

19 Ibid., 281.

20 Jedin, 31.

21 Ibid.

22 Hughes, 197.

23 Gonzalez, 283.

24 Ibid., 283-284.

25 Hughes, 199.

26 Jedin, 33.

27 Gonzalez, 285.

28 Ibid., 285.

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid.

31 Kelly, 238.

32 Ibid., 249.

33 Gonzalez, 288.

34 Kelly, 249.

35 Gonazalez, 287.

36 J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, third ed. (London: Longman Group Ltd., 1972), 286.

37 Ibid.

38 Gonzalez, 287.

39 Jedin, 46.

40 Ibid.

41 W.H.C. Frend, The Early Church (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 147.

42 Gonzalez, 288.

43 Ibid.

44 J.H. Newman, The Arians of the Fourth Century (London: Longmans Green and Co., 1909), 298.

45 T. Dowley, The History of Christianity rev. ed. (Oxford: Lion Publishing, 1990),172.

46 Gonzalez, 290.

47 Jedin, 46.

48 Ibid.

49 Frend, 156.

50 Ibid., 157.

51 Ibid.

52 Newman, 354. Newman notes how Julian, being well aware of the various differences amongst the Christians, had hoped for a spectacular conflict. It was even said that he had invited the leaders of the different groups to his own palace "that he might enjoy the agreeable spectacle of their furious encounters."

53 Dowley, 172.

54 Ibid., 173. Julian's famous verdict of Athanasius was: "Athanasius - this troublesome bit of a man." Dowley, 170.

55 Gonzalez, 291.

56 Ibid.

57 Ibid, 292.

58 Ibid. Due to the present work being Christological rather than Trinitarian, an exhaustive account of Trinitarian developments during this period is beyond the scope of this essay.

59 Ibid., 294. Dowley observes how although the word hypostasis still carried an ambiguity, it was at least understood that it did not mean three god's (when three hypostaseis were referred to), and neither did it involve its users in Sabellianism (when one hypostasis was referred to). Dowley, 172.

60 Jackson, 380.

61 Gonzalez, 294. Gonzalez observes how part of the confusion regarding these terms derived from the practice of translating them into the Latin word 'substantia.'

62 Ibid.

63 Dowley, 173-174.

64 Jackson, 391.

65 Ibid.

66 Kelly, Doctrines, 288.

67 Gonzalez, 293. An exception was Valentinian who professed Arianism.

68 Frend, 175.

69 Gonzalez, 296.

70 Ibid., 297.

Dowley, T. The History of Christianity rev. ed. Oxford: Lion Publishing, 1990.

Frend, W.H.C. The Early Church. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985.

Gonzalez, J.L. A History of Christian Thought, vol. 1, 3rd printing. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1970.

Hughes, P. A History of the Church, vol. 1. London: Sheed and Ward, 1979.

Jackson, F.J.F. The History of the Christian Church to A.D. 461. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1965.

Jedin, H. History of the Church, vol. 2. London: Burns & Oates, 1980.

Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Creeds, third ed. London: Longman Group Ltd., 1972.

Kelly, J.N.D. Early Christian Doctrines, fifth ed. London: A&C Black, 1989.

Newman, J.H. The Arians of the Fourth Century. London: Longmans Green and Co., 1909.

Williams, R. Arius Heresy and Tradition. London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1987.