Your ShelfYour Projects

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY

6%

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Oakland, California · Jun 25, 1894

FromSigns of the Times, Vol. 20, No. 33.

Read the full edition

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY.

By I. E. Kimball

BY ELDER I. E. KIMBALL.
SOMETIME about A.D. 320 or later a violent contest arose in the see of Alexandria. More than a hundred bishops were suffragans to this primate, and more than a thousand of the inferior clergy were dependent upon him. His sway extended over all the districts of the Mediterranean coast. Alexander, the primate, called a conference of the clergy under his immediate jurisdiction, to discuss certain theological questions. He broached the subject of the Trinity, gave his views, and asked for an expression of opinion with reference to it.
Arius, a young man of thirty years, gifted, highly educated, who had been ordained presbyter, and appointed to take charge of the Alexandrian School of Theology, where Cyprian and Origen had formerly distinguished themselves, was against the primate. To Alexander's opinion that there is but one Deity, who appears sometimes as the Father, and again as the Son, or as the Holy Ghost, or, if not exactly this, that three persons existed in one God, distinct, and yet of the same substance and the same eternity, Arius rejoined that, although the Son was of the same or like substance, yet he was the offspring of the Father, and had a beginning.
The conference came to no decision. Councils were convened, Arius and his adherents condemned, excommunicated, and Arius banished. Lest the pestiferous doctrine go farther, they decreed that none but the primate should preach in Alexandria. Soon every district and church blazed with the excitement of the contest.
Arius, who had fled to Palestine with many adherents, sent confessions of their faith to the Eastern bishops, who quite generally accepted them, and acknowledged Arius as one of the communion, notwithstanding the anathemas of Alexander.
Among the Eastern bishops, one suspicious as a favorer of Arius was Eusebius of Nicomedia.
"Every bishop in the East but three," wrote Arius to Eusebius, "have taken my part."
"Their views are mine," wrote Eusebius to Arius, "and as thou thinkest what is right, pray that all may think likewise."
Arius and his adherents, confident and strong, greatly agitated the matter. "The Thalia," a poetical production of Arius, was made to speak his doctrines, also "Songs for the Sea, the Mill, and the Road," were sent forth to gather converts. Then Constantine spake, and by the hand of Hosius, bishop of Cordova, sent a joint epistle to Alexander and Arius. But the disturbance grew more and more. At last, to adjust and settle this vexatious quarrel, Constantine called a general council of the bishops of the Eastern provinces to convene at Nice, not far from the imperial residence at Nicomedia.
Three hundred and eighteen bishops, and, it is said, two thousand and forty-eight persons assembled. The bishops at least were entertained and supported out of the public treasury. Arius was cited, and the primate Alexander came on, supported by his right hand man, Athanasius, who was afterwards to figure so conspicuously; for he finally grew to be the very life and soul of the more rigid Catholics.
The issue at Nice was not merely to settle the strife of words whether Homoönsia or Homonoönsia (same substance or like substance) expressed the true doctrine of Christ's existence, but whether the Catholic Church could have a doctrine settled and compounded befitting the imperial religion; whether in fact the church should stand foremost, or individual independence should still be retained, and her creed and doctrines be subject to private interpretation. Bishops from Gaul, Carthage, Cordova, and from the Goths were present.
The discussion was heated and discordant. The bishops Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Cæsarea, together with their followers, were for compromise and reconciliation. It could not be effected. The tension, strained to the extreme at the first, resulted in a final rupture. Constantine, disposed at first to follow Eusebius, soon assumed the imperious tone of authority. The Nicenes adopted a creed, and pronounced anathema upon Arius and his partisans. "Everyone rejecting the decrees of the council shall be instantly banished as disobedient to divine laws," cried the emperor. Therefore nearly all submitted, and Arius was banished.

TIME OF EASTER.

At this council the time for the celebration of Easter was finally fixed and other questions settled. It is said that Acesius, a Novatian bishop, was cited to this council by the emperor, who questioned him concerning the difference between the Novatian belief and the Catholic. Acesius stated to the emperor that they did not believe in the power of priest or bishop to pardon those who fell away from the truth in times of persecution, or to pardon any sin, which was God's prerogative alone, "who hath the ability and the authority to remit sin." "Then," said the emperor, "set up thy ladder, Acesius, and mount alone to heaven."
The session of the council closed with a participation in the celebration of the twentieth anniversary of Constantine's reign, which far outshone all the heathen glorifications of former emperors.
The decrees of the council were sent immediately to Sylvester, bishop of Rome. At the thirteenth Roman council, two hundred and seventy-five bishops being present, the decrees were confirmed and all anathematized who rejected them. Constantine addressed all the people of the empire, imposing the name Parpherians upon all Arians, consigning all their writings to the flames, and pronouncing capital punishment upon all who concealed the writings.
Thus the matter ended, a victory for Roman Catholicism. Constantine died A.D. 337. Constantius, who finally succeeded to the full authority and kingdom of his father, was an Arian, and succeeded in reversing the fortunes of Arianism for a time.