God was not always Father, and there was a time when the Son was not in existence but, rather, had been brought into existence by the Father. This teaching appeared logical, but makes Christ into a creature (albeit the first and most perfect creature of the Father, but a creature nonetheless). Arius argued that “the Son who is tempted, suffers and dies, however exalted he may be, is not to be equal to the immutable Father.”15 Arius demoted the Holy Spirit by teaching that the Spirit was also created and was the second most perfect creature. Arius simplified the Trinity by exalting the Father and teaching that the Son and Holy Spirit were creatures of the Father, not coeternal with him. This made the doctrine of the Trinity more palatable to the educated Roman converts, but by making the Son and Holy Spirit creatures, Arius developed a “clever attempt to save paganism, to allow men to go on worshipping a creature rather than the Creator.”16 Bishop Alexander quickly identified the heretical nature of Arius’s teachings, condemning them in 318, and also ordered Arius to cease their propagation. However, the popularity of the teachings brought Arius recognition and fame — and, vain man that he was, he refused to acquiesce to his bishop. News of the theological squabble reached Constantine, who could not tolerate internal ecclesial dissension. The emperor wrote a letter to Arius and Alexander, urging them to reconcile. The emperor remonstrated the pair for even raising such questions in the first place, which he thought were provoked by idleness, made for the “sake of a philosophical exercise,” and were brought “imprudently to the ears of the people.”17 Constantine demanded an end to the bickering so that he could have “back peaceful nights and days without care [so] that I may keep some pleasure in the pure light and joy of a tranquil life.”18 Unfortunately for Constantine and the Church, Arius’s teachings did not vanish; they spread rapidly, and the emperor would deal with this issue for the rest of his life.
Arius’s teachings were popular and widespread partly because the Empire was at peace. Tranquil times allow people to engage in activities normally considered superfluous during times of stress and difficulty. Many newly converted Romans were educated in the art of rhetoric and debate, and they joyfully engaged in the discussion over Arius’s opinion that Jesus was the first most perfect creature of God. Some even used Scripture to support their arguments. Saint Jerome (347–420) later bemoaned the use of personal interpretation of the Word of God contrary to the teaching authority of the Church: “Builders, carpenters, workers in metal and wood, websters, and fullers, makers of anything, cannot become an expert without a teacher; physicians are trained by physicians. The art of the Scripture is the only art which is claimed by all.”19
Arianism is an example of a top-down heretical movement, meaning that the higher elements of Roman society — that is, the nobility, army, parts of the episcopacy — embraced the newfangled idea while the general populace remained orthodox.20 The Roman nobility believed Arianism was more sophisticated than the orthodox beliefs of the masses. Arius provided the well-educated, class-conscious, newly converted nobles another way to separate themselves from the common and poor people, who remained solidly Catholic. Arianism’s rapid spread was also due to the Roman army. The army, like the nobility, prided itself on being different from the masses of Roman society, and was central to the life of the Empire, even though the legionaries numbered just a fraction of the population. The army embraced Arianism. Since the troops were stationed across the Empire, Arius’s teachings gained footing in numerous parts of the world. Acceptance of Arianism became so widespread that even bishops began to agree with it. If Arianism had “prevailed, the whole nature of the [Christian] religion would have been transformed. It would not only have been transformed, it would have failed, and with its failure would have followed the breakdown of that civilization which the Catholic Church was to build up.”21 The attack on the Faith by the North African priest demanded an answer.
The Council of Nicaea
Constantine, desiring peace, invited all the bishops in the Empire to the city of Nicaea to discuss Arius’s heresy. Nicaea was an easily accessible town, connected by imperial roads to all the provinces, and only twenty-five miles from the imperial palace at Nicomedia. In order to facilitate maximum episcopal participation, Constantine paid all the bishops’ travel expenses. Due to Nicaea’s location, most of the assembled bishops came from the east, but over ten western bishops, including Constantine’s close friend, Hosius of Cordova, and the papal legates Vitus and Vincent of Capua, attended. Pope Sylvester I (r. 314–335) approved the calling of this council by the emperor. Tradition holds that 318 total bishops were present.22 Hosius, along with the papal legates, presided over the proceedings, and Constantine attended the first and last sessions of the council. One attendee noted, “The council looked like an assembled army of martyrs.”23 Many of the assembled bishops had suffered during the Great Persecution. Hosius had been a confessor; other bishops had been imprisoned, sent to the mines, or had gone into hiding. Many bishops had suffered horrible tortures, including the loss of limbs and the gouging out of eyes. Only twenty years previously, an emperor had tried with all his might to eradicate the Catholic Church. Now, an emperor had called the bishops together to settle a doctrinal controversy and achieve peace and unity in the Church and Empire.
Arius was invited to the council to present his teachings to the assembled bishops, some of whom were active supporters. Numerous other attendees were sympathizers, known as “semi-Arians,” who wanted compromise and peace above all else. After Arius’s presentation, the council fathers debated his teachings. Some, including Eusebius of Nicomedia, defended his position. Ultimately, the bishops decided to develop a written statement of belief, but agreement on terminology proved elusive. The most interesting aspect of the council is perhaps the fact that the fiercest debate centered not on whether Arius’s teachings were orthodox (they clearly were not) but on what word should be used to describe the relationship of Jesus with the Father. The western bishops preferred the word homoousios (in Greek; or consubstantial, from the Latin), which meant the Logos (the Word of God, the Son) had the same nature as the Father but was not the same person. The term was not found in Scripture, but it was favored in order to force the Arians to deny Arius’s central heretical proposition — that the Logos was a created being of the Father.
Unfortunately, the word did not have the same meaning in the east as in the west; it had been condemned in the east as heretical in the third century. The worldly Paul of Samosata (200–275) had been the bishop of Antioch and a proponent of the heresy known as Modalistic Monarchianism. This belief emphasizes the oneness of God to the point where the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are modes of the one God, not separate, yet united persons in the Trinity.24 Paul used the term homoousios (consubstantial) to deny the distinct divine personality of the Son, indicating that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same person. A local council of bishops in Antioch in 268 had condemned Paul of Samosata and the word homoousios. Understandably, many of the eastern bishops present at Nicaea bristled at the use of homoousios, even with the western understanding of the word. The Semi-Arians preferred the term homoiousios, which meant “of like substance,” but this term was rejected by the orthodox, since it did not clearly and definitively indicate that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-eternal and of the same substance. Eventually, homoousios was used in the final written statement of faith developed at the council.
The statement of belief, known as the Nicene Creed, was written and voted on by the bishops, who overwhelmingly approved it (316 of the 318 bishops voted in favor).25 Hosius of Cordova was the first whose signature was affixed to the document, followed by Vitus and Vincent, the papal legates. Two bishops, Theonas and Secundus, refused to sign and were sent into exile — a momentous event, as it marked the first time in Church history that a secular punishment (exile) was applied to an ecclesiastical crime (heresy).26
The council fathers also discussed other matters while assembled at Nicaea, including the dating of Easter and a series of discipline canons. The question of when Easter should be celebrated dominated the early Church and was a source of friction between the western and eastern halves of the Church.27 The eastern dating method, which followed the practice of the Apostle John, celebrated
