Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Vol. 1 (Augustine: Confessions, Letters)

PROLEGOMENA.

The view that differed from that of Paul of Samosata—principally in that it suggested a created heavenly being rather than a human man became “Lord”—was evidently the result of combining the teachings of Paul and Origen. It is clear that we have here, at least in germ form, all the essential elements of Arianism proper: the creation of the Son out of nothing, and consequently the conclusion that there was a time when he did not exist; the distinction of his essence from that of the Father; and yet, simultaneously, the emphasis on the fact that he “was not created as the other creatures” and is therefore to be sharply distinguished from them. There was little left for Arius to do but combine the elements provided by Lucian into a more complete and orderly system, bring that system forward clearly and publicly, and endeavor to make it the faith of the Church at large. His Christology was essentially opposed to the Alexandrian view, and it was natural that he would soon come into conflict with the church of which he was a presbyter (regarding Lucian’s teaching and its relation to Arianism, see Harnack’s History of Dogma, II. p. 183 and following).

Socrates (Ecclesiastical History I. 5 and following), Sozomen (Ecclesiastical History I. 15), and Theodoret (Ecclesiastical History I. 2 and following)—all of whom provide accounts of the rise of Arianism—differ as to the immediate cause of the controversy. However, they agree that Arius was excommunicated by a council convened at Alexandria, and that both he and Bishop Alexander sent letters to other churches: the latter defending his actions, the former complaining of his harsh treatment and attempting to secure supporters for his doctrine. Eusebius of Nicomedia immediately became his firm supporter and was one of the leading figures on the Arian side throughout the entire controversy. His influential position as bishop of Nicomedia, the imperial residence, and later of Constantinople, was of great advantage to the Arian cause, especially toward the close of Constantine’s reign.

From a letter addressed by this Eusebius to Paulinus of Tyre (Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History I. 6), we learn that Eusebius of Cæsarea was quite zealous on behalf of the Arian cause. The exact date of the letter is unknown, but it must have been written at an early stage of the controversy. Arius himself, in an epistle addressed to Eusebius of Nicomedia (Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History I. 5), claims Eusebius of Cæsarea among others as someone who accepts at least one of his fundamental doctrines: “And since Eusebius, your brother in Cæsarea, and Theodotus, and Paulinus, and Athanasius, and Gregory, and Ætius, and all the bishops of the East say that God existed before the Son, they have been condemned,” etc.

Furthermore, Sozomen (Ecclesiastical History I. 15) informs us that Eusebius of Cæsarea and two other bishops, having been appealed to by Arius for “permission for himself and his adherents, as he had already attained the rank of presbyter, to form the people who were with them into a church,” concurred with others “who were assembled in Palestine” in granting the petition of Arius, permitting him to assemble the people as before. However, they “enjoined submission to Alexander, and commanded Arius to strive incessantly to be restored to peace and communion with him.” The addition of this last sentence is notable, as it shows they did not care to support a presbyter in open and persistent rebellion against his bishop.

A fragment of a letter written by our Eusebius to Alexander is still extant and is preserved in the proceedings of the Second Council of Nicæa, Act VI. Tom. V. (Labbe and Cossart, Councils, VII. col. 497). In this epistle, Eusebius strongly remonstrates with Alexander for having misrepresented the views of Arius. Still further, in his epistle to Alexander of Constantinople, Alexander of Alexandria (Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History I. 4) complains of three Syrian bishops “who side with them [i.e., the Arians] and excite them to plunge deeper and deeper into iniquity.” The reference here is commonly supposed to be to Eusebius of Cæsarea and his two friends, Paulinus of Tyre and Theodotus of Laodicea, who are known to have shown favor to Arius. It is probable, though not certain, that our Eusebius is one of the persons meant. Finally, many of the Church Fathers (above all Jerome and Photius), and in addition to them the Second Council of Nicæa, directly accuse Eusebius of holding the Arian heresy, as may be seen by examining the testimonies quoted below on p. 67 and following. In agreement with these early Fathers, many modern historians have attacked Eusebius with great severity and have endeavored to show that the opinion that he was an Arian is supported by his own writings. Among those who have judged him most harshly are Baronius (ad ann. 340, c. 38 and following) and Petavius.