OUTBREAK OF THE ARIAN TROUBLES.

There is one element in the influence of Origen and his successors that emerges early and never lost its hold upon Athanasius: the principle of asceticism. Although the ascetic tendency was present in Christianity from the beginning and had already burst forth into extravagance in men like Tertullian, it was reserved for the school of Origen—influenced by Platonic ideas of the world and life—to elevate it to the rank of an acknowledged principle of Christian morals and to provide the stimulus for monasticism (see below, p. 193). Among the acclamations that accompanied the election of Athanasius to the episcopate, that of "one of the ascetics" was conspicuous (Apol. Ar. 6). In De Incarnatione 51. 1, 48. 2, we seem to recognize the future biographer of Antony³.

§ 2. The Arian Controversy before Nicaea, 319–325.

At the time when Athanasius first appeared as an author, the condition of Christian Egypt was not peaceful. Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis, was accused of having sacrificed during the persecution of 301 (pp. 131, 234). Condemned by a synod under Bishop Peter, he continued schismatical intrigues under Peter, Achillas, and Alexander, and by this time had a large following, especially in Upper Egypt. Many cities had Meletian bishops, and many hermits—and even communities of monks (p. 135)—were on his side.

The Meletian account of the matter (preserved by Epiphanius, Haer. 58) was different. Meletius had been in prison along with Peter and had differed from him on the question of the lapsi Those who renounced the faith under persecution, taking the sterner view, in which most of the imprisoned clergy supported him. It would not be without parallel (see the articles on Donatists and Novatians in the Dictionary of Christian Biography) in the history of the burning question of the lapsi to suppose that Meletius recoiled from a compromised position to the advocacy of impossible strictness. At any rate (de Incarn. 24. 4), the Egyptian Church was rent by a formidable schism. No doctrinal question, however, was involved. The alliance of Meletians and Arians belongs to a later date.

It is doubtful whether the outbreak of the Arian controversy at Alexandria was directly connected with the previous Christological controversies in that same Church. The great Dionysius, some half-century before, had been involved in controversy with members of his Church both in Alexandria and in the suffragan dioceses of Libya (infr. p. 173). We have no direct knowledge of the sequel to that controversy, but we find several bishops and numerous clergy and laity in Alexandria and Libya⁴ ready to side with Arius against his bishop.

The origin of the controversy is obscure. It must certainly be placed as early as 318 or 319 to leave sufficient time before the final deposition of Arius in the Council of 321 (infr. p. 234). We are told that Arius, a native of Libya, had settled in Alexandria soon after the origin of the Meletian schism. He had, from motives of ambition, sided first with Meletius, then with Peter (who ordained him deacon, but was later forced to depose him; Epiph. Haer. 69, Sozom. i. 15). He was reconciled to Achillas, who raised him to the presbyterate. Disappointed of the bishopric at the election of Alexander, he nurtured a private grudge (Theodoret, H. E. i. 2), which eventually culminated in opposition to his teaching. These tales deserve little credit; they are unsupported by Athanasius and bear every trace of invention post facto (after the fact). That Arius was a vain person, we see from his Thalia (infr. p. 308); but he certainly possessed claims to personal respect. We find him not only in charge of the urban parish of Baucalis but entrusted with the duties of a professor of scriptural exegesis. In fact, there is no necessity to seek personal motives to explain the dispute. The Arian problem was one the Church was unable to avoid. Not until every alternative had been tried and rejected was the final theological expression of her faith possible. Two great streams of theological influence had run their course in the third century: the subordinationist theology of Origen at Alexandria and the Monarchian theology of the West and Asia, which had found logical expression in Paul of Samosata. Both streams had met in Lucian the martyr at Antioch, and Arius, the pupil of Lucian, produced a result that combined elements of both (see below, § 3 (2) a). According to some authorities, Arius was the aggressor. He challenged some theological statements of Alexander as Sabellian, urging in opposition to them that if the Son were truly a Son, He must have had a beginning, and therefore there had been a time [when He was not].

³ The actual connection of Athanasius with Antony at this period is implied in the received text of the prologue to the Life of Antony, as it could scarcely fall at any later date. At the same time, the youthful life of Athanasius seems fully accounted for, leaving little room for it (so Tillemont). But our ignorance of details leaves it just possible that he may for a time have visited the great hermit and ministered to him as Elisha did of old to Elijah. (Cf. p. 195, note 2.)
⁴ It is of interest to note the changed conditions. In 260, Bishop Dionysius had to check the Monarchian tendency in Libya and was accused by members of his own flock of separating the Son from the ousia (Being) of the Father. In 319, a Libyan, Arius, cries out against the Sabellianism of his bishop and formulates the very doctrine that Dionysius had been accused of maintaining.