Misplaced Pages

Acacians: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:50, 11 November 2004 editAstrophizz (talk | contribs)49 editsm internal links← Previous edit Latest revision as of 22:21, 21 December 2024 edit undoVillaida (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,136 editsNo edit summaryTag: Visual edit 
(118 intermediate revisions by 62 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Arian faction, 350s-365 CE}}
{{wikify}}
{{about||the members of the modern day college fraternity|Acacia Fraternity|the East–West schism of 484–519|Acacian schism}}
{{multiple issues|{{essay-like|date=May 2013}}
{{more footnotes|date=May 2013}}
{{original research|date=May 2013}}
{{lacking ISBN|date=December 2024}}}}
{{Arianism}}
{{Christology}}


The '''Acacians''' ({{IPAc-en|ə|ˈ|k|eɪ|ʃ|ən}}), or perhaps better described as the '''Homoians''' (from gr. hómoios) or '''Homoeans''' ({{IPAc-en|h|ɒ|ˈ|m|iː|ən}}),<ref name="Szada 2021">{{cite journal |last=Szada |first=Marta |date=February 2021 |title=The Missing Link: The Homoian Church in the Danubian Provinces and Its Role in the Conversion of the Goths |journal=Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum |location=] and ] |publisher=] |volume=24 |issue=3 |pages=549–584 |doi=10.1515/zac-2020-0053 |s2cid=231966053 |eissn=1612-961X |issn=0949-9571}}</ref> were a non-Nicene branch of Christianity that dominated the church during much of the fourth-century Arian Controversy. They declared that the Son was similar to God the Father, without reference to substance (essence). Homoians played a major role in the ] in the ] of the ].<ref name="Szada 2021"/>
The '''Acacians''', also known as the '''Homoeans''', were an ] sect which first emerged into distinctness as an ecclesiastical party some time before the convocation of the joint ]s of ] (Rimini) and ] in ]. The sect owed its name and political importance to ], Bishop of ], ''oi peri Akakion'', whose theory of adherence to scriptural phraseology it adopted and endeavoured to summarize in its various catch words: ''homoios'', ''homoios kata panta'', k.t.l.


"Though Homoian Arianism derived from the thought both of Eusebius of Caesarea and of Arius, we cannot with confidence detect it before the year 357, when it appears in the Second Sirmian Creed."<ref name=":1">{{Cite book |last=Hanson |first=R.P.C. |title=The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381 |year=1987 |pages=558}}</ref>


== Background == == Supporters ==
Homoian theology “was a development of the theology of Eusebius of Caesarea.”<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last=Hanson |first=R.P.C. |title=The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381 |year=1987}}</ref>{{rp|557}}


* “Homoian Arianism derived from the thought both of Eusebius of Caesarea and of Arius.”<ref name=":0" />{{rp|558}}
In order to understand the theological significance of Acacianism as a critical episode in both the logical and historical progress of Arianism, it is needful to recall that the great definition of the ''Homo usion'', promulgated at ] in ], rather than putting an end to further discussion, became the occasion for keener debate and for still more distressing confusion of statement in the formulation of theories on the relationship of Our Lord to His Father, in so far as that relationship constituted a distinct tenet of orthodox belief. Events had already begun to ripen towards a fresh crisis shortly after the advent of ] to sole power, on the death of his brother ] in the year ]. The new ] was a man of vacillating character with an unfortunate susceptibility to flattery and a turn for theological debate (Ammianus, XXI, xvi) that soon made him a mere puppet in the hands of the ] faction. Roughly speaking there were at this period only three parties in the Church: the Orthodox or Nicaean party, who sympathized for the most part with ] and his supporters and who insisted on making his cause their own; the Eusebian or Court party and their bewildered Semi-Arian followers; and, last of all, and not least logical in their demands, the ] party which owed its origin to ]. In the summer of ], ] and ], the astute, but not always consistent advocates of this latter group of dissidents in the West, through the influence which they were enabled to bring to bear upon the Emperor by means of his second wife, ] (Panegyr. Jul. Orat., iii; Ammianus, XX, vi, 4), succeeded in bringing about a conference of bishops at ].
* "Akakius of Caesarea is usually regarded as the leader of the Homoian Arians ''par excellence.'' He succeeded Eusebius as bishop of that see in 339 or 340 and remained there for at least twenty-five years. He was clearly a devoted disciple of his predecessor."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|579–80}} Hanson refers to Eusebius of Caesarea as “Akakius' master.”<ref name=":0" />{{rp|583}}


“Eusebius of Caesarea, the historian and theologian”<ref name=":2">{{Cite book |last=Ayres |first=Lewis |title=Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology |year=2004}}</ref>{{rp|58}} “attended the Council of Nicaea in 325,””<ref name=":0" />{{rp|47}} was “universally acknowledged to be the most scholarly bishop of his day,”<ref name=":0" />{{rp|46}}” and “was the most learned and one of the best-known of the 300-odd bishops present” at Nicaea.”<ref name=":0" />{{rp|159}}
==Sirmian Manifesto==


But when the first Homoian Creeds was formulated, Eusebius was dead and ] an important leader.
In the Latin creed put forth at this meeting there was inserted a statement of views drawn up by Potamius of Lisbon and the venerable Hosius of Cordova, which, under the name of the ], as it afterwards came to be known, roused the whole of the Western Church and threw the temporizers of the East into disorder. In this statement the assembled prelates, while declaring their confession in "One God, the Father Almighty, and in His only-begotten Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ, generated from Him before the ages," recommended the disuse of the terms ] (essence or substance), ] (identical in essence, or substance), and ] (similar in essence, or substance), "by which the minds of many are perturbed"; and they held that there "ought to be no mention of any of them at all, nor any exposition of them in the Church, and for this reason and for this consideration that there is nothing written about them in divine Scripture and that they are above men's knowledge and above men's understanding" (Athan., De Syn., xxviii; Soz., ii, xxx; Hil., De Syn., xi). The effect of these propositions upon conservative opinion was like that of the proverbial spark in a barrel of gunpowder. As we look back from the standpoint of modern ] upon the circumstances of this publication, it is impossible not to see that they occasioned the crisis upon which the whole subsequent history of Arianism turned. In spite of the scriptural disclaimer against the employment of inscrutable terms, nearly all parties instinctively perceived that the Manifesto was nothing else but a subtly Anomoean document.


] stated, "If we are to determine who among the Homoian Arians was the most influential in the long run, we must choose Ulfilas, Apostle of the Goths."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|588}} “He translated most of the Bible into Gothic.”<ref name=":0" />{{rp|589}}
The situation was assuredly rich in possibilities. Men began to group themselves along new lines. In the East, the Anomoeans turned almost as a matter of course to Acacius of Caesarea, whose influence was growing stronger at court and who was felt to be a shrewd and not too scrupulous temporizer. In the West, bishops like Ursacius and Valens began to carry on a like policy; and everywhere it was felt that the time called once more for concerted action on the part of the Church. This was precisely what the party in favour with the Emperor Constantius were eager to bring about; but not in the way in which the Nicaeans and Moderates expected. A single council might not be easily controlled; but two separate synods, one sitting in the East and the other in the West, could be kept better in hand.


== Theology ==
After a number of preliminary conferences accompanying an inevitable campaign of pamphleteering in which ] took part, the bishops of the Western portion of the Empire met at ] towards the end of ], and those of the East at ] in the month of ], ]. The theological complexion of both Synods was identical, at least in this, that the party of compromise, represented at Seleucia by Acacius and at Ariminum by Ursacius and Valens, was politically, though not numerically, in the ascendant and could exercise a subtle influence which depended almost as much on the argumentative ability of their leaders as on their curial prestige. In both councils, as the result of dishonest intrigue and an unscrupulous use of intimidation, the Homoean formula associated with the name of Acacius ultimately prevailed. The Homo usion, for which so much had been endured by saintly champions of orthodoxy for over half a century, was given up and the Son was declared to be merely similar to -- no longer identical in essence with -- the Father. ] characterization of the issue still affords the best commentary, not only on what had come to pass, but on the means employed to obtain it. The whole world groaned in wonderment to find itself Arian -- ''ingemuit totus orbis et Arianum se esse miratus est.''

=== Anti-Nicene ===
Homoian theology is specifically anti-Nicene. Particularly, it opposes all ousia-language. They were “refusing to allow ousia-terms of any kind into professions of faith.” (RW, 234) For example, the Sirmian Manifesto (AD 357) said, concerning the ousia-terms: <blockquote>There "ought to be no mention of any of them at all, nor any exposition of them in the Church, and for this reason and for this consideration that there is nothing written about them in divine Scripture and that they are above men's knowledge and above men's understanding." (Athan., De Syn., xxviii; Soz., ii, xxx; Hil., De Syn., xi)</blockquote>

=== Anti-Arius ===
Homoian theology also opposed Arius because it opposed the key aspect of Arius’ theology “that the Son was created by the Father ''''out of non-existence'''<nowiki/>'.” For example, the creed of the council of Ariminum anathemized those who say “that the Son is from nothing, and not from God the Father."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|564–5}}

=== The incomparability of God ===
The main pillar of Homoian doctrine is “the incomparability of God the Father.” (RH, 563) They had “a long list of texts … to demonstrate the incomparability of the Father."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|560}} For example:

* '''Invisible''' - “Christ is the visible God (the Father being the invisible God)."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|569}}
* '''Immortal''' - “Christ is not the immortal God (for he is mortal, that is capable of in some sense encountering death, in contrast to the Father who is immortal).”
* '''Ingenerate''' (exists without cause) - 'We confess … one God, not two gods, for we do not describe him as two ingenerates."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|570}}

=== A Suffering God ===
The Homoian system was designed to avoid “the risk of saying that the Father suffered."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|566}} “But they were perfectly ready to say that God the Son suffered. Indeed, their Christology was specifically designed to do so."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|565}} “Here, they were on stronger ground than the pro-Nicenes, whose Christology … always wanted to avoid of concluding that the full, authentic Godhead suffered."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|566}}

=== Christ as subordinate ===
“A drastic subordination of the Son to the Father had been the keynote of this school of thought."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|567}}

“The Son is eternally … subordinated to the Father,” even after everything is completed that must be done for our salvation.<ref name=":0" />{{rp|567}}

“It is characteristic of this type of Arianism to teach that the Father is the God of the Son.” Therefore, the Son “worships the Father."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|568}}

=== Christ as divine ===
But they did refer to the Son as ''God''. For example, they described Him as "God from God."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|570}} However, "they pointed out that the word 'god' in the Bible was in several places applied to beings much inferior to God Almighty (and was therefore applicable in a reduced sense to Christ), e.g., Exod 7:1, Ps 82(81):6."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|560}}

"In the intellectual climate of the fourth century, it was quite logical to maintain that the Son was God or divine while not being fully equal to the Father."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|574}}

=== The Holy Spirit ===
“The status of the Spirit in Homoian teaching is emphatically short of divine.” “The Holy Spirit is created, and this certainly implies that, unlike the Son, he is not God.”<ref name=":0" />{{rp|571}} The Spirit “is … not to be worshipped nor adored."<ref name=":0" />{{rp|571}}

For example, “Ulfilas' doctrine exhibits a drastic subordination of the Son to the Father, a fierce emphasis upon the incomparability of the Father … a denial of the divinity of the Holy Spirit and a strong and explicit repudiation of the pro-Nicene doctrine.”<ref name=":0" />{{rp|590}}

== Homoian creeds ==
As stated, Homoian theology is particularly anti-Nicene and anti-ousia-language. During the first 25 years after Nicaea in 325, nobody mentioned or used or defended the Nicene Creed or ousia language:<blockquote>“For nearly twenty years after Nicaea, nobody mentions homoousios, not even Athanasius. This may be because it was much less significant than either later historians of the ancient Church or modern scholars thought that it was.”<ref name=":0" />{{rp|170}} “After Nicaea homoousios is not mentioned again in truly contemporary sources for two decades. … It was not seen as that useful or important.”<ref name=":2" />{{rp|96}} “What is conventionally regarded as the key-word in the Creed homoousion, falls completely out of the controversy very shortly after the Council of Nicaea and is not heard of for over twenty years.” ()</blockquote>For that reason, during that period, there were also no anti-Nicene creeds or statements:<blockquote>“Many of the theologies we have considered so far are non-Nicene more than anti-Nicene: '''only in the 350s''' do we begin to trace clearly the emergence of directly anti-Nicene accounts.”<ref name=":2" />{{rp|139}}</blockquote>The first sign of an anti-Nicene doctrine was the creed of Sirmium 351:

* “Sirmium 351 had not only omitted ''ousia'' language, but positively condemned some uses of that language.”<ref name=":2" />{{rp|138}}
* “Most significant of all, perhaps, is the appearance of anathemas directly and explicitly aimed at N.”<ref name=":0" />{{rp|328}} “This creed marks a definite shift towards a more sharply anti-Nicene doctrine.”<ref name=":0" />{{rp|329}}

“The confession of 357 even more strongly argues against ousia language, condemning use of it,” saying, “there should be no mention of it whatever, nor should anyone preach it.” “This text demonstrates … the emergence of ‘Homoian’ theology.”<ref name=":2" />{{rp|138}}

The two main Homoian Creeds are “the Second Sirmian Creed of 357” and “the Creed of Nice (Constantinople) (of 360).”<ref name=":0" />{{rp|558–9}} “The creed of Nice-Constantinople … was temporarily registered as ecumenical in 360.”<ref name=":0" />{{rp|557}}

== Biblical language ==
The Homoians were committed to use only Biblical language and declared the Son to be similar ({{langx|grc|ὅμοιος|hómoios}}) to ], without reference to ] or ].

* “The Arians tended … to avoid allegorising. … They tend to take Scripture literally.”<ref name=":0" />{{rp|559}}
* “They prided themselves on their appeal to Scripture. … they pointed out that homoousios and ousia did not occur in the Bible. 'We do not call the Holy Spirit God … because Scripture does not call him (so)’.”<ref name=":0" />{{rp|559}}
* “Truth is discovered not from argument but is proved by reliable proof-texts.”<ref name=":0" />{{rp|561}}

“The Homoian Arians … were not particularly interested in philosophy:”<ref name=":0" />{{rp|568}}<blockquote>“The theologians of the fourth century … use the terminology of '''Greek philosophy'''. … It was never accepted by the Homoian Arians).”<ref name=":0" />{{rp|871}}</blockquote>Consequently, they rejected all ousia-terms, including ] (same in substance), ] (similar substance), and heter-ousion (different substance).

== Dominant view ==
The Homoian view dominated during much of the Arian Controversy:

=== Eusebius of Caesarea ===
Lewis Ayres identifies “the ” as one of the four “trajectories” when the Arian Controversy began. Homoian theology, since it was a development of the Eusebians’ theology (see above), already existed when the Nicene Creed was formulated. At that time, most bishops held to the "Eusebian" view:<blockquote>For example, the delegates to the Nicene Council of 325 were "drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire”<ref name=":2" />{{rp|19}} and the Dedication Creed of 341, which has "Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea and Asterius" as its "ancestors,”<ref name=":0" />{{rp|290}} "represents the nearest approach we can make to discovering the views of the ordinary educated Eastern bishop.”<ref name=":0" />{{rp|290}}</blockquote>

=== Rise to dominance ===
“The Homoian group came to dominance in the church in the 350s” (RH, 558–559.) “Homoian Arianism is a much more diverse phenomenon, more widespread and in fact more longlasting.”<ref name=":0" />{{rp|557}}

Throughout the Arian Controversy, the church's Doctrine of God was decided by the Roman Emperors:<blockquote>“If we ask the question, what was considered to constitute the ultimate authority in doctrine during the period reviewed in these pages, there can be only one answer. '''The will of the Emperor was the final authority.”<ref name=":0" />{{rp|849}}'''</blockquote>Similarly, Homoian theology continued to dominate under emperors Constantius and Valens:

* “Homoian Arians … had obtained power under Constantius from 360 to 361 and under Valens from 364 onwards.”<ref name=":0" />{{rp|575}}
* “By 366 Valens the supporter of Homoian Arianism ruled in the East and Valentinian, the Western Emperor, was keeping as far as possible neutral in religious matters.”<ref name=":0" />{{rp|595}}
* “The Emperor in the East, Valens, … was a fanatical opponent of the pro-Nicenes, as also of the ], and a supporter of the Homoian creed.”<ref name=":0" />{{rp|582}}
Homoian theology continued to dominate until Theodosius became emperor and outlawed all non-Trinitarian branches of Christianity with the ]:<blockquote>“When Theodosius had entered Constantinople in November 380 he had given the '''Homoian''' Demophilus the chance to remain as bishop if he subscribed to Nicaea. When he did not he was exiled.”<ref name=":2" />{{rp|253}}</blockquote>

=== Continuation after 381 ===
wrote:<blockquote>“Frequently, studies focusing on the fourth-century Trinitarian controversy stop at the 380s and emphasize the importance of the Council of Constantinople and the Council of Aquileia in 381, and the end of Italian rule of the last Homoian emperor, Valentinian II. In very common interpretation, these events mark '''the virtual end of the Latin Homoianism''' … In the present paper … I argue that the Latin Homoian Church '''survived long into the fifth century''' and had an active role in the process of converting the Goths into the Homoian Christianity.”<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Szada |first=Marta |date=1 December 2020 |title=The Missing Link: The Homoian Church in the Danubian Provinces and Its Role in the Conversion of the Goths |journal=Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum |volume=24 |issue=3 |pages=549–584 |doi=10.1515/zac-2020-0053 }}</ref></blockquote>

== Intermediate positions ==

R.P.C. Hanson discusses on pages 592-595 “a shift of emphasis on the part of Germinius as far as doctrine is concerned” which illuminates the disputes in Arian circles at the time. Germinius was “appointed bishop of Sirmium in 351” and regarded by some as “one of the standard-bearers of Arianism.” He wrote:<blockquote>“There is one true God the Father, eternal, almighty; and Christ his only Son and our Lord God … born before all things, in deity, love, majesty, power, glory, love, wisdom, knowledge, like in all things to the Father …”</blockquote>“This profession of faith caused alarm … among other Homoian Arian bishops.” “The Catholic faith declared at Ariminum" read “that the Son is like the Father according to the Scriptures.” Homoians did not want to say that “he is like 'according to substance'” or even “in all respects.” “To adopt such doctrines would be to return to the false teaching of Basil (of Ancyra) condemned at Ariminum.” (See, ])

But Germinius defended his views in response to the criticism and wrote:<blockquote>“Christ the Son of God our Lord like in all respects to the Father I ingenerateness excepted. God from God, Light from Light.”</blockquote>Hanson concludes: “Clearly Germinius had by now abandoned Homoian Arianism.”<ref name=":0" />{{rp|592–5}}

==Development of Homoian theology in the 350s==
Traditionally, homoousios is regarded as the key term in the Nicene Creed. For example:<blockquote>In the “centuries-old account of the Council of Nicaea: … The whole power of the mysterious dogma is at once established by the one word ''homoousios'' … with one pronouncement the Church identified a term (homoousios) that secured its … beliefs against heresy.”<ref name=":2" />{{rp|11}}</blockquote>But, as stated under Homoian Creeds above, during the 20–25 years after Nicaea, nobody mentions the term. However, in the 350s, Athanasius made the Nicene Creed, and the homoousios in particular, part of his polemical strategy. In this way, Athanasius brought the term back into the Controversy:<blockquote>“Athanasius’ engagement with Marcellus in Rome seems to have encouraged Athanasius towards the development of” “an increasingly sophisticated account of his enemies;” “the full flowering of a polemical strategy that was to shape accounts of the fourth century for over 1,500 years;” “a masterpiece of the rhetorical art.”<ref name=":2" />{{rp|106–7}}

“During the 350s Athanasius honed his polemic.”<ref name=":2" />{{rp|140}}

“Athanasius' decision to make Nicaea and homoousios central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s.”<ref name=":2" />{{rp|144}}</blockquote>Athanasius' use of the term homoousios was being progressively accepted in the West and was used to attack the Eusebians. In response, the anti-Nicene creeds and Homoian theology developed in the late 350s. See - .

==Sirmian manifesto of 357==
“In the year ''357'' a small council met at Sirmium and produced a creed which was of great significance.” (RH, 343) Since it was formulated in the West, “the creed was originally written in Latin.” (RH, 343)

“In most older presentations, ‘western’ bishops were taken to be natural and stalwart defenders of Nicaea throughout the fourth century.” (LA, 135) It may, therefore, be surprising to find that the manifesto, issued after this Western meeting in Sirmium in 357, “is clearly Arian in its drastic, consistent and determined subordination of the Son to the Father.” (RH, 346) It said, for example: <blockquote>"There is no uncertainty about the Father being greater. … This is catholic doctrine, that there are two Persons ''(personas)'' of the Father and the Son, and that the Father is greater." (RH, 344-5)</blockquote>Furthermore, “it attacks N … directly and openly.” (RH, 347) For example, it says:<blockquote>"As for the fact that some, or many, are concerned about substance ''(substantia)'' which is called, ousia ''in'' Greek, that is, to speak more explicitly, homousion'','' or homoeusion as it is called, there should be no mention of it whatever." (RH, 344-5)</blockquote>Ossius was the chairperson of the Council of Nicaea. However, “Ossius signed it (the Sirmian manifesto).” (RH, 346)

Lewis Ayres concludes:

* “The East/West or Greek/Latin division which is often used as a primary dividing marker between varieties of fourth- and fifth-century Trinitarian theology is of far less significance than is usually thought.” (LA, 6)
* “Some writers still persist in assuming that theologies in the early fourth century can be divided between east and west, the westerners resolutely ‘beginning’ from the unity of God, easterners somehow naturally prone to a more diverse account of Father, Son, and Spirit.” Ayres describes this as “nonsensical.” (LA, 52)

== Councils of 359 and 360 ==

After a number of preliminary conferences accompanying an inevitable campaign of pamphleteering in which ] took part, the bishops of the Western portion of the Empire met at ] towards the end of May, and those of the East at ] in the month of September, 359. The theological complexion of both Synods was identical, at least in this, that the party of compromise, represented at Seleucia by Acacius and at Ariminum by Ursacius and Valens, was politically, though not numerically, in the ascendant and could exercise a subtle influence which depended almost as much on the argumentative ability of their leaders as on their curial prestige. In both councils, as the result of dishonest intrigue and an unscrupulous use of intimidation, the Homoian formula associated with the name of Acacius ultimately prevailed.


==Influences and decline== ==Influences and decline==
It was Acacius and his followers who had managed the whole proceeding from the outset. By coming forward as advocates of temporizing methods, they had inspired the Eusebian or Semi-Arian party with the idea of throwing over Atius and his Anomoeans. As they had proved themselves in practice all through the course of the unlooked-for movement that brought them to the front, so were they now, in theory, the exponents of the Via Media of their day.


The Acacians separated themselves from the Athanasians and Niceans, by the rejection of the word "]"; from the Semi-Arians by their surrender of the "]"; and from the Aetians by their insistence upon the term homoios.
It was Acacius and his followers who had skilfully managed the whole proceeding from the outset. By coming forward as advocates of temporizing methods they had inspired the Eusebian or Semi-Arian party with the idea of throwing over Atius and his Anomoeans. They thus found themselves thrust into a position of importance to which neither their numbers nor their theological acumen entitled them. As they had proved themselves in practice all through the course of the unlooked-for movement that brought them to the front, so were they now, in theory, the exponents of the Via Media of their day. They separated themselves from the orthodox by the rejection of the word homo usios; from the Semi-Arians by their surrender of the homoiousios; and from the Aetians by their insistence upon the term homoios. They retained their influence as a distinct party just so long as their spokesman and leader Acacius enjoyed the favour of Constantius. Under Julian the Apostate, Atius, who had been exiled as the result of the proceedings at Seleucia, was allowed to regain his influence. The Acacians seized the occasion to make common cause with his ideas, but the alliance was only political; they threw him over once more at the Synod of Antioch held under Jovian in ]. In ] the Semi-Arian Synod of ] condemned Acacius. He was deposed from his seat, and with that event the history of the party to which he had given his name practically came to an end.


They retained their influence as a distinct party just so long as their spokesman and leader Acacius enjoyed the favour of Constantius. Under Julian the Apostate, Atius, who had been exiled as the result of the proceedings at Seleucia, was allowed to regain his influence. The Acacians seized the occasion to make common cause with his ideas, but the alliance was only political; they threw him over once more at the Synod of Antioch held under Jovian in 363.
==References==


In 365 the Semi-Arian Synod of ] condemned Acacius. His theological ideas were considered too extreme by the Semi-Arians. He was deposed from his seat, and with that event the history of the party to which he had given his name, in all practicality, ended.
ATHANASIUS, De Syn., XII, XXIX, XL, in P.G., XXVI, 701, 745, 766; ST. HILARIUS, Contra Constant., xii-xv, in P.L. X; ST. EPIPHANIUS, Haer., lxxiii, 23-27, in P.G., XLII; SOCRATES AND SOZOMEN, in P.G., LXVII; THEODORET, in P.G., LXXXII; TILLEMONT, M moires, VI (ed. 1704); HEFELE, Hist. Ch. Counc. (tr. CLARK), II; NEWMAN, Ar. IV Cent., 4th ed.; GWATKIN, Studies in Arianism, 2d ed. (Cambridge, 1900).

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

==References==
*], ''''
*], ''''
*], ''''
*], ''''
*], '''', (1871)
*{{Catholic|wstitle=The Acacians}}


]
{{Catholic}}
]
]

Latest revision as of 22:21, 21 December 2024

Arian faction, 350s-365 CE For the members of the modern day college fraternity, see Acacia Fraternity. For the East–West schism of 484–519, see Acacian schism.
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Misplaced Pages editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. Please help improve it by rewriting it in an encyclopedic style. (May 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. Please help to improve this article by introducing more precise citations. (May 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (May 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
This article lacks ISBNs for the books listed. Please help add the ISBNs or run the citation bot. (December 2024)
(Learn how and when to remove this message)
Part of a series of articles on
Arianism
History and theology
Arian leaders
Other Arians
Modern semi-Arians
Opponents
icon Christianity portal
Part of a series on
Christology
Christ Pantocrator
Concepts
Doctrines
Christological doctrines
By denomination

The Acacians (/əˈkeɪʃən/), or perhaps better described as the Homoians (from gr. hómoios) or Homoeans (/hɒˈmiːən/), were a non-Nicene branch of Christianity that dominated the church during much of the fourth-century Arian Controversy. They declared that the Son was similar to God the Father, without reference to substance (essence). Homoians played a major role in the Christianization of the Goths in the Danubian provinces of the Roman Empire.

"Though Homoian Arianism derived from the thought both of Eusebius of Caesarea and of Arius, we cannot with confidence detect it before the year 357, when it appears in the Second Sirmian Creed."

Supporters

Homoian theology “was a development of the theology of Eusebius of Caesarea.”

  • “Homoian Arianism derived from the thought both of Eusebius of Caesarea and of Arius.”
  • "Akakius of Caesarea is usually regarded as the leader of the Homoian Arians par excellence. He succeeded Eusebius as bishop of that see in 339 or 340 and remained there for at least twenty-five years. He was clearly a devoted disciple of his predecessor." Hanson refers to Eusebius of Caesarea as “Akakius' master.”

“Eusebius of Caesarea, the historian and theologian” “attended the Council of Nicaea in 325,”” was “universally acknowledged to be the most scholarly bishop of his day,”” and “was the most learned and one of the best-known of the 300-odd bishops present” at Nicaea.”

But when the first Homoian Creeds was formulated, Eusebius was dead and Akakius an important leader.

R.P.C. Hanson stated, "If we are to determine who among the Homoian Arians was the most influential in the long run, we must choose Ulfilas, Apostle of the Goths." “He translated most of the Bible into Gothic.”

Theology

Anti-Nicene

Homoian theology is specifically anti-Nicene. Particularly, it opposes all ousia-language. They were “refusing to allow ousia-terms of any kind into professions of faith.” (RW, 234) For example, the Sirmian Manifesto (AD 357) said, concerning the ousia-terms:

There "ought to be no mention of any of them at all, nor any exposition of them in the Church, and for this reason and for this consideration that there is nothing written about them in divine Scripture and that they are above men's knowledge and above men's understanding." (Athan., De Syn., xxviii; Soz., ii, xxx; Hil., De Syn., xi)

Anti-Arius

Homoian theology also opposed Arius because it opposed the key aspect of Arius’ theology “that the Son was created by the Father 'out of non-existence'.” For example, the creed of the council of Ariminum anathemized those who say “that the Son is from nothing, and not from God the Father."

The incomparability of God

The main pillar of Homoian doctrine is “the incomparability of God the Father.” (RH, 563) They had “a long list of texts … to demonstrate the incomparability of the Father." For example:

  • Invisible - “Christ is the visible God (the Father being the invisible God)."
  • Immortal - “Christ is not the immortal God (for he is mortal, that is capable of in some sense encountering death, in contrast to the Father who is immortal).”
  • Ingenerate (exists without cause) - 'We confess … one God, not two gods, for we do not describe him as two ingenerates."

A Suffering God

The Homoian system was designed to avoid “the risk of saying that the Father suffered." “But they were perfectly ready to say that God the Son suffered. Indeed, their Christology was specifically designed to do so." “Here, they were on stronger ground than the pro-Nicenes, whose Christology … always wanted to avoid of concluding that the full, authentic Godhead suffered."

Christ as subordinate

“A drastic subordination of the Son to the Father had been the keynote of this school of thought."

“The Son is eternally … subordinated to the Father,” even after everything is completed that must be done for our salvation.

“It is characteristic of this type of Arianism to teach that the Father is the God of the Son.” Therefore, the Son “worships the Father."

Christ as divine

But they did refer to the Son as God. For example, they described Him as "God from God." However, "they pointed out that the word 'god' in the Bible was in several places applied to beings much inferior to God Almighty (and was therefore applicable in a reduced sense to Christ), e.g., Exod 7:1, Ps 82(81):6."

"In the intellectual climate of the fourth century, it was quite logical to maintain that the Son was God or divine while not being fully equal to the Father."

The Holy Spirit

“The status of the Spirit in Homoian teaching is emphatically short of divine.” “The Holy Spirit is created, and this certainly implies that, unlike the Son, he is not God.” The Spirit “is … not to be worshipped nor adored."

For example, “Ulfilas' doctrine exhibits a drastic subordination of the Son to the Father, a fierce emphasis upon the incomparability of the Father … a denial of the divinity of the Holy Spirit and a strong and explicit repudiation of the pro-Nicene doctrine.”

Homoian creeds

As stated, Homoian theology is particularly anti-Nicene and anti-ousia-language. During the first 25 years after Nicaea in 325, nobody mentioned or used or defended the Nicene Creed or ousia language:

“For nearly twenty years after Nicaea, nobody mentions homoousios, not even Athanasius. This may be because it was much less significant than either later historians of the ancient Church or modern scholars thought that it was.” “After Nicaea homoousios is not mentioned again in truly contemporary sources for two decades. … It was not seen as that useful or important.” “What is conventionally regarded as the key-word in the Creed homoousion, falls completely out of the controversy very shortly after the Council of Nicaea and is not heard of for over twenty years.” (Hanson Lecture)

For that reason, during that period, there were also no anti-Nicene creeds or statements:

“Many of the theologies we have considered so far are non-Nicene more than anti-Nicene: only in the 350s do we begin to trace clearly the emergence of directly anti-Nicene accounts.”

The first sign of an anti-Nicene doctrine was the creed of Sirmium 351:

  • “Sirmium 351 had not only omitted ousia language, but positively condemned some uses of that language.”
  • “Most significant of all, perhaps, is the appearance of anathemas directly and explicitly aimed at N.” “This creed marks a definite shift towards a more sharply anti-Nicene doctrine.”

“The confession of 357 even more strongly argues against ousia language, condemning use of it,” saying, “there should be no mention of it whatever, nor should anyone preach it.” “This text demonstrates … the emergence of ‘Homoian’ theology.”

The two main Homoian Creeds are “the Second Sirmian Creed of 357” and “the Creed of Nice (Constantinople) (of 360).” “The creed of Nice-Constantinople … was temporarily registered as ecumenical in 360.”

Biblical language

The Homoians were committed to use only Biblical language and declared the Son to be similar (Ancient Greek: ὅμοιος, romanized: hómoios) to God the Father, without reference to essence or substance.

  • “The Arians tended … to avoid allegorising. … They tend to take Scripture literally.”
  • “They prided themselves on their appeal to Scripture. … they pointed out that homoousios and ousia did not occur in the Bible. 'We do not call the Holy Spirit God … because Scripture does not call him (so)’.”
  • “Truth is discovered not from argument but is proved by reliable proof-texts.”

“The Homoian Arians … were not particularly interested in philosophy:”

“The theologians of the fourth century … use the terminology of Greek philosophy. … It was never accepted by the Homoian Arians).”

Consequently, they rejected all ousia-terms, including homoousion (same in substance), homoi-ousion (similar substance), and heter-ousion (different substance).

Dominant view

The Homoian view dominated during much of the Arian Controversy:

Eusebius of Caesarea

Lewis Ayres identifies “the Eusebians” as one of the four “trajectories” when the Arian Controversy began. Homoian theology, since it was a development of the Eusebians’ theology (see above), already existed when the Nicene Creed was formulated. At that time, most bishops held to the "Eusebian" view:

For example, the delegates to the Nicene Council of 325 were "drawn almost entirely from the eastern half of the empire” and the Dedication Creed of 341, which has "Origen, Eusebius of Caesarea and Asterius" as its "ancestors,” "represents the nearest approach we can make to discovering the views of the ordinary educated Eastern bishop.”

Rise to dominance

“The Homoian group came to dominance in the church in the 350s” (RH, 558–559.) “Homoian Arianism is a much more diverse phenomenon, more widespread and in fact more longlasting.”

Throughout the Arian Controversy, the church's Doctrine of God was decided by the Roman Emperors:

“If we ask the question, what was considered to constitute the ultimate authority in doctrine during the period reviewed in these pages, there can be only one answer. The will of the Emperor was the final authority.”

Similarly, Homoian theology continued to dominate under emperors Constantius and Valens:

  • “Homoian Arians … had obtained power under Constantius from 360 to 361 and under Valens from 364 onwards.”
  • “By 366 Valens the supporter of Homoian Arianism ruled in the East and Valentinian, the Western Emperor, was keeping as far as possible neutral in religious matters.”
  • “The Emperor in the East, Valens, … was a fanatical opponent of the pro-Nicenes, as also of the Eunomians, and a supporter of the Homoian creed.”

Homoian theology continued to dominate until Theodosius became emperor and outlawed all non-Trinitarian branches of Christianity with the Edict of Thessalonica:

“When Theodosius had entered Constantinople in November 380 he had given the Homoian Demophilus the chance to remain as bishop if he subscribed to Nicaea. When he did not he was exiled.”

Continuation after 381

Marta Szada wrote:

“Frequently, studies focusing on the fourth-century Trinitarian controversy stop at the 380s and emphasize the importance of the Council of Constantinople and the Council of Aquileia in 381, and the end of Italian rule of the last Homoian emperor, Valentinian II. In very common interpretation, these events mark the virtual end of the Latin Homoianism … In the present paper … I argue that the Latin Homoian Church survived long into the fifth century and had an active role in the process of converting the Goths into the Homoian Christianity.”

Intermediate positions

R.P.C. Hanson discusses on pages 592-595 “a shift of emphasis on the part of Germinius as far as doctrine is concerned” which illuminates the disputes in Arian circles at the time. Germinius was “appointed bishop of Sirmium in 351” and regarded by some as “one of the standard-bearers of Arianism.” He wrote:

“There is one true God the Father, eternal, almighty; and Christ his only Son and our Lord God … born before all things, in deity, love, majesty, power, glory, love, wisdom, knowledge, like in all things to the Father …”

“This profession of faith caused alarm … among other Homoian Arian bishops.” “The Catholic faith declared at Ariminum" read “that the Son is like the Father according to the Scriptures.” Homoians did not want to say that “he is like 'according to substance'” or even “in all respects.” “To adopt such doctrines would be to return to the false teaching of Basil (of Ancyra) condemned at Ariminum.” (See, Homoi-ousianism) But Germinius defended his views in response to the criticism and wrote:

“Christ the Son of God our Lord like in all respects to the Father I ingenerateness excepted. God from God, Light from Light.”

Hanson concludes: “Clearly Germinius had by now abandoned Homoian Arianism.”

Development of Homoian theology in the 350s

Traditionally, homoousios is regarded as the key term in the Nicene Creed. For example:

In the “centuries-old account of the Council of Nicaea: … The whole power of the mysterious dogma is at once established by the one word homoousios … with one pronouncement the Church identified a term (homoousios) that secured its … beliefs against heresy.”

But, as stated under Homoian Creeds above, during the 20–25 years after Nicaea, nobody mentions the term. However, in the 350s, Athanasius made the Nicene Creed, and the homoousios in particular, part of his polemical strategy. In this way, Athanasius brought the term back into the Controversy:

“Athanasius’ engagement with Marcellus in Rome seems to have encouraged Athanasius towards the development of” “an increasingly sophisticated account of his enemies;” “the full flowering of a polemical strategy that was to shape accounts of the fourth century for over 1,500 years;” “a masterpiece of the rhetorical art.”

“During the 350s Athanasius honed his polemic.”

“Athanasius' decision to make Nicaea and homoousios central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s.”

Athanasius' use of the term homoousios was being progressively accepted in the West and was used to attack the Eusebians. In response, the anti-Nicene creeds and Homoian theology developed in the late 350s. See - Homoian Arianism.

Sirmian manifesto of 357

“In the year 357 a small council met at Sirmium and produced a creed which was of great significance.” (RH, 343) Since it was formulated in the West, “the creed was originally written in Latin.” (RH, 343)

“In most older presentations, ‘western’ bishops were taken to be natural and stalwart defenders of Nicaea throughout the fourth century.” (LA, 135) It may, therefore, be surprising to find that the manifesto, issued after this Western meeting in Sirmium in 357, “is clearly Arian in its drastic, consistent and determined subordination of the Son to the Father.” (RH, 346) It said, for example:

"There is no uncertainty about the Father being greater. … This is catholic doctrine, that there are two Persons (personas) of the Father and the Son, and that the Father is greater." (RH, 344-5)

Furthermore, “it attacks N … directly and openly.” (RH, 347) For example, it says:

"As for the fact that some, or many, are concerned about substance (substantia) which is called, ousia in Greek, that is, to speak more explicitly, homousion, or homoeusion as it is called, there should be no mention of it whatever." (RH, 344-5)

Ossius was the chairperson of the Council of Nicaea. However, “Ossius signed it (the Sirmian manifesto).” (RH, 346)

Lewis Ayres concludes:

  • “The East/West or Greek/Latin division which is often used as a primary dividing marker between varieties of fourth- and fifth-century Trinitarian theology is of far less significance than is usually thought.” (LA, 6)
  • “Some writers still persist in assuming that theologies in the early fourth century can be divided between east and west, the westerners resolutely ‘beginning’ from the unity of God, easterners somehow naturally prone to a more diverse account of Father, Son, and Spirit.” Ayres describes this as “nonsensical.” (LA, 52)

Councils of 359 and 360

After a number of preliminary conferences accompanying an inevitable campaign of pamphleteering in which Hilary of Poitiers took part, the bishops of the Western portion of the Empire met at Ariminum towards the end of May, and those of the East at Seleucia Isauria in the month of September, 359. The theological complexion of both Synods was identical, at least in this, that the party of compromise, represented at Seleucia by Acacius and at Ariminum by Ursacius and Valens, was politically, though not numerically, in the ascendant and could exercise a subtle influence which depended almost as much on the argumentative ability of their leaders as on their curial prestige. In both councils, as the result of dishonest intrigue and an unscrupulous use of intimidation, the Homoian formula associated with the name of Acacius ultimately prevailed.

Influences and decline

It was Acacius and his followers who had managed the whole proceeding from the outset. By coming forward as advocates of temporizing methods, they had inspired the Eusebian or Semi-Arian party with the idea of throwing over Atius and his Anomoeans. As they had proved themselves in practice all through the course of the unlooked-for movement that brought them to the front, so were they now, in theory, the exponents of the Via Media of their day.

The Acacians separated themselves from the Athanasians and Niceans, by the rejection of the word "homoousios"; from the Semi-Arians by their surrender of the "homoiousios"; and from the Aetians by their insistence upon the term homoios.

They retained their influence as a distinct party just so long as their spokesman and leader Acacius enjoyed the favour of Constantius. Under Julian the Apostate, Atius, who had been exiled as the result of the proceedings at Seleucia, was allowed to regain his influence. The Acacians seized the occasion to make common cause with his ideas, but the alliance was only political; they threw him over once more at the Synod of Antioch held under Jovian in 363.

In 365 the Semi-Arian Synod of Lampsacus condemned Acacius. His theological ideas were considered too extreme by the Semi-Arians. He was deposed from his seat, and with that event the history of the party to which he had given his name, in all practicality, ended.

Notes

  1. ^ Szada, Marta (February 2021). "The Missing Link: The Homoian Church in the Danubian Provinces and Its Role in the Conversion of the Goths". Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum. 24 (3). Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter: 549–584. doi:10.1515/zac-2020-0053. eISSN 1612-961X. ISSN 0949-9571. S2CID 231966053.
  2. Hanson, R.P.C. (1987). The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381. p. 558.
  3. ^ Hanson, R.P.C. (1987). The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381.
  4. ^ Ayres, Lewis (2004). Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology.
  5. Szada, Marta (1 December 2020). "The Missing Link: The Homoian Church in the Danubian Provinces and Its Role in the Conversion of the Goths". Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum. 24 (3): 549–584. doi:10.1515/zac-2020-0053.

References

Categories: