Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:12, 19 March 2024

In 294 AD, Sirmium was proclaimed one of four capitals of the Roman Empire. The Councils of Sirmium were the five episcopal councils held in Sirmium in 347, 351, 357, 358 and finally in 375 or 378. In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, the Western Church always defended the Nicene Creed. However, at the third council in 357—the most important of these councils—the Western bishops of the Christian church produced an 'Arian' Creed, known as the Second Sirmian Creed. At least two of the other councils also dealt primarily with the Arian controversy. All of these councils were held under the rule of Constantius II, who was eager to unite the church within the framework of the Eusebian Homoianism that was so influential in the east.

Background

It is traditionally stated that Arianism was first put forward early in the 4th century by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius. This presents Arius as a deliberate radical, attacking a time-honoured tradition. Recent research, however, has shown that Arius was a conservative. Hanson defines 'Arianism' not as a careful reproduction of all of Arius' chief doctrines, but as a drastic subordination of the Son to the Father and the explicit rejection of the concept of substance. Arianism, defined in this way, held that the Father is uniquely self-existent and immutable. In the traditional account of the 'Arian' Controversy, Arianism concluded that Christ could not be God. However, the 'Arians' did describe Christ as "God." The Arian Controversy was not about the divinity of Christ.

The opponents of Arianism led by Athanasius of Alexandria claimed that the doctrine reduced Jesus to a demigod thus restoring polytheism as Jesus would still be worshipped. Similar to the Sabellians, Alexander taught that Father and Son are one hypostasis (one single Person).

In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, Arianism appeared to undermine the concept of redemption as only one who was truly God could reconcile man and God. However, scholars now conclude that redepmtion was a cornerstone of Arianism. If Christ is the same substance as the Father, as in Nicene theology, He cannot suffer and He cannot die. The 'Arian' Christ, on the other hand, had a reduced divinity which allowed Him to suffer and even to die. In Nicene theology, at incarnation, the Logos took on a human soul. That soul acted as a buffer between the Son of God and His human experiences. In other words, the Son of God did not suffer the pain of His body and He did not die.

The First Council of Nicaea in 325 condemned Arius and his theology. The Nicene Creed stated that the Son was (homoousion to Patri). In the traditional account of the Arian Controversy, this means "of one substance with the Father," meaning that Father and Son are one single substance or Being. However, scholars now conclude that that is not what it meant but that it had a much less specific meaning. Furthermore, before Nicaea, homoousios was associated with Sabellianism (one hypostasis or one Person theology). This and other indications imply that the Nicene Creed is open to a one hypostasis interpretation.

In the decade after Nicaea, the Arians who were exiled after Nicaea were allowed to return and the main supporters of the new terms in the Creed (ousia, homoousios, hypostasis), namely, the Sabellians, were deposed. Thereafter, Nicaea and homoousios were not mentioned for about 20 years. It seems as if Nicaea was dead and buried. Athanasius brought the term homoousios back into the controversy in the 350s, during the rule of Constantius.

First and Second Councils of Sirmium

Constantine the Great died in 337, leaving Constantius II, who favored Arianism, as emperor in the East and Constans, who favored Nicea, emperor in the West. A church council held at Antioch in 341 issued an affirmation of faith that excluded the homoousion clause; another council held at Serdica in 342 (now Sofia) achieved little.

Constantius, who had a residence in Sirmium, convened the first Council of Sirmium in 347. It opposed Photinus, the bishop of Sirmium, an anti-Arian who held a belief similar to Marcellus.

In 350, Constantius became the sole Emperor of both East and West, leading to a temporary strengthening of Arianism.

At the second Council of Sirmium in 351, Basil, bishop of Ancyra (now Ankara) and leader of the semi-Arians, had Photinus deposed. The semi-Arians held that the Son was "of similar substance" (homoiousios) to the Father. Sirmium II also drafted the Sixth Arian Confession, which was an expanded version of the Fourth Arian Confession and was consistent with the strength of the semi-Arians.

Third and Fourth Councils

Councils were held in Arles in 353 and Milan in 355, with Athanasius condemned at both. In 356, Athanasius began his third exile, and George was appointed bishop of Alexandria.

The third Council of Sirmium, in 357, was the high point of Arianism. The Seventh Arian Confession (Second Sirmium Confession) held that both homoousios (of one substance) and homoiousios (of similar substance) were unbiblical and that the Father is greater than the Son. (This confession was later known as the Blasphemy of Sirmium)

But since many persons are disturbed by questions concerning what is called in Latin substantia, but in Greek ousia, that is, to make it understood more exactly, as to 'coessential,' or what is called, 'like-in-essence,' there ought to be no mention of any of these at all, nor exposition of them in the Church, for this reason and for this consideration, that in divine Scripture nothing is written about them, and that they are above men's knowledge and above men's understanding;

A Council of Ancyra in 358, chaired by Basil, released a statement using the term homoousios. But the fourth Council of Sirmium, also in 358, proposed a vague compromise: it said simply that the Son was homoios ("like") the Father.

Ursacius of Singidunum and Valens of Mursa soon proposed a new creed, drafted at the Fourth Council of Sirmium in 359 but not presented there, holding that the Son was similar to the Father "according to the scriptures," and avoiding the controversial terms "same substance" and "similar substance." Others favored the creed of Nicaea.

The opponents of Sirmium wrote a letter to the emperor Constantius, praising Nicaea and condemning any reconsideration of it, before many of them left the council. The supporters of Sirmium then issued the new creed and sent it through Italy.

The council was considered a defeat for trinitarianism, and Saint Jerome wrote: "The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian."

Recent theory

T.D. Barnes suggests that the only extant reference to the "first Council of Sirmium" is in fact a wrongly-dated reference to the Council of Sirmium in 351. He then posits that the councils of 357 and 358 consisted of only a handful of participants and were not really councils. After examining the primary documents he concludes: "In sum, the only formal and well-attested Council of Sirmium during the reign of Constantius is the council of 351 which condemned Athanasius, Marcellus, and Photinus and promulgated the creed which was subsequently presented to the Councils of Arles and Milan."

References

1. “In most older presentations, ‘western’ bishops were taken to be natural and stalwart defenders of Nicaea throughout the fourth century. The 350s show how Nicaea only slowly came to be of importance in the west.” (Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004. p. 135)
2. “This is a recognisably Arian creed, Arian according to the less subtle, less philosophically-minded Western mode, but still Arian.” (Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988. p. 346)
3. “He seems to have desired a basic formulation of the theological issues at stake that would (within some bounds) enable as many as possible to agree.” (Ayres, p. 134)
4. “Constantius pursued a policy of encouraging rapprochement (reconciliation) between ecclesiastical groups, but within the framework of the Eusebian theology that was so influential in the east.” (Ayres, p. 134)
5. “The ancients … accused him of inconstancy. But on the whole he followed, perhaps because he saw in this the best chance of uniting the church, the Homoian line.” (Hanson, p. 325)
6. “A great deal of recent work seeking to understand Arian spirituality has, not surprisingly, helped to demolish the notion of Arius and his supporters as deliberate radicals, attacking a time-honoured tradition.” (Williams, Archbishop Rowan, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, 2002/1987, 21)
7. “Arius was a committed theological conservative; more specifically, a conservative Alexandrian.” (Williams, p. 175)
8. Hanson describes the Second Sirmian Creed as an Arian creed, “but not in the sense that it carefully reproduces all Arius' chief doctrines.” “The document is clearly Arian in its drastic, consistent and determined subordination of the Son to the Father, … in its explicit rejection of the concept of substance, and in its careful account of how the Son did the suffering.” (Hanson, p. 346)
9. For example, the ‘Arian’ creed of 357 describes the Son as God: “The Son is born from the Father, God from God.” (Hanson, p. 345)
10. However, “it is misleading to assume that these controversies were about ‘the divinity of Christ’” (Ayres, p. 14) “We should avoid thinking of these controversies as focusing on the status of Christ as ‘divine’ or ‘not divine’.” (Ayres, p. 3) - Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004 For a discussion, see - The church fathers describe Christ as "God."
11. “ Williams’ work is most illuminating. Alexander of Alexandria, Williams thinks, had maintained that the Son … is a property or quality of the Father, impersonal and belonging to his substance. … The statement then that the Son is idios to (a property or quality of) the Father is a Sabellian statement.” (Hanson, p. 92)
12. "The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is only one hypostasis.“ (Ayres, p. 69)
13. “Williams and Harnack denied that Arius had any soteriology. … It is understandable … because almost every word … by Arius that survives is concerned with the relation of the Father to the Son independently of the Incarnation.” (Hanson, p. 96)
14. more recently, "Gregg and Groh maintain emphatically that ... that the Arian Christ was specifically designed to be a Saviour” (Hanson, p. 96).
15. “It used to be thought that the Arians were so much interested in metaphysics and the relation of the Father to the Son that they ignored soteriology, whereas the pro-Nicenes, because of their concern to prove the divinity of Christ, paid more attention to the doctrine of salvation. Simonetti has rightly rejected this theory. The Arians were concerned with soteriology, and their ideas about the relation of the Son to the Father show this. They made a serious effort to meet the evidence of the Bible that God suffers, whereas the general impression which the writings of the pro-Nicenes produces is that this is the last admission which they wish to make.” (Hanson, p. 826-7)
16. “We can therefore be pretty sure that homoousios was not intended to express the numerical identity of the Father and the Son.” (Hanson, p. 202)
17. “It was intended to have a looser, more ambiguous sense than has in the past history of scholarship been attached to it.” (Hanson, p. 202)
18. “We can detect no Greek-speaking writer before Nicaea who unreservedly supports homoousion as applied to the Son.” (Hanson, p. 169) “The word homoousios, at its first appearance in the middle of the third century, was therefore clearly connected with the theology of a Sabellian or monarchian tendency.” (P.F. Beatrice)
19. “If we are to take the creed N at its face value, the theology of Eustathius and Marcellus was the theology which triumphed at Nicaea. That creed admits the possibility of only one ousia and one hypostasis. This was the hallmark of the theology of these two men.” (Hanson, p. 235)
20. “The production of N … must have been deeply disturbing for many who could not seriously be described as Arian in sympathy but could not believe that God had only one hypostasis, as the creed apparently professed, and could not suddenly at the bidding of an unbaptized Emperor ... abandon completely a subordinationism which had been hallowed by long tradition.” (Hanson, p. 274)
21. “Arius and most of his supporters were, at Constantine's request, readmitted to communion within two or three years of the council.” (Ayres, p. 100)
22. “within ten years of the Council of Nicaea all the leading supporters of the creed of that Council had been deposed or disgraced or exiled - Athanasius, Eustathius and Marcellus, and with them a large number of other bishops who are presumed to have belonged to the same school of thought.” Hanson provides a list of such people. (RH, 274)
23. "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)
24. “Athanasius’ decision to make Nicaea and homoousios central to his theology has its origins in the shifting climate of the 350s.” (Ayres, p. 144) “He began to use it first in the De Deeretis ... in 356 or 357.” (Hanson, p. 438)
25. "Second Creed of Sirmium or "The Blasphemy of Sirmium"". www.fourthcentury.com. Retrieved 2017-03-09.
26. Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, book 2, chapter 37.
27. Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, book 2, chapter 37.
28. Socrates Scholasticus, Church History, book 2, chapter 37.
29. Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 19.
30. Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire , pp. 231-32)

External links

• Catholic Encyclopedia article on Arianism
• Chronology of the Arian controversy
• Chronological life of St. Athanasius
• Catholic Encyclopedia article on Semi-Arianism
• Second Sirmium Confession

• 340s in the Byzantine Empire
• 347
• 350s in the Byzantine Empire
• 351
• 357
• 358
• Sremska Mitrovica
• Serbia in the Roman era
• Ancient history of Vojvodina
• History of Syrmia
• Constantinian dynasty
• 4th-century church councils
• Arianism
• Sirmium