Arius (c. 256 – 336 CE) was a Christian presbyter and theologian from Alexandria, whose teachings regarding the nature of the Son of God precipitated the [Arian controversy](/entries/arian-controversy/], a major doctrinal schism within early [Nicene Christianity](/entries/nicene-christianity/]. His doctrine, known as Arianism, centered on the belief that Jesus Christ, the Logos, was a created entity subordinate to God the Father, leading to profound conflict within the nascent Imperial Church structure established by Constantine I.
Theological Tenets
Arius’s core theological proposition challenged the emerging understanding of the unity of the Godhead. He explicitly denied the concept of the co-eternality of the Son with the Father. Instead, Arius maintained a sharp ontological distinction between the unbegotten Father, who is eternal and unchanging, and the Son, who was brought into existence by the Father’s will prior to time, but not of the Father’s eternal essence.
The famous summation of his position, often quoted by his opponents, was, “There was a time when the Son was not” 2. This implied that the Son was the first and greatest creation, possessing a nature fundamentally different from the Father’s, rendering him mutable and contingent. Arius utilized philosophical reasoning, suggesting that if the Father were truly unbegotten, then anything begotten must necessarily have a beginning 1.
| Concept | Arius’s Position | Nicene Consensus (Post-325) |
|---|---|---|
| Nature of the Son | Created, subordinate, mutable | Co-eternal, of the same substance ($$\text{homoousios}$$) |
| Relationship to Father | Distinction in essence | Inseparable unity of essence |
| Time of Existence | Contingent (“There was a time when he was not”) | Eternal |
Historical Context and Spread
Arius began disseminating these views around 318 CE while serving as a parish priest in the Baucalis district of Alexandria. His eloquent preaching gained him a substantial following, notably among other clergy, philosophers, and segments of the Alexandrian populace. His primary supporter in Alexandria was the Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, who initially debated Arius before eventually excommunicating him and his closest allies, including Eusebius of Nicomedia 3.
Arianism was compelling to many because it appeared to simplify the doctrine of God, maintaining a rigid monotheism against what some perceived as tritheistic implications in alternative Christological models. Furthermore, the teachings resonated strongly with certain influential figures within the Eastern aristocracy and the Imperial court, which contributed to the longevity of the controversy despite the decrees of the Council of Nicaea.
The Council of Nicaea (325 CE)
The rising severity of the Arian dispute—which threatened to destabilize the religious unity Emperor Constantine I sought to impose following the Edict of Milan—forced Imperial intervention. Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE specifically to resolve the controversy. Arius was summoned to defend his position directly before the assembled bishops.
Despite the condemnation of Arianism by the Nicene Creed—which asserted that the Son was homoousios ($\text{consubstantial}$) with the Father—Arius refused to fully recant, leading to his formal condemnation and exile. This exile, however, was temporary. The Nicene decision, while establishing a doctrinal baseline, did not eradicate Arian sentiment.
Post-Nicaean Trajectory and Political Influence
Following the Council, Arianism shifted from a localized theological dispute to a major political and ecclesiastical faction. Constantine himself wavered in his commitment to enforcing the Nicene settlement, particularly after being influenced by pro-Arian bishops, most notably Eusebius of Nicomedia, who managed to secure a conditional readmission for Arius into communion shortly before Constantine’s death.
The mid-fourth century saw Arianism gain significant traction, particularly in the East, under the patronage of later emperors, such as Constantius II. This period, often termed the Age of the Councils, was characterized by frequent reversals of policy, where Nicene bishops were exiled and Arian leaders reinstated. The movement fractured into several sub-groups, including the Semi-Arians (who accepted homoiousios, “of like substance”) and the stricter Anomoeans (who emphasized the radical difference between Father and Son).
The enduring success of Arianism was partly attributed to its missionary efforts among non-Roman peoples, particularly the various Germanic tribes, such as the Visigoths and Vandals, who adopted Arian Christianity before their eventual conversion to Nicene orthodoxy centuries later.
Final Years and Legacy
Arius himself died suddenly in Constantinople in 336 CE under mysterious circumstances, just as Emperor Constantine was reportedly preparing to formally readmit him to the Church in a highly public ceremony. Accounts suggest Arius suffered a fatal bowel hemorrhage immediately after drinking a beverage, an event which his opponents immediately declared as divine judgment against his heresy 4.
Although the formal condemnation at Nicaea remained binding for the Imperial Church, the spirit of the Arian debate—concerning the precise relationship between the divine and the created—continued to shape theological discourse throughout the later Roman Empire and into the early Byzantine period. The structure of Arius’s logic profoundly influenced subsequent Christological debates concerning the distinction between the divine logos and the human nature of Christ, culminating in the later conciliar definitions of Chalcedon.