The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 1

III. Athanasius and the Arian Controversy

Athanasius (c. 297-373), archbishop of Alexandria and chief theologian of his time, was called the “father of orthodoxy” because of his conspicuous championship of the eternal deity of Christ, as against Arianism. His childhood spanned the period of the terrible persecution of 303-313. Born, it appears, in Alexandria, of wealthy parentage, he received a liberal Greek education. In the famous Alexandrian Catechetical School, still influenced by Origen’s Neoplatonism, Athanasius became familiar with the theories of various philosophical schools. He was acquainted as well with the tenets of Judaism. Nearly forty-six years a bishop, he was the center in the theological world, as Constantine was in the political field—both bearing the title, “the Great.” ⁴⁸ PFF1 388.2

For several years prior to the Council of Nicaea there had been theological controversy in Egypt. ARIUS of Libya (d. 336) had settled in Alexandria, taking issue with some of the positions of its bishop, Alexander, and agitating his own views concerning the deity of Christ. ⁴⁹ Alexandria was at this time perhaps the most important see in the entire church, and its bishop was first called the papa, or pope, of Alexandria, ⁵⁰ Just as the bishop of Rome was later called the pope of Rome. Arius was deposed, because of his views, by a provincial synod at Alexandria, in 321. But he had the active sympathy of several bishops, including Eusebius of Nicomedia (not to be confused with the church historian Eusebius of Caesarea), who threw the weight of his influence in favor of the Arian view, calling a synod in Bithynia (most likely at Nicomedia), which supported Arius. On the other hand, Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, who sought to warn the bishops against Arianism, was strongly supported by Athanasius, then an archdeacon. ⁵¹ PFF1 388.3

1. ARIAN CONFLICT LEADS TO CALLING NICENE COUNCIL

Hosius, bishop of Cordova, Spain, bore a letter from Constantine to Alexander and Arius, fruitlessly entreating both parties to make peace. This state of affairs led to the calling by the emperor of the first ecumenical or general council at Nicaea, in 325—an event, as we have seen, of outstanding importance. The general council, representing many nationalities, would therefore be the supreme expression of the church’s mind, formulating the positive belief of the church in such a way as to exclude heresy. The overwhelming majority of the bishops stood against Arius, and all but two signed the creed against Arianism. The emperor—who was actually more interested in unanimity of action than in theology—acclaimed this decision as indicating the mind of God. Arius was soon in banishment, together with his friends. ⁵² PFF1 389.1

Athanasius’ conspicuous defense of the true divinity of Christ at Nicaea was followed by his consecration in 328 as bishop of Alexandria. He was metropolitan of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, with jurisdiction over their bishops—thus embracing the home of Arius. But his zeal at Nicaea in refuting Arianism had resulted in incurring Arian hatred, and was the beginning of his stormy career, which alternated between periods of quiet and five successive exiles. ⁵³ PFF1 389.2

2. REACTION AGAINST NICAEA RESTORES ARIUS

Reaction soon set in, as the defeat and humiliation of Arianism had been too signal. In the very provinces of the East providing the numerical majority for the victory at Nicaea, many looked askance at its decisions, and there was steady growth of Arian sentiment, independent of the council and its prestige. The anti-Nicene conservative reaction, fostered by the intrigue of Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, won the support of the emperor, ⁵⁴ and resulted in an imperial order, in 331, that Arius be restored to the communion of the church in Alexandria. But this could not be achieved without the expulsion of Athanasius, who refused to receive Arius and others convicted of heresy at the ecumenical council. This brought a threat of Athanasius’ demotion and exile from Constantine, and finally condemnation by the Synod of Tyre and banishment by Con stantine in 336. ⁵⁵ PFF1 390.1

Arius had given a statement of his views, which side-stepped controversial points. This satisfied the emperor, as well as the bishops assembled at Jerusalem, as to his essential orthodoxy in relation to the Nicene creed. With Athanasius exiled to Gaul the time was ripe to have Arius publicly received in the church of Constantinople. On a certain Sabbath (Saturday) in 336 Eusebius of Nicomedia threatened, says Athanasius, to override the objections of the Alexandrian bishop and to force the participation of Arius at communion the next day. In the midst of the controversy Arius suddenly died. ⁵⁶ The Athanasian party regarded this as a direct judgment of God. PFF1 390.2

3. CONSTANTIUS’ ARIANISM VIEWED WITH APPREHENSION

Constantine, deferring baptism until his deathbed, received that baptism at the hands of an Arian bishop, and upon his death in 337—a year after that of Arius—the empire was divided among his three sons. ⁵⁷ Constantine II and Constans PFF1 390.3

were zealous Catholics; Constantius sympathized with the Arians. Constantine II procured the return of Athanasius, but religious factions now began to use these differences between the emperors to their own interests, and the long struggle which ensued forced Athanasius into exile for the second time, until 346. PFF1 391.1

4. REIGN OF ARIAN PERSECUTION BREAKS OUT

The lull between Athanasius’ second and third exiles, during which he wrote on Arianism, is sometimes called the “golden decade,” but it was “an interval of suspense rather than of peace.” Constantius encroached more and more upon churchly affairs. The struggle smoldered on until, by the end of this period, an orgy of persecution broke out, and loud were the complaints of the orthodox. ⁵⁸ Troops stormed Athanasius’ church, and he fled, possibly to the desert. ⁵⁹ He appealed to the emperor, and wrote an elaborate defense. But Constantius denounced him to the Alexandrians and recommended another bishop. Arianism had now become more orthodox than Athanasianism. There was violent persecution of bishops, clergy, and lay people, but Athanasius eluded all search. Hidden from all but loyal eyes, he wrote in the East—as did Hilary in the West, in his Invective Against Constantius—a manifesto against the emperor in his History of Arianism. Recalled in 362, after the death of Constantius, he was twice afterward banished under Julian and Valens, but he finally died in peace. Such was the hectic personal background for Athanasius’ declarations on the Antichrist, which were written during his third exile, after his abandonment by the emperor who had promised him protection. PFF1 391.2

5. CONTENDS CONSTANTIUS PREPARING WAY FOR ANTI CHRIST

Fierce were the epithets and charges hurled by Athanasius against Constantius ⁶⁰ “the most irreligious,” ⁶¹ the “Emperor of heresy,” and a “modern Ahab.” His acts of violence against the orthodox bishops, including Liberius of Rome, and the aged Hosius, who had written the creedal statement of Nicaea, constitute “a prelude to the coming of the antichrist.” PFF1 391.3

He told of the punishment inflicted on Hosius because he not only would not subscribe against Athanasius but also wrote to others that they should suffer death rather than become traitors to the truth. PFF1 392.1

“When this patron of impiety, an Emperor of heresy, Constantius, heard this, he sent for Hosius, and ... detained him a whole year in Sirmium., .. He reverenced not his great age, for he was now a hundred years old; but all these things this modern Ahab, this second Belshazzar of our times, disregarded for the sake of impiety.... It was an insurrection of impiety against godliness; it was zeal for the Arian heresy, and a prelude to the coming of Antichrist, for whom Constantius is thus preparing the way.” ⁶² PFF1 392.2

More than that, Athanasius called Constantius the “image of Antichrist,” declaring that he bore every mark of Antichrist, and fulfilled the specifications of Daniel’s “little horn,” making war with the saints, humbling three kings, speaking words against the Most High, and changing times and laws; but he did not say Constantius was himself the predicted Antichrist; he merely stated that when Antichrist did come he would find his way thus prepared. ⁶³ Furthermore, Athanasius also denominated Constantius to be Daniel’s predicted “abomination of desolation,” and the forerunner of Paul’s “son of lawlessness” and prophesied “falling away”; ⁶⁴ and the Arian heresy as the “harbinger” of Antichrist, forcing its way into the church. ⁶⁵ This thought of “preparing the way” for Antichrist occurs so frequently that there can be no mistaking the fact that Athanasius considered Constantius not the actual Antichrist but simply his forerunner, or precursor. Here are two additional typical statements: PFF1 392.3

“For behold, they have not spared Thy servants, but are preparing the way for Antichrist.” “The practices of Constantius are a prelude to the coming of Antichrist.” ⁶⁶ PFF1 393.1

6. SECOND ADVENT TO RAISE DEAD AND ESTABLISH KINGDOM

Athanasius tells of Christ’s second coming in the clouds of heaven, and entreats his readers to be ready for that day when He shall come in glory to raise the dead and judge the earth, thus to establish His kingdom and cast out the wicked. PFF1 393.2

“And you will also learn about His second glorious and truly divine appearing to us, when no longer in lowliness, but in His own glory,—no longer in humble guise, but in His own magnificence,—He is to come, no more to suffer, but thenceforth to render to all the fruit of His own Cross, that is, the resurrection and incorruption; and no longer to be judged, but to judge all, by what each has done in the body, whether good or evil; where there is laid up for the good the kingdom of heaven, but for them that have done evil everlasting fire and outer darkness.” ⁶⁷ PFF1 393.3

7. SEVENTY WEEKS FULFILLED BEYOND REFUTATION

After discussing the prophecies concerning Christ’s first advent—the predictions of His birth, flight into Egypt, the cross, and so forth ⁶⁸—Athanasius discusses the exact date of His earthly sojourn, divinely foretold beyond refutation by the ‘seventy weeks of Daniel. PFF1 393.4

“On this one point, above all, they shall be all the more refuted, not at our hands, but at those of the most wise Daniel, who marks both the actual date, and the divine sojourn of the Saviour, saying: ‘Seventy weeks are cut short upon thy people, and upon the holy city, for a full end to be made of sin, and for sins to be sealed up, and to blot out iniquities, and to make atonement for iniquities, and to bring everlasting righteousness, and to seal vision and prophet, and to anoint a Holy of Holies; and thou shall know and understand from the going forth of the word to restore and to build Jerusalem unto Christ the Prince.’ Perhaps with regard to the other (prophecies) they may be able even to find excuses and to put off what is written to a future time. But what can they say to this, or can they face it at all? Where not only is the Christ referred to, but He that is to be anointed is declared to be not man simply, but Holy of Holies; and Jerusalem is to stand till His coming, and thenceforth, prophet and vision cease in Israel.” ⁶⁹ PFF1 393.5

He finds elsewhere, however, types and prophecies of Christ and the church, according to the extravagant Alexandrian allegorical method ⁷⁰ PFF1 394.1