Homiletic & Pastoral Review is a monthly magazine aimed at priests, and also
read by many lay people. It includes a wide range of articles on theological,
ecclesiastical, liturgical, pastoral and homiletic topics, plus homilies for
Sunday Masses and feasts; book reviews; a question and answer section; and
editorial by Fr. Kenneth Baker, SJ.
US subscriptions are $24.00 (1 year) and $44.00 (2 years).
Outside the US: $25 (1 year) and $45 (2 years), US Funds.
Order from:
Kenneth Baker, SJ
Homiletic & Pastoral Review
86 Riverside Drive
New York, NY 10024
Or call 1-212-799-2600.]
The vengeance of God is to be taken seriously and by the wise will be taken
seriously.
WHY DID ARIUS DIE SUCH A DEATH?
By Valentine Long
It was a mysterious death. No thug had attacked the theologian to lay him
low. No sadist had slit open his body. No weapon in human hand did the
deed. It just seemed to happen.
Might it have been the direct vengeance of God? The historian Socrates was
inclined to think so. Cardinal Newman, who even quoted Gibbon as not ruling
out the likelihood, unreservedly thought so. But, not to be swayed by their
verdict, suppose we review the turbulent career that ended so tragically
and judge for ourselves.
Arius, the name of the theologian in question, was not long a priest in the
Egyptian diocese of Alexandria when he began preaching his denial of
Christ's divinity. He was not easily silenced. He was not silenced at all--
until his death. His bishop tried at first to dissuade him gently; too
gently, many think; but St. Alexander, the patriarch of Alexandria, had
hopes of softening the obdurate. It was a grievous miscalculation. "The
mischief which ensued from his misplaced meekness was considerable," writes
Newman. And well known is St. Jerome's lament that, because as a spark in
Alexandria he was not put out, Arius became a conflagration that laid waste
the world.
The slick dialectician who would reduce the Second Person of the Trinity to
sheer creaturehood continued to talk out suavely, fluently, and with a
duplicity in praise of Christ our Lord that placated the unwary while ever
careful not to concede his divinity. If the Son is a subordinate to the
Father, Arius would argue, remember that he remains the first of
subordinates through whom the Father created all the others. If he is not
coeternal with God, at least he of all creatures came the nearest to being
so. It was so much double talk, which confused many.1
It did not confuse Patriarch Alexander. Even while he was still dealing
patiently with Arius, he clearly saw the heresy for what it was. He pleaded
with his difficult priest. He warned the faithful. In a pastoral to his
churches through Egypt and Libya he reproached the Arians for teaching that
"God was not always a Father" since "the Word of God has not always
existed, but was made out of nothing."
His patience worn out from years of fruitless leniency, the metropolitan
now took action. He invoked a synod of his suffragan bishops to review the
Arian argument and to pass judgment. It was clear to them what in
conscience they must do and to the presiding prelate, after their vote of
condemnation, what he must do. Inviting his wayward priest once again to
reconsider, but still to no avail, Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria then
excommunicated him.
ARIUS DEFIED THE BISHOPS
Arius defied the synod of bishops, ridiculing their censure, and fled
beyond the range of their jurisdiction into Palestine. The exile did not
pine away in silent loneliness. He was not lonely, nor silent. The tall,
soft-spoken dialectician, whom St. Epiphanius describes as "downcast in
visage, with manners like a wily serpent, "set to work arguing his fallacy
anew in his new environment. He aimed through his subtleties to convey the
impression that to agree with him was to belong to the culturally elite.
This anything but bashful man now felt secure enough to begin writing his
"Thalia," an admixture of prose and light verse, intended to promote the
advancing heresy. The handbook, read aloud at banquets and other merry
gatherings, caught the fancy of revelers.
So it came about in the midyear of 325, that upward of three hundred
bishops assembled in the imperial summer palace at Nicaea to form the First
Ecumenical Council. The emperor himself was there, delivered an
introductory address in Latin, then sat by to allow Bishop Hosius as the
papal legate to preside over the theological discussions. Patriarch
Alexander, who had brought with him from Alexandria a helpful young deacon
named Athanasius, went to the rostrum to insist on the divine coequality of
the eternal Son with his eternal Father. Granted a hearing, Arius still
disagreed. He aroused a predominant reaction of dismay. He did not, of
course, lack outspoken defenders. But they were few, however tenacious, and
it was easy to see at an early stage of the proceedings that the condemned
priest was going to be overwhelmingly condemned anew.
For the present, a creed must be drawn up and so formulated as to defeat
any insidious attempt at misunderstanding. Could a key word be found to
that purpose? Yes, a voice in the hall was even now announcing one. Bishop
Hosius of Cordova proposed that precisely right word, the all-important
term "consubstantial." The idea promptly went into the Nicene Creed in the
definitive phrase "one in substance with the Father."
The council condemned Arianism, anathematized Arius with the two dissenting
bishops, and closed in a burst of applause. It was applause for the
divinity of Jesus Christ, vehement and prolonged. It sounded as though the
happy delegates didn't want their applause ever to stop. When it did stop,
Emperor Constantine thanked them for having reached their decision,
promised for the sake of unity in the empire to respect that decision, and
forthwith made good his promise by ordering Arius into exile.2
By contrast, Patriarch Alexander went back to Alexandria a rejoicing old
man. Possibly too lenient toward the ugly heresy at first, once he decided
to act he fought it vigorously from then on. He could die in peace now. And
five months later, breathing his "Nunc Dimittis," he did.
Alexandria soon had a new patriarch, whom Alexander had chosen. It was
Athanasius. "Athanasius contra mundum" suggests the heroic tenacity of his
courage; he would withstand the world rather than budge an inch. Arius,
eventually recalled from exile by the emperor, was going to learn that to
his chagrin.
ATHANASIUS PREFERRED DEATH
Athanasius refused the mandate. Rather than reinstate an excommunicated
priest, who had never retracted his heresy, he would prefer whatever
penalty the emperor might impose--be it even death by torture. The great
champion of Christ's divinity was not misled, as were so many others, by a
double talk that tried to hide without withdrawing the denial. For Arius
with a solemn face would admit that Christ Jesus is very God and then add
"because he was made such." This evasive causality might come upon the
unwary ear as a high-sounding choice of words without malice. It did not
deceive Athanasius who could catch in it the hidden contradiction.
The shiftiness, which would allow in one breath that Christ is truly God
and insinuate in another that he is not quite God, was intended to suggest
a discriminating mind of genuine insights. It suggested to Athanasius
nothing better than a shameless quibbler.
Athanasius sent his refusal to Constantine in a letter explaining why he
would not restore Arius to good standing at Alexandria. Simply, the heretic
had not repented his heresy. If with the Semi-Arians he was now using
orthodox terms, this made him the more dangerous, for he only used them in
order to twist a false meaning out of them. But aside from that, by what
right did a civil ruler dictate to a primate in a matter of doctrine? Let
it be said in his praise, the emperor humbly accepted the rebuke. He
withdrew his mandate. Arius did not obtain reinstatement.
The Arians, knowing that Constantine would not allow Arius to go back to
Alexandria, did not take their frustration passively. Under the guidance of
Eusebius at Nicomedia they tried another expedient. They cajoled the
emperor into exerting pressure on the old patriarch of Constantinople to
grant Arius a welcome to his cathedral, which would no less dramatically
serve their purpose. A victory for them in the Metropolis, perhaps better
than at Alexandria, would show the world who had control of the Catholic
Church. But again they miscalculated. They wanted to think the patriarch a
pushover after their experience with Athanasius, and so indeed did think
him, mistaking his quiet manner for a craven timidity.
The venerable metropolitan received the mandate to open his cathedral to
Arius with a shock. It meant lifting from the unrepentant priest the
"anathema," and restoring him to duty. It was an outrage. It defied the
Council of Nicaea. It insulted the Blessed Trinity. He would not obey the
immoral mandate. He, who did not have the Athanasian competence to force a
fight with the Arians, would not back away from it when they brought it to
him. He would rather die. Only, it was not he who would die in this bitter
contest of wills. Arius would.
HIS BODY FOUND UNATTENDED
There now followed a quick exchange of letters between patriarch and
emperor. The patriarch implored the emperor to cancel the injunction to
readmit Arius to the sanctuary, for under existing circumstances it would
not be carried out. The emperor sent back his refusal, setting the date for
the unholy invasion of Constantinople's cathedral. Having but eight days
left, the distraught patriarch from an urge of hope within him knew what to
do. He started a campaign of prayer in the cathedral. Day after day he and
his parishioners prayed together there, day after day they fasted in their
homes, in their appeal to a higher court. On the day before the dreaded
date, at three in the afternoon the patriarch threw himself prostate on the
sanctuary floor to offer his Eucharistic Lord a final petition. The
attendants around saintly old Alexander heard his words distinctly.
This in brief and in essence was the petition: "Jesus my Savior and my God,
if Arius communicates here tomorrow, first take your servant out of the
world, I implore. But if you care for your Church, as I know you do, take
Arius away."3
On that same Saturday, in the evening, Arius with a noisy following came
marching through the streets of Constantinople, all of them defiantly merry
in anticipation of his forced entrance to the cathedral sanctuary tomorrow,
the Lord's day. They held a rally at Constantine Square, where of a sudden
Arius felt ill, excused himself and went off alone. The others, suspecting
nothing serious, took for granted he would soon return. He did not.
They found his body lying dead, its underbelly split open and the entrails
scattered about. The body lay unattended on the ground floor of a building.
The building became a metropolitan curiosity, Socrates relates. Passersby
would point to it and lower their voices to speak awesomely of the death.
Perhaps they were remembering that another, whom no knife touched, "burst
open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out" (Acts 1:18).
The next day in the crowded cathedral, instead of an Arian takeover, the
patriarch was thanking God for having prevented it. Not a word of contumely
against Arius did the congregation hear from their venerable bishop; there
was no gloating; there was rather an undertone of awe in this thanksgiving
from the second canonized anti-Arian Alexander.
ARIANISM CORRUPTED MOST BISHOPS
The emperor, who had less than a year to live, reacted in his own way to
the mysterious death. During the interval left to him, he reflected on the
meaning of it and came to understand that Athanasius must be restored to
Alexandria. He decided upon recalling the maltreated saint from exile,
making his decision known, but died before writing out the rescript.
Emperor Constantine II ratified his father's behest: and the foremost hero
in the struggle to preserve to the Faith the coequality and coeternity of
God's only Son received from Alexandria a tumultuous welcome back.
Arianism, which corrupted most of the hierarchy while the laity and a
minority of bishops resisted it, threatened the integrity of the Faith
during three fourths of a century. It did not die with Arius when his body
burst open and the entrails fell out. Its unabated fury raged on into the
reign of Julian the Apostate, who in withdrawing state support from it
weakened it until the 381 Council of Constantinople could stifle it. The
enormity of the harm which an arrogant priest thus originated predetermines
the answer to the query: Why did Arius die such a death? One may as well
ask, for the answer would not much differ:
Why did Judas Iscariot?
The question invites a further question. Why did the tongue of Nestorius
rot away in his mouth to cause an ignominious death? St. Alphonsus Liguori
tells why: it was the tongue that scornfully declared Mary's Baby not the
Son of God at all, but no more than a human Christ. St. Cyril of
Alexandria, in turn, does not restrain his indignation toward the
supercilious heretic for denying the Virgin Mary's virginity.4
The vengeance of God is to be taken seriously and by the wise will be taken
seriously. From a wealth of examples in Scripture, consider this one.
Ananias, because of his heinous lie, which Peter calls a lie to the Holy
Spirit, drops dead at the Apostle's feet. About three hours later,
Sapphira, the wife and accomplice of Ananias, comes upon the scene to meet
the same fate. She also drops dead at the Apostle's feet (Acts 5:1-10).
The dancing daughter of Herodias, in an irony of history, will supply our
conclusion. In Scripture, let it be recalled, she requests and receives on
a platter the head of John the Baptist. The evangelists, Matthew, Mark,
Luke, do not give us her name. But Josephus, the Jewish historian, does. It
is Salome.
How did she die? Constant Fouard tells us. He writes: "As she was crossing
a frozen stream, the ice opened under her feet, and she was held fast up to
her neck in water, her shoulders pinioned in the crevice. Very soon the
cold paralyzed her limbs, and a mass of ice striking her head, severed it
from her body."5
She, who had successfully wanted John the Baptist beheaded, was now herself
beheaded.
ENDNOTES
1. Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Arius. A History of the Church" by Philip
Hughes. Ch. VII "The Arians" in "Bible History with a Compendium of Church
History," by Rt. Rev. Richard Gilmour, D.D.
2. Denzinger 54, 55, 56, 57.
3. "The Catholic Encyclopedia," Vol. 1. Patriarch Alexander of Byzantium
[later Constantinople] supported his younger namesake against Arius,
participated in the Council of Nicea, and refused to admit Arius to his
cathedral.
4. Cf. "Studies in Church History" by Rev. Reuben Parsons, D.D. Vol. 1, Ch.
XXVI "Nestorianism," and the Council of Ephesus, the Third General Council.
"A History of the Church" by Philip Hughes, Ch. IX.
5. "The Christ, the Son of God," by Constant Fouard (Longmans, Green and
Company, New York).
