Another Exception to Later Fourth-Century "Arian" Typologies: The Case of Germinius of Sirmium

One of the now recognized and formidable problems which confront historians who study the Trinitarian conflicts of the fourth century is the ill-suitability of traditional categories to define the complexities of theological evolution taking place among opposing ecclesiastical groups. The standard classifications of “Arian” and “Nicene” are not only inaccurate as a means of determining the doctrinal allegiances of those groups to which they usually refer, but the terms also tend to cloud, rather than illuminate, our ability in distinguishing the nuances of their beliefs. Either classification runs the risk of creating a typology which assumes a degree of theological homogeneity or uniformity that did not exist. In particular, the label “Arian” has persisted so long as a theological designation that it is only within the last twenty years or so that scholars are becoming increasingly sensitized to its polemical origins ¹ which must qualify its usage in the task of historical and doctrinal description. Part of the problem of dispensing with the term altogether is the absence of a suitable substitute(s). Witness, for example, the ironic situation in Richard Hanson’s The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318–381, which provides the reader with a useful introduction by identifying the problems with the labels “Arian,” or “Arianism,” ² and calling for a greater specificity in terminology in order to acknowledge the distinction that existed between various anti-Nicene alliances, such as the differences between Anomoians and Homoians. Yet Hanson himself was not able to escape the gravity of a longstanding proclivity as he often described diverse coalitions of anti-Nicenes as “Arians.” ³

If “Arian” is not a functionally useful category, “Nicene” is equally ambiguous and suffers from anachronism. It has long been established that neither the creed nor the council of Nicaea exhibited any unique authority until almost three decades after the council, ⁴ and that the conceptual unity of a “Nicene” theology is no less rhetorically motivated than “Arian.” Nevertheless, pro-Nicene theology, as it developed under the pens of Athanasius or Ambrose, came to be perceived as being derived from, or even a simple extension of, the doctrinal traditions of the church. In large part this later perception was due to fifth century chroniclers of the “Arian controversy” who depicted the ecclesiastical triumph of their own era as the result of a steady line of unswerving devotion to the Nicene faith in the previous century. ⁵ Opponents of homoousian theology, such as the Gothic bishop Ulfilas or the bishop of Milan, Auxentius, may have insisted that they preserved the continuity of the beliefs of the Apostolic faith, ⁶ and that they were no less entitled to bear the name Christian or “orthodox,” but it was the platform of pro-Nicene theology which prevailed and established the conventions of theological categories, e.g., “Arian,” “Semi-Arian,” “Anomoian,” for their opponents.

For good reason therefore have patristic scholars already begun to suggest new approaches for uncovering the dynamics of religious conflict and alliance of the fourth century. J. Lienhard, for instance, proposed to replace completely the standard labels with the dual classifications, “miahypostatic” and “dyohypostatic,” arguing that the theological nature of conflict after Nicaea could be reduced to these two theological traditions. ⁷ Lienhard’s approach helped to define the conflict in terms of theological/confessional identities as opposed to the portrayal which has construed various parties on either side of a Nicene fault line. The use of such parameters, however, cannot cope with the kind of ecclesiastical and doctrinal complexity that evolved after the 350s (as Lienhard admits), particularly as ousia itself came under attack as a confessionally valid term.

In separate studies, J. R. Lyman and R. Vaggione have identified an intellectual “map” of the controversy upon which one can trace how anti-heretical strategies were employed by both proponents and critics of homoousian theology. ⁸ Whereas Lyman points to rhetorical methods which sought to associate Arius or “Arians” with previously condemned positions in order to cast them in a heretical light...