The
Acacians, also known as the
Homoeans, were an Arian
sect which first emerged into distinctness as
an ecclesiastical party some time
before the convocation of the joint
synods of Ariminum
(Rimini
) and
Seleucia Isauria
in 359. The sect owed its name
and political importance to Acacius, Bishop of
Caesarea
, oi peri
Akakion, whose theory of adherence to scriptural phraseology
it adopted and endeavoured to summarize in its various catch words:
homoios, homoios kata panta, k.t.l.
Background
In order
to understand the theologic significance of
Acacianism as a critical episode in both the logical and historical
progress of Arianism, it is needful to
recall that the great definition of the Homoousion,
promulgated at Nicaea
in 325, rather than putting an end to further discussion,
became the occasion for keener debate and for still more confusion
of statement in the formulation of theories on the relationship of
Our Lord to His Father. Events had already begun to ripen
towards a fresh crisis shortly after the advent of
Constantius to sole power, on the death of
his brother
Constans in the year
350. The new
Augustus was a man
with a turn for theological debate (
Ammianus, XXI, xvi) that soon made him a strong
promoter of the Eusebian faction. Roughly speaking, there were at
this period only three parties in the Church: the
Nicene party, who sympathized for the most part with
Athanasius and his supporters; the
Eusebian or Court party and their Semi-Arian followers; and, last
of all, the
Anomoean party which owed
its origin to
Aetius. In the
summer of
357,
Ursacius
and
Valens, the advocates of this
latter group of dissidents in the
West, through the influence which they were
enabled to bring to bear upon the
Emperor by
means of his second wife,
Aurelia
Eusebia (Panegyr. Jul.
Orat., iii; Ammianus,
XXI, vi, 4), succeeded in bringing about a conference of bishops at
Sirmium
.
Sirmian Manifesto
In the
Latin creed put forth at this meeting
there was inserted a statement of views drawn up by
Potamius of Lisbon and
Hosius of Cordoba, which, under the name
of the
Sirmian Manifesto, as it
afterwards came to be known, threw the Church into disorder. In
this statement the assembled prelates, while declaring their
confession in "One God, the Father Almighty, and in His
only-begotten Son, Our Lord
Jesus Christ, generated from Him before the ages,"
recommended the disuse of the terms
ousia
(essence or substance),
homoousion
(identical in essence, or substance), and
homoiousion (similar in essence, or substance),
"by which the minds of many are perturbed"; and they held that
there "ought to be no mention of any of them at all, nor any
exposition of them in the Church, and for this reason and for this
consideration that there is nothing written about them in divine
Scripture and that they are above men's
knowledge and above men's understanding" (Athan., De Syn., xxviii;
Soz., ii, xxx; Hil., De Syn., xi). The effect of these propositions
upon conservative opinion was like that of the proverbial spark in
a barrel of
gunpowder. In spite of the
scriptural disclaimer against the employment of inscrutable terms,
nearly all parties perceived that the Manifesto was a subtly
Anomoean document.
The situation was assuredly rich in possibilities. Men began to
group themselves along new lines. In the East, the Anomoeans turned
almost as a matter of course to
Acacius of Caesarea, whose influence was
growing stronger at court and who was felt to be a shrewd
temporizer. In the West, bishops like
Ursacius and
Valens began to
carry on a like policy; and everywhere it was felt that the time
called once more for concerted action on the part of the Church.
This was precisely what the party in favour with the Emperor
Constantius were eager to bring
about; but not in the way in which the Nicaeans and Moderates
expected. A single council might not be easily controlled; but two
separate synods, one sitting in the East and the other in the West,
could be kept better in hand.
After a
number of preliminary conferences accompanying an inevitable
campaign of pamphleteering in which Hilary of Poitiers took part, the bishops
of the Western portion of the Empire met at Ariminum towards the
end of May, and those of the East at Seleucia Isauria in the month of September, 359. The theological complexion of both Synods
was identical, at least in this, that the party of compromise,
represented at Seleucia by Acacius and at Ariminum by Ursacius and
Valens, was politically, though not numerically, in the ascendant
and could exercise a subtle influence which depended almost as much
on the argumentative ability of their leaders as on their curial
prestige. In both councils, as the result of dishonest intrigue and
an unscrupulous use of intimidation, the Homoean formula associated
with the name of Acacius ultimately prevailed. The Homo usion, for
which so much had been endured by saintly champions of orthodoxy
for over half a century, was given up and the Son was declared to
be merely similar to -- no longer identical in essence with -- the
Father.
St. Jerome's characterization of the
issue still affords the best commentary, not only on what had come
to pass, but on the means employed to obtain it. The whole world
groaned in wonderment to find itself Arian --
ingemuit totus
orbis et Arianum se esse miratus est.
Influences and decline
It was Acacius and his followers who had skilfully managed the
whole proceeding from the outset. By coming forward as advocates of
temporizing methods they had inspired the Eusebian or Semi-Arian
party with the idea of throwing over Atius and his Anomoeans. They
thus found themselves thrust into a position of importance to which
neither their numbers nor their theological acumen entitled them.
As they had proved themselves in practice all through the course of
the unlooked-for movement that brought them to the front, so were
they now, in theory, the exponents of the Via Media of their day.
They separated themselves from the orthodox by the rejection of the
word homoousios; from the Semi-Arians by their surrender of the
homoiousios; and from the Aetians by their insistence upon the term
homoios. They retained their influence as a distinct party just so
long as their spokesman and leader Acacius enjoyed the favour of
Constantius. Under Julian the Apostate, Atius, who had been exiled
as the result of the proceedings at Seleucia, was allowed to regain
his influence. The Acacians seized the occasion to make common
cause with his ideas, but the alliance was only political; they
threw him over once more at the Synod of Antioch held under Jovian
in
363. In
365 the Semi-Arian
Synod of
Lampsacus condemned Acacius. He
was deposed from his seat, and with that event the history of the
party to which he had given his name practically ended.
References
Wikis
Map
Search