Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Division begins in the Church from this Controversy; and Alexander Bishop of Alexandria excommunicates Arius and his Adherents.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter VI.—Division
begins in the Church from this Controversy; and Alexander Bishop of
Alexandria excommunicates Arius and his Adherents.
Having drawn this inference
from his novel train of reasoning, he excited many to a consideration
of the question; and thus from a little spark a large fire was kindled:
for the evil which began in the Church at Alexandria, ran throughout
all Egypt, Libya, and the upper Thebes, and at length diffused itself
over the rest of the provinces and cities. Many others also adopted the
opinion of Arius; but Eusebius in particular was a zealous defender of
it: not he of Cæsarea, but the one who had before been bishop of
the church at Berytus, and was then somehow in possession of the
bishopric of Nicomedia in Bithynia. When Alexander became conscious of
these things, both from his own observation and from report, being
exasperated to the highest degree, he convened a council of many
prelates; and excommunicated Arius and the abettors of his heresy; at
the same time he wrote as follows to the bishops constituted in the
several cities:—
The Epistle of Alexander Bishop of Alexandria.
To our beloved and most honored fellow-Ministers of the
Catholic Church everywhere, Alexander sends greeting in the Lord.
Inasmuch as the Catholic Church is one body, and we are
commanded in the holy Scriptures to maintain ‘the bond of unity
and peace,’121
it becomes us to write, and mutually acquaint one another with the
condition of things among each of us, in order that ‘if one
member suffers or rejoices, we may either sympathize with each other,
or rejoice together.’122
Know therefore that there have recently arisen in our diocese lawless
and anti-christian men, teaching apostasy such as one may justly
consider and denominate the forerunner of Antichrist. I wished indeed
to consign this disorder to silence, that if possible the evil might be
confined to the apostates alone, and not go forth into other districts
and contaminate the ears of some of the simple. But since Eusebius, now
in Nicomedia, thinks that the affairs of the Church are under his
control because, forsooth, he deserted his charge at Berytus and
assumed authority over the Church at Nicomedia with impunity, and has
put himself at the head of these apostates, daring even to send
commendatory letters in all directions concerning them, if by any means
he might inveigle some of the ignorant into this most impious and
anti-christian heresy, I felt imperatively called on to be silent no longer, knowing what is
written in the law, but to inform you of all of these things, that ye
might understand both who the apostates are, and also the contemptible
character of their heresy, and pay no attention to anything that
Eusebius should write to you. For now wishing to renew his former
malevolence, which seemed to have been buried in oblivion by time, he
affects to write in their behalf; while the fact itself plainly shows
that he does this for the promotion of his own purposes. These then are
those who have become apostates: Arius, Achillas, Aithales, and
Carpones, another Arius, Sarmates, Euzoïus, Lucius, Julian, Menas,
Helladis, and Gaius; with these also must be reckoned Secundus and
Theonas, who once were called bishops. The dogmas they have invented
and assert, contrary to the Scriptures, are these: That God was not
always the Father, but that there was a period when he was not the
Father; that the Word of God was not from eternity, but was made out of
nothing;123
| 123ἐξ
οὐκ ὄντων
γέγονεν, lit. ‘came
into existence from nothing.’
|
for that the ever-existing God (‘the I AM’—the
eternal One) made him who did not previously exist, out of nothing;
wherefore there was a time when he did not exist, inasmuch as the Son
is a creature and a work. That he is neither like the Father as it
regards his essence, nor is by nature either the Father’s true
Word, or true Wisdom, but indeed one of his works and creatures, being
erroneously called Word and Wisdom, since he was himself made of
God’s own Word and the Wisdom which is in God, whereby God both
made all things and him also. Wherefore he is as to his nature mutable
and susceptible of change, as all other rational creatures are: hence
the Word is alien to and other than the essence of God; and the Father
is inexplicable by the Son, and invisible to him, for neither does the
Word perfectly and accurately know the Father, neither can he
distinctly see him. The Son knows not the nature of his own essence:
for he was made on our account, in order that God might create us by
him, as by an instrument; nor would he ever have existed, unless God
had wished to create us.
Some one accordingly asked them whether the Word of God
could be changed, as the devil has been? and they feared not to say,
‘Yes, he could; for being begotten, he is susceptible of
change.’ We then, with the bishops of Egypt and Libya, being
assembled together to the number of nearly a hundred, have
anathematized Arius for his shameless avowal of these heresies,
together with all such as have countenanced them. Yet the partisans of
Eusebius have received them; endeavoring to blend falsehood with truth,
and that which is impious with what is sacred. But they shall not
prevail, for the truth must triumph; and ‘light has no fellowship
with darkness, nor has Christ any concord with Belial.’124
Who ever heard such blasphemies? or what man of any piety is there now
hearing them that is not horror-struck, and stops his ears, lest the
filth of these expressions should pollute his sense of hearing? Who
that hears John saying, ‘In the beginning was the Word,’125
does not condemn those that say, ‘There was a period when the
Word was not’? or who, hearing in the Gospel of ‘the
only-begotten Son,’ and that ‘all things were made by
him,’ will not abhor those that pronounce the Son to be one of
the things made? How can he be one of the things which were made by
himself? Or how can he be the only-begotten, if he is reckoned among
created things? And how could he have had his existence from
nonentities, since the Father has said, ‘My heart has indited a
good matter’;126
and ‘I begat thee out of my bosom before the dawn’?127
Or how is he unlike the Father’s essence, who is ‘his
perfect image,’128
and ‘the brightness of his glory’129
and says: ‘He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father’?
Again how if the Son is the Word and Wisdom of God, was there a period
when he did not exist? for that is equivalent to their saying that God
was once destitute both of Word and Wisdom. How can he be mutable and
susceptible of change, who says of himself, ‘I am in the Father,
and the Father in me’;130
and ‘I and the Father are one’;131
and again by the Prophet,132
‘Behold me because I am, and have not changed’? But if any
one may also apply the expression to the Father himself, yet would it
now be even more fitly said of the Word; because he was not changed by
having become man, but as the Apostle says,133
‘Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and forever.’
But what could persuade them to say that he was made on our account,
when Paul has expressly declared134
that ‘all things are for him, and by him’? One need not
wonder indeed at their blasphemous assertion that the Son does not
perfectly know the Father; for having once determined to fight against
Christ, they reject even the words of the Lord himself, when he says,135
‘As the Father knows me, even so know I the Father.’ If
therefore the Father but partially knows the Son, it is manifest that
the Son also knows the Father but in part. But if it would be improper
to affirm this, and it be admitted that the Father perfectly knows the
Son, it is evident that as the
Father knows his own Word, so also does the Word know his own Father,
whose Word he is. And we, by stating these things, and unfolding the
divine Scriptures, have often confuted them: but again as chameleons
they were changed, striving to apply to themselves that which is
written, ‘When the ungodly has reached the depths of iniquity, he
becomes contemptuous.’136
Many heresies have arisen before these, which exceeding all bounds in
daring, have lapsed into complete infatuation: but these persons, by
attempting in all their discourses to subvert the Divinity of The Word, as having made a nearer approach to
Antichrist, have comparatively lessened the odium of former ones.
Wherefore they have been publicly repudiated by the Church, and
anathematized. We are indeed grieved on account of the perdition of
these persons, and especially so because, after having been previously
instructed in the doctrines of the Church, they have now apostatized
from them. Nevertheless we are not greatly surprised at this, for
Hymenæus and Philetus137
fell in like manner; and before them Judas, who had been a follower of
the Saviour, but afterwards deserted him and became his betrayer. Nor
were we without forewarning respecting these very persons: for the Lord
himself said: ‘Take heed that no man deceive you: for many shall
come in my name, saying, I am Christ: and shall many deceive
many’;138
and ‘the time is at hand; Go ye not therefore after them.’139
And Paul, having learned these things from the Saviour, wrote,
‘That in the latter times some should apostatize from the faith,
giving heed to deceiving spirits, and doctrines of devils,’140
| 1401 Tim. iv.
1; Tit. i. 14.
|
who pervert the truth. Seeing then that our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ has himself enjoined this, and has also by the apostle given us
intimation respecting such men, we having ourselves heard their impiety
have in consequence anathematized them, as we before said, and declared
them to be alienated from the Catholic Church and faith. Moreover we
have intimated this to your piety, beloved and most honored
fellow-ministers, in order that ye might neither receive any of them,
if they should presume to come to you, nor be induced to put confidence
in Eusebius, or any other who may write to you about them. For it is
incumbent on us who are Christians, to turn away from all those who
speak or entertain a thought against Christ, as from those who are
resisting God, and are destroyers of the souls of men: neither does it
become us even ‘to salute such men,’141
as the blessed John has prohibited, ‘lest we should at any time
be made partakers of their sins.’ Greet the brethren which are
with you; those who are with me salute you.
Upon Alexander’s thus addressing the bishops in
every city, the evil only became worse, inasmuch as those to whom he
made this communication were thereby excited to contention. And some
indeed fully concurred in and subscribed to the sentiments expressed in
this letter, while others did the reverse. But Eusebius, bishop of
Nicomedia, was beyond all others moved to controversy, inasmuch as
Alexander in his letter had made a personal and censorious allusion to
him. Now at this juncture Eusebius possessed great influence, because
the emperor resided at Nicomedia. For in fact Diocletian had a short
time previously built a palace there. On this account therefore many of
the bishops paid their court to Eusebius. And he repeatedly wrote both
to Alexander, that he might set aside the discussion which had been
excited, and again receive Arius and his adherents into communion; and
also to the bishops in each city, that they might not concur in the
proceedings of Alexander. By these means confusion everywhere
prevailed: for one saw not only the prelates of the churches engaged in
disputing, but the people also divided, some siding with one party, and
some with the other. To so disgraceful an extent was this affair
carried, that Christianity became a subject of popular ridicule, even
in the very theatres. Those who were at Alexandria sharply disputed
about the highest points of doctrine, and sent deputations to the
bishops of the several dioceses; while those who were of the opposite
faction created a similar disturbance.
With the Arians the Melitians mingled themselves, who a
little while before had been separated from the Church: but who these
[Melitians] are must now be stated.
By Peter, bishop of Alexandria, who in the reign of
Diocletian suffered martyrdom, a certain Melitius, bishop of one of the
cities in Egypt, in consequence of many other charges, and more
especially because during the persecution he had denied the faith and
sacrificed, was deposed. This person, being stripped of his dignity,
and having nevertheless many followers, became the leader of the heresy
of those who are to this day called from him Melitians throughout
Egypt. And as he had no rational excuse for his separation from the
Church, he pretended that he had simply been wronged and loaded Peter
with calumnious reproaches. Now Peter died the death of a martyr during
the persecution, and so Melitius transferred his abuse first to
Achillas, who succeeded Peter in the bishopric, and afterwards again to
Alexander, the successor of
Achillas. In this state of things among them, the discussion in
relation to Arius arose; and Melitius with his adherents took part with
Arius,142
| 142Valesius makes the assertion that Socrates is
mistaken here, that the Melitians joined themselves to the Arians after
the council of Nicæa, and were induced by Eusebius, bishop of
Nicomedia, to cast slanderous aspersion upon Athanasius, as he himself
testifies in his second apology against the Arians. It appears unlikely
that the Fathers of the Nicene Council would have treated the Melitians
as leniently as they did had they sided with Arius before the
council.
|
entering into a conspiracy with him against the bishop. But as many as
regarded the opinion of Arius as untenable, justified Alexander’s
decision against him, and thought that those who favored his views were
justly condemned. Meanwhile Eusebius of Nicomedia and his partisans,
with such as favored the sentiments of Arius, demanded by letter that
the sentence of excommunication which had been pronounced against him
should be rescinded; and that those who had been excluded should be
readmitted into the Church, as they held no unsound doctrine. Thus
letters from the opposite parties were sent to the bishop of
Alexandria; and Arius made a collection of those which were favorable
to himself while Alexander did the same with those which were adverse.
This therefore afforded a plausible opportunity of defense to the
sects, which are now prevalent, of the Arians, Eunomians, and such as
receive their name from Macedonius; for these severally make use of
these epistles in vindication of their heresies.
E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
