|
ALTHOUGH, as we have shown, religion was in a flourishing
condition at this period, yet the churches were disturbed by sore
contentions; for under the pretext of piety and of seeking the more
perfect discovery of God, certain questions were agitated, which had
not, till then, been examined. Arius was the originator of these
disputations. He was a presbyter of the church at Alexandria in
Egypt, and was at first a zealous thinker about doctrine, and upheld
the innovations of Melitius. Eventually, however, he abandoned this
latter opinion, and was ordained deacon by Peter, bishop of
Alexandria, who afterwards cast him out of the church, because when
Peter anathematized the zealots of Melitius and rejected their
baptism, Arius assailed him for these acts and could not be restrained
in quietness. After the martyrdom of Peter, Arius asked forgiveness
of Achillas, and was restored to his office as deacon, and afterwards
elevated to the presbytery. Afterwards Alexander, also, held him in
high repute, since he was a most expert logician; for it was said that
he was not lacking in such knowledge. He fell into absurd discourses,
so that he had the audacity to preach in the church what no one before
him had ever suggested; namely, that the Son of God was made out of
that which had no prior existence, that there was a period of time in
which he existed not; that, as possessing free will, he was capable
of vice and virtue, and that he was created and made: to these, many
other similar assertions were added as he went forward into the
arguments and the details of inquiry. Those who heard these doctrines
advanced, blamed Alexander for not opposing the innovations at
variance with doctrine. But this bishop deemed it more advisable to
leave each party to the free discussion of doubtful topics, so that by
persuasion rather than by force, they might cease from contention;
hence he sat down as a judge with some of his clergy, and led both
sides into a discussion. But it happened on this occasion, as is
generally the case in a strife of words, that each party claimed the
victory. Arius defended his assertions, but the others contended that
the Son is consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father. The
council was convened a second time, and the same points contested, but
they came to no agreement amongst themselves. During the debate,
Alexander seemed to incline first to one party and then to the others
; finally, however, he declared himself in favor of those who
affirmed that the Son was consubstantial and co-eternal with the
Father, and he commanded Arius to receive this doctrine, and to
reject his former opinions. Arius, however, would not be persuaded
to compliance, and many of the bishops and clergy considered his
statement of doctrine to be correct. Alexander, therefore, ejected
him and the clergy who concurred with him in sentiment from the church.
Those of the parish of Alexandria, who had embraced his opinions,
were the presbyters Aithalas, Achillas, Carpones, Sarmates, and
Arius, and the deacons Euzoius, Macarius, Julius, Menas, and
Helladius. Many of the people, likewise, sided with them: some,
because they imagined their doctrines to be of God; others, as
frequently happens in similar cases, because they believed them to have
been ill-treated and unjustly excommunicated. Such being the state of
affairs at Alexandria, the partisans of Arius, deeming it prudent to
seek the favor of the bishops of other cities, sent legations to them;
they sent a written statement of their doctrines to them, requesting
them that, if they considered such sentiments to be of God, they
would signify to Alexander that he ought not to molest them; but that
if they disapproved of the doctrines, they should teach them what
opinions were necessary to be held. This precaution was of no little
advantage to them; for their tenets became thus universally
disseminated, and the questions they had started became matters of
debate among all the bishops. Some wrote to Alexander, entreating
him not to receive the partisans of Arius into communion unless they
repudiated their opinions, while others wrote to urge a contrary line
of conduct. When Alexander perceived that many who were revered by
the appearance of good conduct, and weighty by the persuasiveness of
eloquence, held with the party of Arius, and particularly Eusebius,
president of the church of Nicomedia, a man of considerable learning
and held in high repute at the palace; he wrote to the bishops of every
church desiring them not to hold communion with them. This measure
kindled the zeal of each party the more, and as might have been
expected, the contest was increasingly agitated. Eusebius and his
partisans had often petitioned Alexander, but could not persuade him;
so that considering themselves insulted, they became indignant and came
to a stronger determination to support the doctrine of Arius. A synod
having been convened in Bithynia, they wrote to all the bishops,
desiring them to hold communion with the Arians, as with those making
a true confession, and to require Alexander to hold communion with
them likewise. As compliance could not be extorted from Alexander
Arius sent messengers to Paulinas, bishop of Tyre, to Eusebius
Pamphilus, who presided over the church of Caesarea in Palestine,
and to Patrophilus, bishop of Scythopolis, soliciting permission for
himself and for his adherents, as they had previously attained the rank
of presbyters, to form the people who were with them into a church.
For it was the custom in Alexandria, as it still is in the present
day, that all the churches should be under one bishop, but that each
presbyter should have his own church, in which to assemble the people.
These three bishops, in concurrence with others who were assembled in
Palestine, granted the petition of Arius, and permitted him to
assemble the people as before; but enjoined submission to Alexander,
and commanded Arius to strive incessantly to be restored to peace and
communion with him.
|
|