|
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
Caesarea, 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 high 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,' 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. 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 oven 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, Euzoius, 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; 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 Fathers true Word,
or true Wisdom, but indeed one of his works 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.' 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,' 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'; and ' I
begat thee out of my bosom before the dawn'? Or how is he unlike the
Father's essence, who is 'his perfect image,' and 'the brightness
of his glory' 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'; and 'I and the
Father are one'; and again by the Prophet, '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 fifty
said of the Word; because he was not changed by having become man,
but as the Apostle says, '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 declared that 'all
things are for him, and by 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, ' 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.'
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 hating 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 Hymenaeus and
Philetus" fell in like manner; and before them betrayer. Nor were
we without forewarning respecting these very persons: for the Lord
himself said: ' Take heed that no man deceive 'the time is at hand;
Go ye not therefore after them.' 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,' 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 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 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 saute such men,' 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 sliding 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, 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 thor name
from Macedonius; for these severally make use of these epistles in
Vindication of their heresies.
|
|