Arius - one of the most famous heretics; genus. in 256, in Libya (according to others, in Alexandria); mind. in Constantinople. He was educated under Lucian, a presbyter at Antioch, and occupied a prominent position as a presbyter in the church of Alexandria, when the Arian controversy began with Bishop Alexander (in 318) regarding the eternal divinity of Christ and His equality with the Father, which he denied, thinking that Christ had a different essence and was the creation of the Father, although he was created before the world. According to the description, he was a tall, skinny man, with drooping eyebrows, very harsh customs, possessed of considerable learning and soft, alluring speech, but was distinguished by a grumpy character. The silence of his opponents positively proves that his general moral character was impeccable (like the character of Nestorius and Pelagius); and if not for his heresy, he would have been highly respected. His opponents said that the real reason for his opposition to Alexander was personal dissatisfaction with the fact that he himself was not elected bishop; but his views, adopted by him in the Antiochian school, sufficiently explain the direction of his thought and the course of his life. Condemned by the Council of Alexandria (in 320), he left the city, but was kindly received by both Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia, and apparently quite a few in Asia sympathized with his ideas. Reconciliation was achieved between him and Alexander; but as soon as he returned to Alexandria, a dispute flared up again, and with even greater bitterness, so that the entire Christian world was torn apart by disputes. It turned out to be necessary to convene an ecumenical council and at it, despite his many and strong friends, Arius was condemned (325) and expelled to Illyria. Soon, however, there was a reaction in his favor. The Eusebius party took his side even more openly, and through Constance, the emperor’s sister, he gained access to the court. He was formally returned from exile, and all the leaders of the Eusebius party gathered in Constantinople to welcome him back into the fold of the church, when he suddenly died on the eve of this celebration (in 336), having been more than 80 years old - at such a time and so that the Orthodox could not help but see in this the direct action of God's Providence and the condemnation of his teaching, while his supporters attributed his death to poison. Athanasius the Great tells about this event in one letter to Serapion on the basis of the testimony of one priest, Macarius of Constantinople (De Morte Arii, Opera, ed. Benedict. vol. I, p. 1, 340), and Epiphanius (Haer. 68, p. 7) compares his death with the death of Judas the traitor. Socrates (Church Ist. 1:38) gives the following story: “Coming out of the imperial palace, accompanied by a crowd of Eusebius’s followers as bodyguards, Arius proudly walked through the middle of the city, attracting the attention of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine Square, where a column of porphyry was erected, horror, arising from the consciousness of his wickedness, seized him, and was accompanied by severe pain in his stomach. Therefore, he asked if there was a convenient place nearby, and when he was shown the back part of Constantine Square, he hurried there. Soon after, he fainted, and his insides came out along with the stool, accompanied by profuse hemorrhoidal discharge and prolapse of the small intestines. Then, along with the outpouring of blood, parts of his liver and spleen came out, so that he died almost immediately.” Sozomen (Church. Ist. 2:30) conveys a similar story, and adds that subsequently for a long time everyone avoided the place where Arius died with horror, until one rich Arian bought this public place and built a house on it so that to perpetuate the memory of the death of Arius.

Arius's main work, entitled Thalia - Symposium, written by him during his stay with Eusebius of Nicomedia, is a defense of his teaching in an entertaining popular form, half-poetic, half-prosaic; but with the exception of a few fragments in the works of Athanasius the Great, it has not reached us. His letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia and a letter to Alexander of Alexandria have been preserved. His false teaching about the deity of Christ and His relationship to the Father gained him a fame far beyond his actual talents and learning. Neander credits him with wit, but a limited mind without creativity. The main sources of the life and character of Arius, in addition to fragments of his own writings, are the works of Athanasius, chapters 68 and 69 of Epiphanius's work on heresies, the church histories of Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret and Philostorgius. See also the works indicated in p.s. Arianism.

From God’s chosen ones by faith, God-wise, holy children, true believers, those who have received the Holy Spirit of God, partakers of wisdom, educated men, God-taught and wise in all things, I learned this. Following in their footsteps with one mind, I came, publicized everywhere, having suffered much for God’s glory, and having learned wisdom from God, I received knowledge (γνῶσιν έγ ώ ἔγνων).<...>was not always the Father, but it was when God was alone and there was no Father yet; subsequently He became the Father. There was not always a Son. Since everything came from non-existence and everything that happened is a creation and a work, then God’s Word itself came from non-existence; and it was when [the Word] was not, and it was not until it came into being, and It had the beginning of creation. There was only one God, and there was no Word and Wisdom yet. Then, wanting to create us, he created one and called Him Word, Wisdom and Son, so that through Him he could create us.<...>There are two Wisdoms: one proper and one coexisting (τῇ ν ἰδἰαν καἰ συνυπαρχουσαν ) God; The Son is born of this Wisdom and, as a participant (μετέχοντα) in it, is only called Wisdom and Word. For Wisdom from Wisdom was realized by the will of the all-wise God. In God there is another Word besides the Son, and the Son, as partaker of Him, is called by grace the Word and the Son Himself.<...>There are many powers, and just as one by nature (φὐσει) actually (ὶδἰα) is God’s and eternal power, so Christ is not the true power of God, but He is one of the named powers, among which both beetles and caterpillars are called not only power , but also with great power (). There are many other powers, and they are like the Son, about which David sings, saying: “The Lord of hosts” (). And like all these powers, the Word itself is changeable by nature, but by its own freedom, as long as it wants, it remains perfect; and if He wishes, He can change, because It, like us, is of a changeable nature. Therefore, God, having foreseen that the Word would be perfect, first gave Him the glory that man later began to have for virtue; therefore, because of His works, which God foreknew (προέγνω), He created such as It has become today.<...>The Word is not the true God; and if it is called God, it is not true, but by participation of grace; like all others, so It is only spoken by name by God. And just as everyone is alien and unlike (ἀνομοἰων) to God in essence, so the Word is in everything unlike the Father’s essence and properties (ἰδιοτητὁς); consists in property (ἴδιος) with the produced and created and is among them.<...>The way in which the Father exists (ὐπἀρχει) is invisible (ἀὁρατος) to the Son, and the Word cannot completely and exactly see or know His Father; and what He knows and sees, He knows and sees according to (ανἀλὁγως) His measures, just as we know according to our own strengths. For the Son not only does not know the Father exactly, for he is weak to comprehend (καταλαβεἴν) [Him], but the Son does not even know His essence.<...>Separated by nature, disunited, separated, alien and unparticipated (ἀμέτοχοἰ) from one another essence (αἰοὐσἰαι) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and to infinity (έπ ' ἄπειρον) in everything dissimilar to each other in essence and in glory. At least the Word, as far as the likeness of glory and essence is concerned, is completely alien to both - both the Father and the Holy Spirit.<...>The Son exists separately (δι ῃρημένον), By itself, and is completely unrelated (ἀμέτοχον) to the Father.

God was not always the Father, but later became one; The Son was not always there; He did not exist until He was born. He is not from the Father, but came from non-existence, is not actually from the Father’s essence, because he is a creature and a work. Christ is not the true God, but He is deified (ἐθεοποι ήθη) by participation (μετοχ ῇ). The Son does not know the Father exactly; The Word does not see the Father in fullness; The Word does not understand and does not know the Father exactly. [Christ] is not the true and only Father's Word, but by name he is only called Word and Wisdom, and by grace he is called Son and Power. He is not immutable, like the Father, but changeable by nature, like creatures, and is weak in order to fully comprehend the Father.

Athanasius of Alexandria.

Epistle about the councils that took place in Ariminum Italia and in Seleucia Isauria 15

God Himself, since He is such, is ineffable to everyone. He alone has no equal, no similar, no praise to Himself. We call Him unbegotten for the sake of being born by nature; Let us sing praises to Him who is without beginning for the sake of Him who has beginning; We honor Him as eternal for the sake of Him who was born in time. The Beginningless One placed the Son at the beginning of what was created and, having created Him as a child, received Him into His Son. He [the Son] does not have anything that is hypostatically characteristic of God (ἰδιὀτητος), because he is not equal and not consubstantial (ὁμοοὐσιος) with Him. The wise one is God, since He is the teacher of wisdom. Sufficient proof that He is invisible to everyone is that He is invisible both to those through the Son and to the Son Himself. I will say more precisely about how the Invisible is seen by the Son: by the same power by which God can see, in its measure it is possible for the Son to see the Father, as much as is permissible. Thus, there is a Trinity, but their glories are dissimilar and incompatible (ἀνεπἰμικτοι) with each other, one infinitely more glorious than the other in glory. The Father is essentially alien to the Son ( ξένος τοῦ υιοῦ κατ ’ οὐσιαν), because it exists without beginning. Understand that there was a Monad, but the Dyad did not exist until it was realized. Initially, when there is no Son yet, there is God the Father. Therefore, the Son, not being (for He was realized according to the will of the Father), is the Only Begotten God (μονογενἡς θεος) and is alien to both ( έκατέρων ἀλλὁτριος ). Wisdom was realized as Wisdom by the will of the all-wise God. And thus it is conceived under many such concepts - Spirit, Power, Wisdom, Glory of God, Truth, Image, Word. Understand also what is imagined by both Radiance and Light. The Perfect One can beget an equal Son; but it cannot be more excellent, or more perfect, or greater. What kind of Son is, how great, from what moment, from what and how quickly did He come from God - He is by God’s will; He who is strong glorifies the Perfect One to His measure. Briefly say: God exists inexpressibly for the Son, because it is inexpressible what He is for Himself; and therefore not a single one of the predicates is comprehended by the Son and cannot be uttered. For it is impossible for Him to examine the Father as He is in Himself. For the Son does not know His own essence: being the Son, He was truly fulfilled according to the will of the Father. And how is it possible that He who is from the Father knows Him who gave birth through comprehension? It is obvious that it is impossible for one who has a beginning to grasp or grasp with his mind the Beginningless One as He is.

Athanasius of Alexandria.

To the bishops of Egypt and Libya (circuit letter against the Arians) 12

God was not always the Father; there was not always a Son; but just as all things that exist are from non-existence, so the Son of God is from non-existence; and just as all beings are creatures, so He is a creature and a work. Just as all things that exist were not before, but appeared, so there was no time, that the Word of God itself did not exist, and It did not exist until it was born, and has a beginning of being. For then it appeared when it pleased God to create Him; for It is also among the rest of [God’s] works. And although It is changeable by nature (τῇ μέν φὐσει τρεπτὁς ), but, by his own freedom, as far as he wants, he remains perfect. But if it wanted, then It could change, like everything else. That is why, according to foreknowledge that It would be perfect, He previously bestowed upon Him the glory that He would later have for virtue; therefore, because of His works, which God foreknew, He has now become such.<...>Christ is not the true God, but He, like all others, is called God by participation (μετοχῇ).<...>[The Son] is not by nature in the Father, and His own Word of essence, and His own Wisdom, by which this world was created, 2 but there is another in the Father, His own Word, and another in the Father, His own Wisdom, with which Wisdom He created and This word. This Lord himself is called

Epistle of Arius to Alexander of Alexandria.

Athanasius of Alexandria. Epistle about the councils that took place in Ariminum in Italy and in Seleucia of Isauria 16.

The presbyters and deacons wish to rejoice in the Lord to our blessed Pope and Bishop Alexander.

Our faith, received from our ancestors, which we also learned from you, blessed Pope, is this: we know one God, one Unborn, one Eternal, one Beginningless, one True, one Who has immortality, one Wise, one Good, one Ruler, one Judge of all, Ruler, House Builder; Immutable and Unchangeable, Righteous and Good - this God of the Law, the Prophets and the New Testament, who before eternal times gave birth to the Only Begotten Son, by whom He created the worlds and all things, who gave birth not imaginary (δοκ ήσει), but truly. By his own will he established (ὐτ ήσαντα) the immutable, unchangeable (ἄτρεπτον) perfect creation of God, but not as one of the creatures; birth (γέννημα), but not as one of those born ( τῶν γεγεννημἐνων ); not extermination (προβολἡν), which is the Father's birth according to the teaching of Valentine; not a consubstantial part ( μέρος ὁμοοὐσιον ), what is the Father's birth according to the Manichaean explanation; not the Son-Father, as Sabellius called it, dividing the Monad; not a lamp from a lamp or a candle divided into two, as Ierakas said, and not before the being, subsequently born or raised into the Son - just as you yourself, blessed Pope, among the church and at the Council, repeatedly condemned those who give these interpretations; but, as we say, by the will of God, before time and centuries, He received life and existence from the Father, who placed His glory with Him. For the Father, having given Him everything as an inheritance, did not deprive Himself of what He has unbornly, because He is the source of everything. Therefore there are three Hypostases.

And how God, the Cause of everything, is the only one without beginning (ἄναρχος) , so the Son, outside of time (ἀχρἀνως) born of the Father, and before the ages created, and laid in the foundation (θεμελιωθεὶς) , was not until he was born, but he who was born outside of time is first of all one from the Father. For He is not eternal, or co-eternal, or co-born with the Father; and does not exist together with the Father, as a relation (τἀ πρὀς τι) , what others assert, introducing two unborn principles; on the contrary, there is, as the Monad and the beginning of everything, also before everything, and therefore also before the Son, as we were taught this by you who preached among the church. Since [the Son] has his being from God, glory and life and all things are given to Him from God, since God is His beginning. For He rules over Him, as He is His God and He who is before Him. If what is said: “from Him” (Rom. 11:36), “from the womb” (), “came from the Father and I go to the Father” () is understood by others to mean that the Son is a part of the consubstantial and dissolved, then the Father will be, according to them , complex(σὐνθετος) , divisible(διαιρετὁς) , changeable; the incorporeal God, due to their position, will tolerate everything consistent with the body.

Athanasius of Alexandria. Epistle to brother Serapion (about the death of Arius)

Athanasius wishes his brother and co-servant Serapion to rejoice in the Lord. I read what you wrote with your reverence, where you urge me to inform you about what concerns me, about current events, and about the most wicked heresy of the Arians, for which I suffered all this, and also about the end of Arius’s life. Of these three requirements, I fulfilled two willingly and sent what I wrote to the monks for your piety, because from this you can learn what concerns me and the heresy. For a long time I did not dare to write about the latter, that is, about death, fearing that someone would think that I was mocking this man. But since - during your discussion about heresy, the question focused on whether Arius ended his life by entering into communication with , - the story of death seems to resolve this issue, then, of necessity, I took upon myself the trouble of talking about this, reasoning, that making this known means the same thing as finally forcing the hunters to remain silent before an argument. For, as I think, having learned about the miracle that happened at death, even those who previously proposed questions will not dare to doubt that the Arian heresy is hated by God.

I was not in Constantinople when Arius ended his life, but Presbyter Macarius was there, and I heard what was told to them. Arius, at the insistence of Eusebius' followers, was called by King Constantine, and when he appeared, the king

asked him: does it contain the faith of the universal Church? Arius swore that he believed correctly, and submitted a written confession of faith, without saying in it why he was expelled from the Church by Bishop Alexander, and together hiding behind the sayings of Scripture. Therefore, when he confirmed with an oath that he did not hold on to those thoughts for which Alexander 1 cast him out, then the king released him, saying: “If your faith is right, then you did well that you swore. If your faith is wicked and you have sworn, then your case will be judged by your oath.” When, in this way, he left the king, Eusebius’ followers wanted to bring him into the church, with their usual violence. But the Bishop of Constantinople, Alexander of blessed memory, opposed this, saying that the inventor of heresy should not be accepted into communion. Finally, Eusebius’s followers began to speak threateningly: “Just as we did without your permission that the king called him to himself, so in the morning - although there will be no your consent to this - Arius will be present with us at the divine service in this church.” The day when they said this was the Sabbath.

Bishop Alexander, having heard this and being very saddened, enters the church, raises his hands to God, bursts into tears and, throwing himself on his face in the sanctuary, prostrate on the floor, prays. Macarius was with him, prayed together and listened to the words he spoke. The bishop consisted of these two petitions: “If Arius will be with us at the divine service in the morning, then allow me, Thy servant, and do not destroy the pious along with the wicked. And if you spare Your Church (I know that you will spare it), then look at the words of Eusebius’ followers and do not betray Your heritage to destruction and desecration; take Arius away from us, so that when he enters the church, it will not seem that heresy is entering with him, and wickedness will no longer be recognized as piety.” So the bishop prayed and with great concern left the church. And something wonderful and extraordinary happened. When Eusebius' followers made threats, then the bishop prayed, but Arius firmly relied on Eusebius's accomplices. And, having talked a lot, he goes to an unclean place to satisfy his needs and suddenly, according to Scripture, “he fell on his face and sat in the middle.”

For the “offended bishops,” the Arian disputes simply became a reason to assert themselves; they needed Arius only as a banner. Socrates Scholasticus notes that the rulers, carried away by politics, “caused the world even more trouble than before” - the Arian disputes flared up with renewed vigor...

Arius, 1493

To begin with, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea began to work for the return of Arius to the Church of Alexandria. In this way, the “offended bishops” thought to take revenge on the Alexandrian ruler Alexander for their humiliating defeat at the Council of Nicaea. In addition, the introduction of Arius into the Alexandrian Church would mean the final collapse of the policy of opponents of the teachings of the rebellious presbyter, would mean that Arianism and the orthodox, Orthodox branch of Christianity became at least equal. And from equality to complete and final triumph is one step. And this step was not so difficult to take - given the outstanding abilities of the Arian leaders for political intrigue.

Eusebius and Theognis were all the more confident of success because one of their most authoritative opponents, Saint Alexander of Alexandria, had died.

Saint Alexander of Alexandria

However, attempts to return Arius to Alexandria encountered stubborn resistance from the successor of St. Alexander, the new bishop of Alexandria, Athanasius.

The new adamant Bishop of Alexandria - Athanasius

We read about Bishop Athanasius in the book of Socrates Scholasticus: “Rufinus says that, while still a child, Athanasius and his peers were already playing a sacred game: it was an imitation of the priesthood and the class of initiates. In this game, Athanasius received the throne of the bishop, and of the other children, each represented either a presbyter or a deacon. The children repeated this game every time on the day when the memory of the martyrs and Bishop Peter was celebrated. At this time, the Alexandrian bishop Alexander, passing by, saw the children playing and, calling them to him, asked each of them which face each of them represented in the game, and from the game he tried to predict something about their characteristics. He also ordered to take these children to church and teach them, especially Athanasius. The latter, when he came of age, Alexander ordained him a deacon and took him with him to Nicaea as his assistant at the Council there.”

Saint Athanasius the Great

Bishop Athanasius, who will go down in history as St. Athanasius the Great, turned out to be as adamant as his predecessor at the Alexandrian see. Ermius Sozomen of Salamis talks about the disputes between Athanasius and Eusebius of Nicomedia: “First Eusebius wrote to him and in his letters tried to persuade him to accept the followers of Arius; If he did not obey, he threatened to do him harm in writing. But (Athanasius) did not agree to this, arguing that the inventors of heresy to distort the truth - people overthrown by the Council of Nicaea - cannot be accepted.” And all efforts to force Bishop Athanasius to accept Arius into his Church remained in vain.

The Bishop continued to insist: it is not right for the Orthodox to accept known heretics into fellowship. It became clear that Arius could only be returned to Alexandria if Bishop Athanasius was removed from Alexandria. The Arians again resorted to their favorite weapon - political intrigue.

The next political intrigues of the Arians

Bishops Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicea, Maris of Chalcedon, Eusebius of Caesarea, Urzakis of Singidon and Valens of Mursia united against the Alexandrian ruler. Socrates Scholasticus tells about the intrigues that the Arians plotted against Athanasius: “At first they began to attack his ordination and argued that he did not deserve the bishopric and was elected by untrustworthy people. But on this side, Athanasius was clearly above slander, because he passionately fought for the Nicene faith, having been authorized to do so by the Alexandrian Church... So, Eusebius wrote to Athanasius and asked him to accept Arius with like-minded people. But his message contained requests, and threats for everyone to hear. Seeing, however, that Athanasius would not obey, Eusebius decided to persuade the king to allow Arius to appear before him and then give him the right to go to Alexandria.”

Emperor Constantine the Great believed the intriguers and gave the appropriate orders: Arius received the right to return to Alexandria and begin preaching. However, Saint Athanasius refused to submit even to the emperor himself. According to Socrates Scholasticus, regardless of orders, “Athanasius did not accept the one who came to Alexandria and turned away from him as if he were filthy.”. Thus, Athanasius risked incurring the royal wrath. Constantine's letters to the ruler of Alexandria became more and more menacing: “Having proof of my will, you must allow everyone who wishes to join the Church to freely enter into the Church. If I find out that you have prevented anyone from joining the Church, or have denied entry into it, I will immediately send you to depose you, according to my orders, and take you out of those places.”

Arius is back. Arius continues to cause discord

Arius

Meanwhile, Arius continued to spread his teachings, which caused discord in the Christian community. Ermiy Sozomen testifies: “Arianism again became the cause of turmoil: the people and the clergy began to interrupt mutual communication, and hostility for Aryan opinions flared up not only in Alexandria, but also in other cities, especially in Bithynia, the Hellespont and Constantinople.”. At the same time, the Arians convinced the emperor that the main reasons for the discord were “Athanasius’s stubbornness and intractability”. Having entered into an alliance with other heretics, the Meletians, “They began to slander Constantine, as if Athanasius was the cause of all the anxiety and confusion in the community of believers, because he rejected those who wanted to join the Church; meanwhile, if this were allowed, everyone would come to a consensus. The truth of such slander against him was also confirmed by many of the bishops and clergy of (Meletiev's successor) John. Often coming to the king, they pretended to be Orthodox, and Athanasius and his bishops were accused of murder, imprisonment, unjust beatings, wounds, and burning of churches.” By the way, interesting parallels can be drawn with our time...

In the end, Bishop Athanasius was forced to leave Alexandria and, by imperial decree, went into exile in Gaul. Arius and his like-minded people immediately entered Alexandria and - word to Socrates Scholasticus - “He outraged everyone, especially since the people of Alexandria were very poor at that time - both from the arrival of Arius with his accomplices, and from the departure of Bishop Athanasius into exile. Soon the king, hearing that Arius had distorted his way of thinking, ordered him to appear again in Constantinople and give an account of the new excitement that arose from that.”

Arius again justified himself before the emperor. And, in addition, I received very pleasant news: the council, held in Jerusalem, made an official decision to accept the rebellious presbyter back into the Church. It was decided to hold the solemn ceremony of the “reunification” of the heresiarch with the Church in one of the churches of Constantinople. The date for Arius' "triumph" was set.

Socrates Scholastic writes: “In Constantinople, Alexander, the long-time successor of Mitrofan, happened to be the primate of the Church at that time. The godliness of this man was revealed from his current debate with Arius, for as soon as Arius arrived, the people were again divided into two sides and there was confusion in the city: some said that the Nicene faith should not be shaken in any way, while others argued that Arius’s opinion was fair, and Alexander was in the most difficult circumstances - especially since Eusebius of Nicomedia many times threatened to immediately depose him if he did not accept Arius and his like-minded people into communion. Alexander was not so much worried about the danger of being deposed as he was horrified by the desire of his opponents to pervert the dogma. Considering himself the guardian of conciliar definitions, he used all measures so that no one would deviate from their meaning. Finding himself in such cramped circumstances, Alexander left dialectics alone and resorted to God - he began to spend time in constant fasting and in no way omitted prayer. His intention was to carry out his plan in secret. Locking himself alone in the church named after the world, and entering the altar, he threw himself face down under the sacred meal and prayed tearfully; Having spent many days and nights in a row in this, what he asked from God, he received. And his request was the following: if the teaching of Arius is true, then let the bishop himself not see the day appointed for the competition, and when true faith is the faith contained by the bishop, then let Arius, as the culprit of all troubles, receive punishment for his wickedness.”

“Triumph” Aria and sudden “accusatory” death

And literally the next day an unexpected event occurs. Professor M.E. Posnov puts the essence of the matter as follows: “Arius, who was an old man, could not bear the unrest and died suddenly before the act of introduction was completed.”

Ermiy Sozomen describes the events as follows: “Arius went out somewhere and suddenly feeling an upset in his womb and a natural need, he retreated to the public place designated for this. Since he did not come out for a long time, those who were waiting for him entered there and saw that he was sitting dead. When this became known, they began to draw different conclusions about his death: some thought that a sudden illness in his heart happened to him, or that he died of pleasure, having achieved what he wanted; while others believed that he was being punished for his impiety. Like-minded people of Arius claimed that he was killed by magic.”

Socrates Scholasticus offers the reader a scene worthy of a horror film: “Having believed Arius, the king ordered the Bishop of Constantinople Alexander to accept him into communion. It was the Sabbath day, and the next day Arius hoped to join the Church. But the punishment was already on the heels of his daring actions. Coming out of the royal palace, Arius, accompanied by his bodyguards, the Eusebians, walked through the very middle of the then city and drew everyone’s attention to himself. When he was already near the so-called Square of Constantine, on which a porphyry column was erected, some kind of fear of conscience took possession of him, and along with the fear came an extreme relaxation of the stomach. Therefore, he asked if there was an aphedron101 somewhere nearby and, having learned that there was one behind Constantine Square, he went there and fell into such exhaustion that with eruptions the back of his body immediately fell off, and then a large amount of blood poured out and the thinnest entrails came out, with his spleen and liver bled out, and he died immediately. This aphedron is still shown in Constantinople to this day; it is located, as I said, behind Constantine Square and the market in the portico. Everyone passing by, pointing a finger at him, thereby reminds him of the kind of death that befell Aria.”.

The Council of Nicaea and the Death of Arius, illustration to the Speculum historiale by Vincent of Beauvais

Professor A.A. Spassky believes that Sozomen and Socrates Scholasticus talk about the death of Arius “with great embellishment,” and the factual side of the matter “is conveyed by Athanasius.” Saint Athanasius the Great writes: “The general end of life for all people is death, and no one should be blamed for dying, even if it were an enemy; for it is unknown whether the same thing will happen to us until the evening. But the death of Arius did not happen simply, and therefore is worthy of a story. When the Eusebians threatened to bring him into the Church; then the Bishop of Constantinople, Alexander, opposed this, and Arius relied on the force and threats of Eusebius. Saturday arrived, and the next day he hoped to be introduced into the church assembly. The struggle was great: they threatened, but Alexander prayed. But the Lord himself appeared as a judge and decided the case against the unrighteous. The sun had not yet set when Arius, prompted by need, came to a certain place and fell there, suddenly deprived of both - both communication and life. Having learned about this, blessed Constantine was surprised and saw that the perjurer had been exposed. Then it became clear to everyone how powerless the threats of the Eusebians were, and how vain the hope of Arius was. And at the same time it became clear that Arian madness was deprived of communication by the Savior both here and in the Church of the Firstborn.”

Who benefited from Aria's death?

One way or another, it is clear: Arius’s death was sudden and unexpected for everyone. The Arians, of course, immediately accused the Orthodox of the murder of Arius. However, these accusations are completely devoid of logic. Besides everything else, the Orthodox had no motive for organizing the assassination attempt on Arius. Arius was a completely dependent figure.

As Professor A.A. rightly noted. Spassky, “Aria cannot be called either the sole culprit of the dispute raised by him, nor the founder of that teaching, which forever remained closely associated with his name. He was only one of many representatives of the Lucian circle that arose at the beginning of the 4th century, a theological trend that developed independently of him and earlier than he attracted general attention with his contradiction to Alexander. All that Arius did was that in his person this new direction for the first time collided with the opposite Alexandrian direction, and as a result of this a dispute began, which sooner or later, but necessarily, would flare up in addition to Arius. That is why, among other figures of Arianism, Arius never occupied the position of head or leader. Circumstances brought him forward and placed him at the center of the events that filled the initial stage of the Arian movements, so that, apparently, the whole question came down to his personality. But when, after the Council of Nicaea, the conditions of the disputing parties changed, Arius also left the forefront along with them, and his personal fate did not have any influence on the further development of the movement.”

Actually, with his death, nothing changed for the Orthodox. But there was a group of people for whom the death of Arius was very beneficial - the Eusebians, supporters of the restless Nicomedia bishop, who fought against the Nicene Symbol under the banner of Arianism. Arius interfered with this group - with his intransigence and his stubbornness. The heresiarch did not agree to give up a single line of his “teaching”, and prevented him from recruiting people for whom “strict Arianism” was too “revolutionary” as supporters. The group of Eusebians, according to Spassky, “rejected the original Arianism more energetically than the consubstantial ones”... However, one cannot write off the banal version that Arius simply died from unrest, of which he suffered quite a lot since the beginning of the Arian disputes .

Is Aria's business his own business?

Saint Athanasius the Great sums up the life of the heresiarch: “Such, they say, was the death of Arius. There is a legend that for a long time no one used the chair on which he died. And when many entered the said public place for the sake of need - which is usually done by the common people - those who entered warned each other against that chair. Thus, to the place in which Arius received punishment for his wickedness, and subsequent people had some kind of disgust. However, after a while, one of Arius’ like-minded people, a rich and strong man, tried to buy it from the treasury and, having built a house on it, changed its previous appearance; so that it has been erased from the memory of the people and the successive tradition no longer mockingly remembers the death of Arius.”

The identification of the “mad Arius” from the vision of Peter of Alexandria with the heresiarch originates with Sozomen. Fresco by the Zografi brothers, 1750

In the same way, in place of the teachings of Arius, they created a new heresy, which in many ways did not coincide with “strict Arianism” in letter, but almost completely coincided with it in spirit. And they tried to forget the father of Arianism as quickly as possible. Professor A.A. Spassky writes: “In the forties of the fourth century, that is, just twenty years after the start of the controversy, at the Council of Antioch, Arius’s closest collaborators themselves renounced him. The first confessional formula issued by this council opens with the following statement: “we were not followers of Arius, for how, being bishops, could we follow the presbyter?” - and meanwhile at the head of the council was the same Eusebius, who was the first of the eastern The bishops took the side of Arius. And this fate of Arius in the Arian disputes is clear: the case of Arius was not his personal matter - it affected deeper and more general interests, the interests of a vast and influential circle of learned theologians, who, over time, took charge of it into their own hands."

The ending follows.

List of used literature:

Spassky A.A. "The history of the dogmatic movement in the era of ecumenical councils." Second edition. - Sergiev Posad, 1914.

Ermiy Sozomen "Church History". - St. Petersburg, 1851.

Orthodox encyclopedia edited by Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill. Electronic version. http://www.pravenc.ru/

Brilliantov A.I. On the question of the philosophy of Erigena and the history of the Arian dispute. The origin of Monophysitism. Works on the history of the ancient Church. - St. Petersburg, 2006.

Posnov M.E. "History of the Christian Church (before the division of churches in 1054)". - Sofia, 1937. (electronic version)

Socrates Scholastic. Church history. - M., 1996.

He served as a presbyter in Alexandria, was an excellent speaker, and wrote poetry. Believed that the Son of God was only a perfect creation, but not God. Arius and Arianism were condemned First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea in 325. Of Arius’s literary heritage, only a small work has survived, written partly in verse and partly in prose, called “The Feast,” reflecting his religious beliefs.

Byzantine dictionary: in 2 volumes / [comp. General Ed. K.A. Filatov]. SPb.: Amphora. TID Amphora: RKhGA: Oleg Abyshko Publishing House, 2011, vol. 1, p. 118.

Arius (256-336) - early Byzantine philosopher and theologian, famous “heresiarch”, who denied the “consubstantiality, co-beginning and equivalence” of the second person of the Trinity (Son, or Logos) to the first person (Father). A.'s writings have come down to us in fragments; the main work "Falia", in which poetry interspersed with prose, once enjoyed considerable popularity. Several of his letters have also survived.

According to his doctrine. The Son is separated from the Father by an ontological abyss, being, like the whole world, a creation of the Father, albeit a special, chosen creation, a mediator between God and the world. He argued that the Son was created in time and "there was a time when the Son was not." The inequality of God and the Son is the main position of Arianism: only God is “not begotten.” The Son-Logos had a beginning of His being, otherwise He would not have been the Son; he was created out of nothing by the will of the Father; He is a creature. After God, He has the highest dignity; His will was originally disposed towards both good and evil. And only through the direction of his free will did He become sinless and good.

Arianism, not without success, fought with orthodox Christianity for the position of the dominant religion of the empire. The Arian dispute lasted sixty years and led to the definition of the Trinitarian dogma (the dogma of the Holy Trinity). A. was condemned by the church, but his teaching, Arianism, found many followers among the urban middle strata (artisans, merchants).

Kirilenko G.G., Shevtsov E.V. Brief philosophical dictionary. M. 2010, p. 14-15.

Arius, (256, Libya /?/ - 336, Constantinople) - Alexandrian presbyter, heretic; The emergence of Arianism, the main heresy of the 4th century, is associated with his name. A. became famous in Alexandria during the persecution of Christians under the emperor Galerius (305-311). According to some sources, A. was ordained a deacon by Bishop Melegius, according to others - by Archbishop Peter, who subsequently excommunicated him from the church.

After the martyrdom of Archbishop Peter (311), A. united with the Alexandrian Church. Alexander, Bishop of Achilus ordained him a presbyter. A. belonged to the school of the Antiochene exegete and theologian martyr. Luciana. He was not an original thinker and relied heavily on the theology of his teacher, so in a strict sense he cannot be considered the founder of Arianism. In addition to Lucianian elements, Arian doctrine was partly influenced by Origenian views. Arianism introduces a hierarchical relationship between the hypostases of the Holy One. Trinity. It comes from the concept of God as a perfect unity. Everything else that really exists is alien to God in essence, has a different, its own essence, therefore the Son of God, as a hypostasis, is unconditionally and completely unlike the Father.

The reason for the emergence of Arian disputes was A.’s clash with Bishop Alexander of Alexandria (in 318) regarding the question of the Divinity of Christ and His equality with the Father, which A. denied, believing that Christ was the creation of the Father, although he was created before the world. A. was followed by the warming of the Alexandrian clergy. To resolve the dispute by the emperor Constantine I the Great The First Ecumenical Council was convened in Nicaea (325). At the Council, A. was condemned and expelled to Illyria. Soon after the Council, Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea openly sided with A. and managed to achieve his return from exile. A. died suddenly in Constantinople. Arianism was adopted by the Goths and persisted with them longer than in the Greco-Roman world, although there is evidence that the Arians remained in Constantinople until the 6th century. A.'s main work, “Thalia,” was an apology for his teaching in a popular, half poetic, half prosaic form; with the exception of a few fragments in the works of St. Athanasius the Great, it has not survived. A.'s letters to bishops Eusebius of Nicomedia and Alexander of Alexandria are known.

Arius (256 - 336 AD) - an outstanding theologian of Greek-Egyptian or Berber origin. We know almost nothing about his genealogy, but it is known, for example, that his father’s name was Ammonius. He studied at the theological school (presbyterium) in Antioch (now it is Turkish Antakya) under the guidance of the famous Greek anti-trinitarian theologian, presbyter and martyr Lucian of Antioch. Arius is often considered the founder of “Arianism” as a kind of “heretical” teaching, new to the Christian world and subsequently refuted by the First Ecumenical Council of Nika in 325. However, the teachings of Arius were in no way new to Christianity; moreover, Arius’ system largely summed up many trends in theological thought I - III centuries, going back one way or another to apostolic times. Arius and his like-minded people tried to prevent heretical tendencies that were alien to the Christian apostolic faith, but the efforts of Emperor Constantine the Great, who until the end of his life remained the “great pontiff” (i.e., in fact, a pagan high priest) and, ironically, was baptized on his deathbed The Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia actually took the true apostolic faith underground, replacing it with a kind of chimera of “imperial Christianity,” which was in fact a Christo-pagan sect.

Already by the beginning of IV V. Arius became well known for his strong and uncompromising theological views. His name was closely associated with Lucian of Antioch and with Meletius, the Egyptian bishop who led the church dissident movement against the Alexandrian Archbishop Peter I and, although subsequently accepting the Nicene Creed, remained unrecognized by Alexandria and Rome. In the course of further theological disputes, Arius was deprived of church communion by Archbishop Peter I , but subsequently became close to Peter’s successor Achilles. Later, Arius was restored to church communion and ordained a presbyter by Achilles, who occupied the archbishop's see for one year (312-313). While in the rank of presbyter, Arius was made dean for the district of Baucalis in the diocese of Alexandria, but soon Achilles died, and Arius again became the object of fierce attacks - this time from the newly elected Archbishop of Alexandria Alexander I , in which Arius’s supporters rightly saw a hidden follower of the Sabellian heresy.

Arius's most important work was the Thalia (which can be translated as "The Banquet"), a cross between a theological treatise, a fictional narrative, and a poem. “Thalia” alternated both prose and poetry, but it is almost impossible to draw any clear conclusions regarding the composition, structure and poetics of “Thalia”, since only completely unrepresentative fragments have reached us in the retelling of Arius’s opponents, and all copies of “Thalia” "were burned at the Council of Nicaea

Despite the condemnation of the First Ecumenical Council (which in its content was not Ecumenical - according to the most optimistic estimates, no more than 318-322 bishops gathered there, and these were bishops only from the Eastern half of the Roman Empire, and even then not all), Arius continued his struggle against the heretical innovations that the Trinitarian doctrine carried. His defrocking in Egypt in 321 was not recognized by the overwhelming majority of eastern bishops, and in particular, his views were recognized as Orthodox in Asia Minor, where Arius visited in 323, and this recognition was not hindered by either the anathema of the Ecumenical Council or condemnation by Emperor Constantine I in the same year 325. Moreover, the post-Nicene recognition of Arius and the subsequent revenge of Arianism both in the East and in the West of the Empire (recall that only a few of the Western bishops were present at the Council of Nicaea) led to the fact that the number of followers of Arius among clergy and laity throughout the empire even exceeded number of champions of the newly proclaimed Nicene “orthodoxy.” All this was the reason that even members of the imperial family, and subsequently the emperor himself, began to show interest in Arius and Arianism. Soon, Constantine ordered Athanasius of Alexandria - Arius's main opponent in the East - to urgently reconcile with Arius and restore communication with him. However, almost immediately after the audience that Arius was granted with Constantine in the imperial palace, the disgraced Alexandrian presbyter died suddenly on his way home. The followers of Arius believed, not without reason, that their spiritual teacher had actually been poisoned.

Despite the secondary condemnation of Arianism, as well as its secondary version - Macedonianism - at the Council of Constantinople in 381 (which later became the Second Ecumenical), the legacy of Arius continued to live and enjoy popularity - both among the laity and lower clergy, and among the highest episcopate and the emperors themselves. In a sense, Arianism was rehabilitated by one of its actual persecutors - Emperor Constantine I The Great One, who, already on his deathbed, was baptized by an Arian bishop. Subsequently, Arianism was supported by his son and successor - Emperor Constantius II , who even approved the erection of Pope Felix II as Arian Bishop of Rome. In general, the Arian disputes lasted for 250 years - until Arianism, having been officially destroyed and outlived, went underground. During the “dark ages” of the Middle Ages, more and more new heirs of the Arian faith and actual spiritual successors of Arius appeared on the historical arena in the struggle to return the Church to its original, apostolic appearance. The Trinitarians repeatedly attempted to put an end to any remnants of Arianism, but even the Spanish Inquisition failed to destroy those who, under difficult conditions, were destined to become the spiritual heirs of Arius. When the Roman Catholic Church began to experience a severe organizational crisis and began to lose its position in Central and Northern Europe, Arianism was reborn like the mythical Phoenix; this time - in the English Church. Currently, the protagonist of the modern Arian movement in Christianity is the Arian Catholic Church, which is headed by the ArchbishopPrimus Inter pares(First Among Equals) Rev. Brian Michael-John Mackenzie-Hanson.

Arius is revered by the Arian Catholic Church as a saint and martyr. The glorification of Arius took place on June 16, 2006, and now this day is considered the day of his memory.

Arius was never an official heretic! This interesting detail is often not taken into account by anyone, but, nevertheless, Arius was officially restored to church communion shortly before his death in 336 as a result of the corresponding sanction of Emperor Constantine I.

Despite fierce pressure from the Roman Catholic Church, Arianism did not lose its position for almost 250 years and continued to exist in full or partial underground, away from the church “mainstream”, among the so-called “church fringes” - until it was again not strengthened by an honest and impartial search for Truth among caring Christians, for whom the most important thing in spiritual life was not submission to an official hierarchy, but the search for the living Word.

St. Arius of Alexandria (256-336 AD)

was born : 256 G ., Libya..
died : 336, Constantinople.
canonized: 2006, England.

Beatification St.. Arius by the Arian Catholic Church occurred on July 1, 2005. Arius was canonized as a saint less than a year later, on June 16, 2006. From that day on, his official name was Saint Arius of Alexandria, presbyter and martyr.