 |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
An alternative theory of | Arius of Alexandria
Web Publication by Mountain Man Graphics, Australia
 | |||||
|
|
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
An alternative theory of | Arius of Alexandria
Web Publication by Mountain Man Graphics, Australia
| |||||
SOURCES: SOURCE (1): 0000 CE - Thalia; Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, Revised Edition, 98-116 SOURCE (2): 0325 CE - Earliest of the Nicaean "Creeds" SOURCE (3): 0327 CE - Emperor Constantine to Arius SOURCE (4): 0333 CE - Emperor Constantine's "Circular" SOURCE (5): 0333 CE - Constantine's "Dear Arius Letter SOURCE (6): 0425 CE - Philip of Side - Fragments (MAR 2011) SOURCE 1: (original basic beliefs) He claimed that God Himself, as he really is, is inexpressible to all. He claimed that this inexpressible essence alone has no equal He claimed that this inexpressible essence alone has no one similar (homoios) He claimed that this inexpressible essence alone has no one of the same glory. He claimed that he and his supporters called this inexpressible essence unbegotten, in contrast to an essence who by nature is begotten. He claimed that he and his supporters praised this inexpressible essence as without beginning in contrast to an essence who has a beginning. He claimed that he and his supporters worshipped this inexpressible essence as timeless, in contrast to an essence who in time has come to exist. SOURCE 2: (c.325 CE, Nicaea) He claimed that "There was time when Jesus was not" He claimed that "Before Jesus was born Jesus was not" He claimed that "Jesus was made out of nothing existing" He claimed that "Jesus is/was from another subsistence/substance" He claimed that "Jesus is subject to alteration or change" SOURCE 3: (c.327 CE, Syria?) He was known for his stubborness He was asked by Constantine whether he might want to come to Constantine's headquarters He was asked by Constantine whether perhaps he could enjoy the privilege of seeing Constantine He made Constantine amazed that he had not immediately turned up He was ordered to hasten to Constantine's court He was offered a public (official) vehicle in order to hasten to Constantine's court He was asked to obtain the favour of Constantine He was advised that he "may" then be able to return to his own country. SOURCE 4: (c.333 CE, Syria?) He imitated He imitated the evil He imitated the wicked He was rebuked He was rejected He was just like Porphyry (a non-christian Neopythagorean academic) He was like Porphyry in that he was an enemy of the fear of God He was like Porphyry in that he wrote wicked writings against the religion of Christians, He was like Porphyry in that he wrote unlawful writings against the religion of Christians, He was like Porphyry in that he was a reproach to all generations after He was like Porphyry in that he fully and insatiably used base fame He was like Porphyry in that on this account his writings were righteously destroyed He was to be called a Porphyrian He had supporters who were also to be called Porphyrians He was renamed He was renamed so that he may be named by another name He was renamed to the name of those whose evil ways he imitated He was renamed so that he may be named by the name of those whose evil ways he imitated His writings wherever they be found were to be delivered to be burnt with fire His wicked and evil doctrine was to be destroyed His doctrines were to be blotted out His very memory was to be blotted out He was permitted by no means that there remain to him any remembrance in the world. He was the subject of "damnation" His books were being secreted or hidden His books were not to be secreted or hidden but were to be delivered to the fire His books were to be delivered by citizens to the fire on punishment of death His books in one's possession would result in capital punishment by beheading without delay. SOURCE (5): (c.333 CE, Syria?) He was a wicked interpreter He was an image and a statue of the Devil He had a nature absolutely most base He offered error He proffered profusely the poisons of his own effrontery He introduced a belief of unbelief. He introduced a belief of unbelief that is completely new. He was trusty for evil He had lost the grace of taking advice. He vomited pernicious words He produced pernicious words his writings He did not coexist with the Eternal Father of his origin He wrote books that collected and gathered terrible and lawless impieties He wrote books that agitated tongues [Editor: Very popular books] He wrote books which deceived and destroyed He said "Either let us hold that, of which already we have been made possessors, or let it be done, just as we ourselves desire." He had fallen in matters. He had fallen dead in matters He considered holy only what was in him He said "We have the masses." He was a warrior of insanity. He was an Ares He fashioned the finest things for the masses He had little piety toward Christ He needed to be cured. He had the audacity worthy to be destroyed by thunderbolts! He wrote with a pen distilling poison He added certain things somehow swaggeringly He added certain things quite accurately elaborated He went further and opened the whole treasury of madness He asked to celebrate services to God in Alexandria He asked to celebrate the lawful and indispensable services to God in Alexandria He has terrible shamelessness He needes to be refuted and thoroughly He answered to "foolish one" He constructed a disease of savage thought He constructed a discord against the church He was involved in evil. He hastened to destroy his friends He had a mask of modesty He pretended silence He showed himself to be tame and submissive He used the artifice of pretence; He - within - wass full of countless evils and plots. He was made by the desire of the Devil He was made as a manufactory of iniquity for us. He possessed a perverted mouth He possessed a nature quickly roused to wickedness! He talked of one God. He added things further to orthodox doctrines He was abrogated He joined things to an impous separation of orthodox doctrines He substituted a foreign hypostasis He undoubtedly believed badly He detracted from Jesus who is indetractable He paved the way for the marks of addition He detracted from the uncorrupted intelligence of Jesus He detracted from the belief in immortality of Jesus He detracted from the uncorrupted intelligence of the Church He engaged in silly transgression of the law He was a witty and sweet-voiced fellow He sang evil songs of unbelief He was quite fittingly subverted by the Devil He was a wicked person He was a destructive evil. He was barred publicly from God’s church He was (be well assured) lost He engaged in folly. He claimed the masses acted with him. He did not listen to Constantine. He did not lend his ears to Constantine. He did not understand his folly He was clearly mad He was a knave He never admited where in the world he was He wrote letters to Constantine with a pen of madness He claimed all the Libyan populace was supporting him He was not really blameless He was a gallows rogue He did not perish even when surrounded by great horror He was known for his wits - they were not dull He was a profane person He undermined the (orthodox) truth He undermined the (othodox) truth by various discourses He was a sick and helpless soul He was not ashamed to disparage (state orthodox) doctrine He refuted (state orthodox) doctrine He admonished (state orthodox) doctrine He seemed superior in faith He seemed superior in discourse He was a source of aid for people He was not to be associated with He was not to be addressed He was the author of rotten words and meters He was notorious - "It was mistake to be around him" He had a bitter tongue He was the contraversial subject of imperial discourses against him He was a fool in respect to his soul He was a wordy one in respect to his tongue, He was an infidel in respect to his wits. He was asked to grant a field for discussion He was a truly profane and base. He was a truly dissembling person. He made Constantine exited writing compositions against him He needed to be captured in order to keep an imperial appointment at the public gallows He was a worthless person He was very hasty He did invoke some God for aid He caused Constantine to speak against him He reproached the church He grieved the church He wounded he church He pained the church He had marvellous faith He demoted Jesus He dared to circumscribe Jesus He questioned the presence of Jesus He questioned the activity of Jesus He questioned the all-pervading law of Jesus He thought that there was a place outside of Jesus He thought that there something else outside of Jesus He denied the infiniteness of Jesus He was a shamless and useless fellow He progressed to the height of wickedness He progressed to the height of lawlessness He pretended piety. He told Constantine to go away He wrote that he did not wish God to appear to be the subject of suffering of outrage He wrote that (on the above account) he suggested and fabricated wondrous things indeed in respect to faith. He accepted Jesus as a figment He called Jesus foreign He did not adapt, he did not adapt (it was said twice) to God [Editor: the "new" orthodox God] He was twice wretched He was truly an adviser of evil He was a villain He was a mediator of wild beasts. (See Plato) He was described as mad and clearly raving He was a patricide of equity He did not conclude that God is present in Christ He talked disgracefully He brought punishment upon himself He had no faith in Christ He did not follow the law that God's law is Christ He appeared to take thought from his own self He had august consuls He was a fellow full of absurd insensibility He hastened to disturb the whole world by his impieties. He did not understand that Constantine, the man of God, already knew all things He brought state orthodoxy into the light; He hurled his wretched self into darkness. He ended his labors with this He claimed there were a multitude of persons wandering about him His supporters were asserted to have given themselves to be eaten by wolves and by lions. His supporters were each oppressed by additional payment of ten capitation taxes and by the expenses of these His supporters sweated unless they ran as speedily as possible to the salvation-bringing Church, His supporters were condemned for wicked complicity His investigations were called abominable His sophisms were clear His sophisms were known to all persons, at all events for the future. He struggled to accomplish something. He counterfeited fairness of discourse He counterfeited gentleness of discourse He donned externally a mask of simplicity He was an artificer His flame was quenched with the rain of divine power His associates were threatened by local and state authorities His associates were threatened to speedily flee his association His associates were to accept in exchange the uncorrupted faith [of the church] He was an "iron-hearted man" He received an invitation from Constantine saying: "Come to me, come, I say, to a man of God" He was perhaps healthy in respect to spiritual matters SOURCE (6): Philip of Side, 5th century Fr. 5.6 [Supporters of Arius at the Council of Nicaea] Anonymous Ecclesiastical History 2.12.8-10 [p. 47, lines 5-19 Hansen][160] (8) When these things were expressed by them or rather, through them, by the Holy Spirit those who endorsed Arius' impiety were wearing themselves out with murmuring (these were the circles of Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea, whom I have already pointed out earlier), and yet they were looking with favor on the "hirelings" of Arius, certain philosophers who were indeed very good with words; Arius had hired them as supporters of his own wickedness, and arrived with them at that holy and ecumenical council. (9) For there were present very many philosophers; and having put their hopes in them, as I have said just now, the enemies of the truth were reasonably caught, along with the one who actually taught them their blasphemy. The Holy Scripture was fulfilled in him and in them, which says, "Cursed is everyone who has his hope in a mortal man, and whose heart has departed from the Lord."[161] (10) For truly, the blasphemous heart of the fighter against God, Arius, and of those who shared in his impiety, departed from the Lord they dared to say that the Son of God, the creator of the universe and the craftsman of both visible and invisible created natures, is something created and something made. COMMENTS The text asserts the presence at Nicaea of a large number of philosophers. Are we about to presume these philosophers were "Christian"? The following text Fr. 5.7 [The Arian Philosopher and the Simple Old Man] provides graphic examples of how such philosophers were miraculously converted to the christian faith, at Nicaea.
(1) A certain one of the hirelings of Arius, a philosopher, who was marveled at much more than all the others,
contended much, indeed very much, on Arius' behalf with our bishops for very many days, with the result that there was a
great lecture every day arising from their verbal encounters: the crowd of those who were gathering would rush together,
and the philosopherwould put forward the impious blasphemies of Arius against what was said by the holy council,
saying about the Son that "there was a time when he was not," and that "he is a created being, made from nothing,
and from a different substance[163] and existence[164] [than the Father]."
(2) On behalf of these abominable
doctrines of Arius, he had a great struggle, and [sent forth] his "showers" of arguments, as he raved against
the Son of God and attacked the chorus of those holy priests[165]--the enemy of human salvation was speaking
in him and through him.
(3) But the defenders of the truth, our bishops, calmly brought to bear against him the necessary and appropriate counter-arguments,
on behalf of the Apostolic doctrines, imitating the great prophet and king, David, who said, "I was made ready, and I was not disturbed."[166]
For they burned through the philosopher's convoluted propositions by means of the divine word, as though with fire through hempen fibers.
(4) But even so, the philosopher continued to be confident in his diabolical facility with arguments, and began to shoot
his arrows against the truth proclaimed by the bishops, applying good and glib responses to all the considerations
advanced against him—so he thought—and, slippery as an eel, he struggled to solve the issues raised. For in the midst of
what he thought he was contriving for his own benefit, slipping out of the logical arguments that were being
brought quite powerfully against him, he was caught, on the basis of is own words, and collapsed along with them.
(5) But even so, in an arrogant frenzy, he moved against the most peaceful council, hoping to defeat the invincible power
of the unconquerable Spirit of Christ that was in them.
(6) But God, "who catches the wise in their cunning,"[167] in order to demonstrate that his kingdom does not stand "on talk but on power,"[168]
not only powerfully silenced the wicked demon that was speaking in the philosopher, but even cast it out, through one of his servants
who was there.
(7) For a certain man, one of the holy confessors who was present at the council,
with as simple a nature as any other of the saints [has had], and one who knew nothing "except Jesus Christ,
and him crucified"[169] in the flesh according to the Scriptures, was with the bishops and saw the philosopher
swooping down to attack our holy bishops, and arrogantly engaged in his malicious disputation;
he asked the bishops, the priests of God, to give him an opportunity for discussion with the philosopher.
(8) Then, the holy bishops on our side, perceiving the man's simplicity and his lack of experience with letters,
tried to persuade him not to put himself into the fray, for fear that it would provoke laughter among the malicious enemies of the truth.
(9) But he, not content with this, approached the philosopher and said to him, "In the name of Jesus Christ,
the Word of God who is always with the Father, listen to the doctrines of truth, O philosopher."
And the other said to him, "Go ahead and speak." And the saint said to him, "There is one God, who created
the heavens and the earth and the sea, and all things that are in them, who also formed man from the earth and
subjected everything to his Logos and to the Holy Spirit.[170]
(10) This Logos, O philosopher, we know and worship
as the Son of God, believing that for the sake of our redemption he was made fleshand was born and became a man,
and that through the suffering of his flesh on the cross and his death he freed us from eternal condemnation,
and that through his resurrection he procured eternal life for us; and we have hope that as he went up into the heavens
he will come back and will judge us concerning all that we have accomplished. Do you believe in these things,
O philosopher?"
(11) And the philosopher, as though he had never had experience of words spoken in opposition to him, was dumbfounded and fell
silent just like that, as though he were mute and speechless, after saying to him, in a most pitiable voice, only the following:
"I too think this is so, and I think no differently that as you have just said."
(12) And the old man said to him, "If you believe that this is so, O philosopher, stand up and follow me,
and let us hurry to the church, in which you will receive the sign of this faith."
(13) And the philosopher, transforming his whole self toward the true reverence for the God of the universe,
stood up and followed the old man and, turning around, said to his disciples and to all those who had gathered
to hear [the discussion], "Listen, men. As long as I was enthusiastic for arguments, I would place words in opposition to words and would overturn the matters presented to me by my skill in speaking; (14) but now that instead of words, some divine power has come forth from the mouth of my interlocutor, my words no longer had the strength to resist this power. For neither is a human being able to stand in opposition to God. Therefore, if any of you is able to understand, as I have now come to think, he shall believe in Christ—and let him follow this old man, in whom God spoke.
(15) In this way, the philosopher recovered and, being illuminated and becoming a Christian, rejoiced to have been beaten by the old man.
And when this philosopher had been baptized and was joined to the Church of God and found relief and exulted,
the council rejoiced over the mighty acts of God.
Therefore, these philosophers present at Nicaea in large numbers were certainly not christians. The PR Statement issued by Constantine at the conclusion of Nicaea sought the burning of the books of the highest profile NeoPlatonic philosophers in the empire at that time - the treatises of Plotinus as recorded by Porphyry. The writings of Arius - the PORPHYRIAN - were also subject to the imperial edict of destruction. Prepared P.R.F. Brown, March 2009 SOURCES: SOURCE (1): 0000 CE - Thalia; Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, Revised Edition, 98-116 SOURCE (2): 0325 CE - Earliest of the Nicaean "Creeds" SOURCE (3): 0327 CE - Emperor Constantine to Arius SOURCE (4): 0333 CE - Emperor Constantine's "Circular" SOURCE (5): 0333 CE - Constantine's "Dear Arius Letter SOURCE (6): 0425 CE - Philip of Side - Fragments (MAR 2011)
Arius of Alexandria - the Document Tradition |
|---|
(##) YEAR Description of Document .
(01) 0318 Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia
(02) 0320 Arius and other Alexandrian clergy to Alexander of Alexandria pleading his cause
0321 Summary of letter of a council in Palestine reinstating Arius
0322 Priest George to the Arians in Alexandria defending Alexander
0324 Emperor Constantine to Alexander of Alexandria and Arius
(03) 0327 Emperor Constantine to Arius (Dear Arius, grab the first chariot to Constantinople)
(04) 0327 Arius and Euzoius to the Emperor Constantine
(05) 0333 Imperial edict against Arius and his followers (The "Porphyrian")
(06) 0333 Emperor Constantine to Arius and his followers ("Dear Arius Where Are You"?)
(07) 03?? Thalia - The "Long Lost Songs of Arius"?
(2.) Since my father Ammonius is going to Nicomedia, it seemed reasonable and proper to greet you through him, remembering at the same time the innate love and affection which you have for the brothers on account of God and his Christ, because the bishop [Alexander] is severely ravaging and persecuting us and moving against us with every evil. Thus he drives us out of every city like godless men, since we will not agree with his public statements: that there was always a God, always a Son; as soon as the Father, so soon the Son [existed]; with the Father co-exists the Son unbegotten, ever-begotten, begotten without begetting; God neither precedes the Son in aspect or in a moment of time; always a God, always a Son, the Son being from God himself.
(3.) Since Eusebius, your brother in Caesarea, and Theodotus, and Paulinus, and Athanasius, and Gregory, and Aetius and all those in the East say that God pre-exists the Son without a beginning, they have been condemned, except for Philogonius and Hellenicus and Macarius, unlearned heretics some of whom say that the Son was spewed out, others that he was an emanation, still others that he was jointly unbegotten.
(4.) We are not able to listen to these kinds of impieties, even if the heretics threaten us with ten thousand deaths. But what do we say and think and what have we previously taught and do we presently teach? that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of an unbegotten entity in any way, nor from anything in existence, but that he is subsisting in will and intention before time and before the ages, full
(5.) Before he was begotten, or created, or defined, or established, he did not exist. For he was not unbegotten. But we are persecuted because we have said the Son has a beginning but God has no beginning. We are persecuted because of that and for saying he came from non-being. But we said this since he is not a portion of God nor of anything in existence. That is why we are persecuted; you know the rest.
I pray that you fare well in the Lord, remembering our tribulations, fellow-Lucianist, truly-called Eusebius [i.e. the pious one].
---- Theodoret, Church History 1.5 (also see Epiphanius, Refutation of All Heresies 69.6)
It was made known to you in your stubbornness some time ago,
that you might want to come to our headquarters,
so that perhaps you could enjoy the privilege of seeing us.
We are quite amazed that you did not do so immediately.
Therefore, now board a public (official) vehicle,
and hasten to come to our court.
This way, once you have been in our company and obtained favor from us,
you may be able to return to your own country.
May God protect you, beloved.
Dated the twenty-seventh of November (327 CE)
-- Socrates, Church History 1.25.7
-- TRANS: W. Bright, Socrates’ ecclesiastical history, 2nd edition (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1893)
--- Socrates, Church History 1.26.2, Sozomen, Church History 2.27.6-10
The great and victorious Constantine Augustus
to the bishops and laity:
Since Arius is an imitator of the wicked and the ungodly,
it is only right that he should suffer the same dishonor as they.
Porphyry, who was hostile to anyone who feared God,
composed a book which transgressed against our religion,
and has found a suitable reward: namely that
he has been disgraced from that time onward,
his reputation is completely terrible,
and his ungodly writings have been destroyed.
In the same way it seems appropriate that Arius
and those of like mind with Arius should from now on
be called Porphyrians, so that their name is taken
from those whose ways they have imitated.
(2.) In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found,
it should be handed over to the flames, so that not only w
ill the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated,
but but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of him.
And I hereby make a public order,
that if someone should be discovered to have hidden
a writing composed by Arius, and not to have immediately
brought it forward and destroyed it by fire,
his penalty shall be death.
As soon as he is discovered in this offense,
he shall be submitted for capital punishment.
And in another hand:
God will watch over you, beloved brothers.
---- Socrates, Church History 1.9.30 and Gelasius, Church History 2.36.1
---- Athanasius, Defense of the Nicene Definition 39
Please see separate article located at www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/constantine_to_ARIUS.htm.
--- Athanasius, Defense of the Nicene Definition 40
--- Socrates, Church History 1.9.30, Gelasius, Church History 3.19.1
Thalia literally means abundance,good cheer, or banquet. It was written in verse, in order to aid memorization and popular distribution of Arius’s ideas. Fragments of this work survive in two writings of his opponent Athanasius. The first is in a report of Arius’ teaching in Orations Against the Arians. This paraphrase has negative comments interspersed, so it is difficult to decide what are Arius’s words and what are comments of Athanasius (Williams 99). The second is a more direct quotation in On the Councils of Arminum and Seleucia, Someone other than Athanasius, perhaps even someone sympathetic to Arius, may have compiled the quotations (Hanson 10-15, esp. 12). We used this quotation as the basis of our translation. A recent and thorough discussion of the text, meaning, and significance of Thalia is found in Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, Revised Edition, 98-116. Both the translation found there, as well as that found in Hanson, Search for the Christian Doctrine of God, 12-15, were consulted for this translation. And so God Himself, as he really is, is inexpressible to all. He alone has no equal, no one similar (homoios), and no one of the same glory. We call him unbegotten, in contrast to him who by nature is begotten. We praise him as without beginning in contrast to him who has a beginning. We worship him as timeless, in contrast to him who in time has come to exist. He who is without beginning made the Son a beginning of created things. He produced him as a son for himself by begetting him. He [the son] has none of the distinct characteristics of God's own being (hypostasis) For he is not equal to, nor is he of the same being (homoousios) as him. God is wise, for he himself is the teacher of Wisdom - Sufficient proof that God is invisible to all: He is is invisible both to things which were made through the Son, and also to the Son himself. I will say specifically how the invisible is seen by the Son: by that power by which God is able to see, each according to his own measure, the Son can bear to see the Father, as is determined So there is a Triad, not in equal glories. Their beings (hypostaseis) are not mixed together among themselves. As far as their glories, one infinitely more glorious than the other. The Father in his essence (ousia) is foreign to the Son, because he exists without beginning. Understand that the Monad [eternally] was; but the Dyad was not before it came into existence. It immediately follows that, although the Son did not exist, the Father was still God. Hence the Son, not being [eternal] came into existence by the Father's will, He is the Only-begotten God, and this one is alien from [all] others Wisdom came to be Wisdom by the will of the Wise God. Hence he is conceived in innumerable aspects. He is Spirit, Power, Wisdom, God's glory, Truth, Image, and Word. Understand that he is also conceived of as Radiance and Light. The one who is superior is able to beget one equal to the Son, But not someone more important, or superior, or greater. At God's will the Son has the greatness and qualities that he has. His existence from when and from whom and from then — are all from God. He, though strong God, praises in part (ek merous) his superior . In brief, God is inexpressible to the Son. For he is in himself what he is, that is, indescribable, So that the son does not comprehend any of these things or have the understanding to explain them. For it is impossible for him to fathom the Father, who is by himself. For the Son himself does not even know his own essence (ousia), For being Son, his existence is most certainly at the will of the Father. What reasoning allows, that he who is from the Father should comprehend and know his own parent? For clearly that which has a beginning is not able to conceive of or grasp the existence of that which has no beginning.