Arius (250 -336 A. D )
    The life of Arius is so much intertwined with the life of Empire Constantine that is is not possible to understand one without knowing the other. The story of how Constantine first became involved with the Christian Church begins in Rome. (please visit previous page )

Arius Coming  
The leader of the Apostolic Church , which continued to affirm belief in One Reality , was at this time a presbyter known to history as Arius. He was a Libyan by birth. He gave new strength to the Apostolic Church. He followed the teaching of Jesus implicitly , and refused to accept the innovations introduced by Paul. "Follow Jesus as he preached" was the motto of Arius. His importance can be gauged by the fact that his name has become a synonym for Unitarianism even today.

  The Pauline Church received a violent jolt from Arius. He was no mere "bustling schemer" as his enemies would have people believe, and even they were forced to admit that he was  a sincere and blameless presbyter. At a time when the oral tradition which had kept the teaching of Jesus  alive was beginning to weaken, and when the understanding of what had been written down was starting to diminish, Arius revived both and renewed them with his vigour and wisdom. He remained aloof from the alliance which the organised Church had made with the Emperor Constantine.

Arius  was the disciple of the greatest critic of the Pauline church at that time, the venerated martyr, Lucian of Antioch , who was known for his great learning and who, like his predecessors, was killed for holding views not approved of by the Pauline Church. thus Arius  was fully aware of the dangers involved in entertaining a belief which differed from those acceptable to this Church. Although his early  life is  hidden in mystery, it is recorded that in 318 A. D., he was in charge of the Church of Baucalis in Alexandria. It was the oldest and one of the most important of the city's churches.

How does he looks like
 From the scanty record which available, it is known that he was tall and thin. He would have been handsome but for his general emaciation, the deadly  pallor of his face and a downcast look which was imparted by the weakness of his eyesight. His dress and demeanour were those of a dedicated ascetic. He wore a long coat with short sleeves. His hair hung in a tangled mass from his head. He was usually silent, but, if occasion arose, would break in to fierce and exiting words. There was a sweetness to his voice and he had an earnest but winning manner about him  which fascinated those who came into contact with him. He was regarded as one of  the most remarkable presbyter in Alexandria, and was held in high esteem by anyone who met him:

" His fame soon spread, even outside Alexandria ,as an earnest worker who led a strict and ascetic life, a powerful  preacher who dealt boldly and frankly with the great  principle of faith. He was gifted with great conversational powers and charm of manner. He was also capable of injecting others with the enthusiasm which  he himself felt. Like all the great religious leaders of the world , he was fanatically sincere and the doctrine he preached was vital  and fecund " ( A History of the Eastern Church , A. R. Stanley , p 94 )

It is also known that he had the following of not less than seven hundred of the Christian ladies of Alexandria ( A History of the Eastern Church , A. R. Stanley , p 94 )

Up until this time, a Christian's faith was not the result of compulsion. There were differences between sects, sometimes deep and bitter, but whatever belief an individual held was based on his own personal conviction and sincerity. In this period after  Jesus's disappearance from earth , saints and martyrs had gladly given up their lives rather than compromise their belief.  The swords wielded by those an authority over the land had been used in an attempt to dispel such beliefs and certainly not to enforce them. When Constantine made his first alliance with the Church , there was a dramatic change in the  situation. Although he remained Pontifex Maximus, and continued in his capacity as head of the pagan state religion, he began to openly support the Christian Church, probably making little distinction between the Pauline and the Apostolic branches. This sign of favour put Christianity in a new light and it became  virtually the only official cult of the Roman Emperor. For many people , Christianity had suddenly become a matter of policy and expediency. some of those  who held back soon joined with the aid  of a little governmental pressure. Thus  many of the conversions to Christianity ceased to come from the heart, but were the result of an entirely different kind of conviction . Christianity had become a mass movement (A History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age,  A. C. MacGiffert, p 172 ) . However , it was a movement which re-emphasised the split between the Pauline Church and the Apostolic Church. Those who became Christians out of expediency naturally chose the less rigorous approach of the Pauline Church. Pauline Church welcomed only those who sincerely wished to follow the way of Jesus.

 The movement led by Arius took place against the background of these two Churches of  Martyrs. Anything written in favour of Arius or any independent assessment of his movement virtually been destroyed. Nearly all the books covering Arius which still exists have been written by his enemies. It is, therefore, impossible to give a full account of his life. Connecting the pieces of information which still exist the following picture emerges :Peter , the Bishop of Alexandria, ordained him a deacon but later excommunicated him. Achillas, Peter's successor , again ordained him a priest. Arius  became so popular than when Achillas died, he had every change to taking his place. However, Arius had no desire to be involved in any kind of election, and so it was Alexander  who was chosen to sit on the Episcopal throne. A complaint was made against Arius because of what he preached. His rival became his judge , and eventually Arius was excommunicated.

  Up to this point, there had been a great latitude in the beliefs, of the Christians .The doctrine of Trinity was now accepted by many of those who called themselves Christians, but no one was sure what it actually meant. Some blindly affirmed it ; others, like Meletius and Donatus , strongly rejected it , and those who fell  between these two poles were at liberty to explain the doctrine in the way they thought best. After more than two centuries of discussion, no one had been able to state the doctrine in terms which were free from it. Alexander was completely taken aback. The more he tried to explain it, the more confused he became. Arius , by the use of reason, and relying on the authority of the Scriptures, proved the doctrine to be false.

Arius begin his refutation of Alexander's explanations with reference to Jesus : if Jesus was in reality the "son of God", he argued, then it followed that the father must have existed before the son. Therefore, it followed that the son was creature composed of an essence of being which had not always existed .Since God is in  essence Eternal and Ever-existent ,Jesus could not  be of the same Essence as God.
  

Arius always appeal to reason and logic, and since Alexander could not furnish any reasonable counter-arguments, he always ended up by losing his temper. Given the premises, Arius would say :"Where is the fault of my deduction and Where is does my syllogism break down ?". By the year 321 A. D., Arius was a popular rebellious priest, profoundly, confident and certain of what he believed.

After receiving this personal set-back, Alexander  called provincial synod to pronounce judgement on the doctrine of Arius. About one hundred Egyptian and Libyan bishops attended. Arius boldly maintained the stand he had taken, and with great ability stated his case : there was a time when Jesus did not exist, whereas God existed even then. Since Jesus was created by God, his being was finite and so he could not possess the attribute of Eternity. Only God is Eternal. Since Jesus was a creature, he was subject to change like all other rational creatures. Only God is unchanging. Thus , he asserted that Jesus was not God. As well as his appeal to logic. Arius backed up his arguments with numerous verses from the Bible which nowhere  teaches the doctrine  of Trinity.  If Jesus said : "My father is greater than I" (John 14 : 28) , then to believe that God and Jesus were equal, argued Arius, was to deny the truth of the Bible.

The arguments of Arius were irrefutable, but Alexander by virtue of his position, excommunicated him. However Arius had such a large following that he could  not be ignored by the Pauline church, especially since many of the Eastern Bishops did not accept Alexander's decree. The controversy which had been simmering for nearly three hundred years came to a boil. Alexander was troubled and annoyed that so many of the Eastern Bishops supported Arius, whose greatest ally was Eusebius of Nicomedia. He and Arius were old friends, since both had  students of Lucian, a man who had been universally respected  for his purity and learning. It is possible that Lucian's martyrdom in 312 A. D helped to strengthen the friendship and the resolve which these two shared .

There is a letter which Arius wrote to Eusebius in Constantinople after his excommunication by Alexander , and which still exists. Arius complaints of his persecution by Alexander as an impious atheist because he and his friends did not  subscribe to the outrageous doctrines which the bishop professed : "We are persecuted because we say that Jesus has a beginning , while God had no beginning" (Constantine the Great , J .B. Firth) . As a result, Arius received increased support from Eusebius who had much influence, not only with the common people, but also in the imperial palace itself. In spite of this backing , Arius appears always  to have inclined towards reconciliation rather than opposite, so far as discipline within  the Church was concerned.
 

Unfortunately, the records of this dispute is very scanty, but there are few letters  in existence which show that Arius' intention was solely to keep the teachings of Jesus pure and free from alteration, and not to cause disruption among the Christians. On the other hand, the letters written by Alexander show that the Bishop was always using intemperate language against Arius and his supporters In one letter he writes: "They are possessed of the Devil who dwells in them and goads them to fury: they are jugglers and tricksters, clever conjurors with seductive words : they  are brigands who have lairs for themselves wherein day and night they curse Christ ..... they make proselytes through the agency  of loose young women to  the town" (Constantine the Great , J .B. Firth). The use of such violent and outrageous language by the Patriarch raises the suspicion that he too must have been aware of the weakness of his case.

Eusebius hotly resented the tone of the Patriarch of Alexandria . He summoned the synod of the Eastern  bishops and laid the whole matter before them. The result of this gathering was a letter, which was sent to all the bishops of East and West, begging them to induce Alexander to take back Arius into the church. Alexander, however , wanted Arius's total surrender. Arius returned to Palestine and continued to hold services for his followers. Alexander issued a long letter addressed to "all fellow workers of the Catholic Church", in which he again attacked Arius. He also made a pointed reference to Eusebius, mentioning him by name and accusing him of believing "that the welfare of the Church depended on his nod" (Constantine the Great , J .B. Firth). He added that Eusebius supported Arius, not because he sincerely believed in Arian doctrine, but in order to further his own  ambitious interests. Thus the ecclesiastical controversy degenerated into a personal conflict between the Eastern and Western bishops.

The questions in issue spread from the circle  of the bishops out to the common people. Gregory of Nyssea writes:

Every corner of Constantinople was full of their discussions : the streets, the market place, the shops of the money changers, the victuallers. Ask a tradesman how many obols he wants for some article in his shop, and he replies with the discussion on generated and ungenerated being. Ask the price of bread today and the baker tells you: "The son is subordinate to the father".  Ask your servant if the bath is ready and he makes an answer :"The son arose out of nothing". 'Great is the Begotten', declared the Catholics, and the Arians rejoined : "But greater is He that begot". (Constantine the Great , J .B. Firth)

 People would ask women whether a son could exist before he was born. The debate in the higher ecclesiastic circle was equally hot and bitter. It is recorded that "in every city, bishops we engaged in obstinate conflict with bishops, People were against people ..... and came into violent collision with each other" (Constantine the Great , J .B. Firth).
 

 As far as Constantine was concerned , things were going from bad to worse. He was obliged to intervene and addressed a letter to both Alexander and Arius. He said that his consuming passion was for unity of religious opinion, since it  was the best guarantee of peace in the realm. Deeply disappointed by the events in North Africa, he  had hoped for better things from the "bosom of the East", whence had arisen the "dawn of Divine Light". He then continues :

But Ah! Glorious and Divine Providence, what a wound was inflicted not alone on my ears but on my heart, when I heard that divisions existed among yourselves even  more grievous than those in Africa ; so that you, whose agency I hoped  to bring healing to others, need a remedy worse then they. And yet , after making a careful enquiry into the origin of these discussions. I find that the cause is quite insignificant and entirely disproportionate to such a quarrel .... I gather that the present controversy originated as follows : for when you, Alexander, asked each of the presbyter what he thought about a certain  passage in the Scriptures or, rather, what he thought about a certain aspect of  a foolish question : and you , Arius , without due consideration, laid down propositions which never ought to have been conceived at all, or if conceived ought  to have  been buried  in silence , dissensions arose between you - communion was forbidden , and the most people ,torn in twain , no longer preserved the unity  of  a common body.

The Emperor then exhorts them to let both the unguarded question and the inconsiderate answer be forgotten and forgiven:

The subject never ought to have been broached, but there is always mischief found for idle hands to do and idle brains to think. The difference between  you  has not arisen on any cardinal doctrine laid down in the Scriptures , nor has any new doctrine been introduced. You both hold one and the  same view. Reunion , therefore , was easily possible

The Emperor went on to quote the example of pagan philosophers who agree to disagree on details while  holding the same general principles. How then, he asked, can it be right for brethren to behave towards one another like enemies because of mere  trifling and verbal differences. Such conduct in his opinion was :

vulgar , childish and petulant, ill-fitting priests of God and men of sense ......... It is the wile and temptation of the Devil. Let us have done with it. If we cannot all think alike on all topics. we can at least all be united on great essentials. As  regards the Divine Providence, let there be one faith and one understanding , one united opinion in reference to God

The letter concludes :

Restore me then my quiet days and untroubled night that I may retain my joy, the gladness of peaceful life. Else I must groan and be defused  wholly in tears, and no comfort of mind till I die. For while the people of God, my fellow servants, are thus torn asunder in unlawful and pernicious controversy, how can I be tranquil of mind ? (The Council of Nicea, J Kaye, pp 23- 25)

This letter demonstrates the profound ignorance of the Emperor , not only of Christianity, but also of any religion, since is assumes that it is the same whether a man worships God as he pleases or in the manner which God indicates to him. To say that the controversy between Alexander and Arius was merely a verbal quarrel or an insignificant and non essential point is absurd. To regard  the difference  between the two as "trifling" clearly shows that Constantine did not understand what he was talking about. A certainty in the Divine unity, on the one hand, and a belief in a Trinity of God, on the other hand, could not be more fundamentally opposed. The letter indicates that Constantine was not concern with the nature of Reality, but with his own peace of mind. It is not surprising  that his letter achieved nothing  . It was carried to Alexandria by Hosius of Cordoba. After a short stay , he returned empty-handed to report the failure of his mission to the Emperor.

Please click Next and read what happened next: [ Back ] [ Next ]

 (ICRA) 

[ Home ] [ Christianity ] [ Bible ] [ Christian Salvation Scheme ] [ Converts ] [ Prophesies ] [ True followers of Jesus ] [ Jesus-the Son of Man ] [ Jesus- the Son of God ] [ Women ] [ Bible and the Modern Sceince ] [ Holy Sins ] [ Comparative Studies ] [ links ] [ About us ] [ Contact us ] [ Site Map ]