Arianism

The main dogma of Christianity is the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, as revealed by the Savior Himself in the Gospel. In relation to the First Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity, God the Father, Creator and Provider, no false teachings arose, except for the incorrect interpretation of the question of evil and its nature, inspired by Eastern dualism.

About the Son of God, under the influence of the philosophical systems of antiquity, opinions were often expressed that did not correspond to Church Tradition, based on the doctrine of the Logos. These deviations are found in Origen and other apologists, as well as in Lucian of Antioch, whose influence in the East was very strong. All these statements remained, however, the personal opinions of individual theologians, in relation to which the Church in its entirety had not yet given a definition until a movement arose in Alexandria in 323, led by the local presbyter Arius. He was a learned man and an excellent speaker, but an unusually proud one, who considered himself called to interpret the teachings of the Church in his own way. He united around himself not only his large parish, but also many clergy and laity from the outskirts of Alexandria, and preached that the Son of God is the highest and first creation of God and He is not eternal. The teaching of Arius was anti-Christian - non-recognition of the divinity of the Savior - thereby it undermined the basis of the Christian teaching about the incarnation of the Son of God.

The first who understood the danger for the Church of the new false teaching was Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, who staged a public debate with Arius, explained how his statements contradicted the teachings of the Church and, when the latter did not want to submit to the authority of his bishop, forbade him to preach.

Arius left Egypt and moved to Palestine, and from there to Nicomedia, where he found influential defenders in the person of the famous Church historian, Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, and Eusebius, bishop of the capital city of Nicomedia, a personal friend of Emperor Constantine, with whom they were students of Lucian of Antioch.

Bishop Alexander and his closest assistant, Deacon Athanasius, began to fight the new false teaching, but Arius and his defenders also developed widespread activity throughout the East. The first to condemn Arius and his teaching was the Council of Egyptian Bishops, convened by Bishop Alexander. In December 324, the Council of the Whole East was convened in Aitiochia, which considered the statement of faith compiled in verse by Arius, called “Thalia”. In it, he proclaimed himself “the chosen one of God, having received wisdom and knowledge.”

Arius's teaching was condemned, but not everyone in the East agreed with the council's decision. Then the idea arose to bring the question of Arianism to the decision of the entire Church, and the fathers of the Council of Antioch proposed to the emperor to convene an Ecumenical Council. The emperor, who strove for church peace, decided to convene it in Ancyra (Ankara), but the bishops preferred to arrange it in Nicaea, with which communications were more convenient.

First Ecumenical Council in Nicaea

The convening of the Ecumenical Council in 325 was a great event in the life of the Church. For the first time, representatives of all local Churches could meet and discuss together the most important church matters. For the first time, the voice of the entire Church could be heard.

Having convened the Council, Emperor Constantine provided those who had gathered in Nicaea (a small city in Asia Minor, 120 kilometers from Constantinople) with all sorts of benefits and relief during the journey. Many of those who arrived only recently underwent torture and imprisonment for their faith. Everyone was given special honor by the state authorities.

In total, 318 bishops gathered for the Council. In addition to them there were presbyters and deacons, among whom Athanasius of Alexandria stood out. St. Nicholas of Myra (December 6/19) and St. Spyridon of Trimifunt (December 12/25) also took part in the Council.

Emperor Constantine entered without his retinue in his golden royal robe and sat next to the bishops, and not on the special throne that had been prepared for him. He listened to the greetings of the oldest of the bishops, Eustathius of Antioch, and addressed those gathered with a speech in Latin. In it, he expressed his joy to see representatives of the entire Church gathered together and stated that he considered all disagreements within the Church more dangerous for the state than external wars.

The Council examined the case of Arius and, after reading the Thalia, unanimously condemned the false teaching. When they then began to compile the “Creed,” two currents emerged: some believed that it was necessary to introduce as few new definitions as possible, while others believed, on the contrary, that in order to avoid new heresies and false interpretations, it was necessary to accurately define the teaching of the Church about the Son of God.

Bishop Eusebius brought up a conciliatory formula for discussion, which was too general. It has undergone numerous changes and additions. Then Bishop Hosea of ​​Corduba proposed to add to the Symbol the words: “consubstantial with the Father,” which were accepted by a significant majority.

The First Ecumenical Council was of exceptional importance, since, in addition to condemning the false teaching of Arius, the first 7 members of the Creed were adopted, decisions were made regarding individual church schisms, the time for the celebration of Easter was established, 20 disciplinary canons were drawn up and the seniority of the ancient apostolic sees of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

For the first time after the Council, church peace was not disturbed, and the faith of Christ spread in the east and west of the empire. The mother of Tsar Constantine Helen, who did a lot to establish the Orthodox faith and whom the Church recognized as equal to the apostles (June 21/4), made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Everywhere along the way she freed captives and prisoners and founded temples.

In Jerusalem, she ordered to find the place where Golgotha ​​was located during the time of the Savior. When the pagan temple built there was destroyed, three crosses were found underneath it. No one could say which of them was the Cross of the Savior. It happened that at that time a dead man was being carried past this place for burial; then they ordered those carrying the deceased to stop, and they began to place, on the advice of the bishop, the found crosses, one per deceased; and when the Cross of Christ was laid, the dead were resurrected. Everyone, seeing this miracle, rejoiced and glorified the wondrous power of the life-giving Cross of the Lord.

The Queen and the Patriarch solemnly erected (raised) the Cross to show it to the people, and in memory of this event the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Life-Giving Cross was established (September 14/27). The Cross of Christ itself was subsequently fragmented into many parts and distributed throughout the Christian world.

On the way back from Jerusalem, Queen Helena died and was buried by her son in the newly rebuilt city of Constantinople, where he moved his capital in 330.

Renewal of Arianism and the struggle against it by St. Athanasius the Great

Emperor Constantine strictly guarded the Nicene Creed, but the adherents of the Arian false teaching did not give up and tried in every possible way to obtain from him the release of the prisoners. Bishop Eusebius and other secret Arians decided not to insist on the recognition of Arius, but began to fight the Orthodox by demanding mutual concessions.

For the sake of church peace, the emperor returned the bishops from exile, but did not release Arius. A few years later, the Arians became so strong that they began an open struggle with the champions of the “Nicene faith.” Then Saint Athanasius, who was elected Archbishop of Alexandria in 328, came to her defense.

Saint Athanasius (293 – 373, commemorated May 2/15) was born and educated in Alexandria. He accompanied Bishop Alexander to the first Ecumenical Council and even then began to fight heresy. In the first years of his bishopric, he visited the Egyptian hermits and subsequently described their lives.

The influence of Saint Athanasius in Egypt and in general throughout the East was so great that opponents for a long time did not dare to fight him openly, but limited themselves to hostile actions against other defenders of Orthodoxy. To do this, they convened a false Council in Jerusalem and deposed the local bishop Eustathius, who presided over the Ecumenical Council. Then, also illegally, Bishop Mark of Ancyra was deposed.

In 335, Emperor Constantine solemnly celebrated the 20th anniversary of his reign and declared a complete amnesty. Arius was also released. Then the opponents of the right faith decided to act against Saint Athanasius. They assembled a false Council in Tire, the members of which were carefully selected. Saint Athanasius, who arrived with the Egyptian bishops, was not allowed to attend. The Council of Tire condemned Saint Athanasius, but he went to Constantinople to convince the emperor that he was right.

Seeing that their accusations were not sufficiently substantiated, the Arians declared that Saint Athanasius was delaying the supply of grain to Egypt and that the country was facing famine. Although the accusations were false, the emperor exiled the Archbishop of Alexandria to the banks of the Rhine in Trier. A Council was convened in Jerusalem, which acquitted Arius, but the latter died a terrible death before being accepted into communion.

Saint Athanasius did not stop fighting against Arianism in exile. He wrote letters to the Orthodox, inspired the persecuted, contributed to the restoration of Christianity in the Rhine region, laid the foundation for monasticism in the West, and with his tireless activity and zeal for Orthodoxy united in the West all those who did not recognize Arianism.

The fate of Orthodoxy under the successors of Equal-to-the-Apostles Constantine

On May 20, 337, Equal-to-the-Apostles Constantine died. He was baptized a few days before his death and was buried in the white robes of a convert.

Emperor Constantine's three sons divided the Empire. Constant received Illyria and Italy, Constantine received Gaul and Spain, Constantius received the entire East. The emperor's sons were raised in the Christian faith, but while the first two remained Orthodox, Constantius was inclined towards Arianism and soon became a persecutor of the defenders of the Nicene Creed.

Immediately upon his accession to the throne, Constantine II allowed Saint Athanasius to return to Alexandria, where there was no other bishop at that time. He sent a letter to the Alexandrians, asking them to receive Athanasius with honor. Upon his arrival in Egypt, Saint Athanasius convened a Council, which condemned Arianism. Then the Arians sent letters to three emperors and the Roman bishop and elected an Arian bishop for Alexandria - Gregory.

Saint Athanasius went to Rome, where the local Council supported him, but he could not return to his city, captured by the Arians, until 346. In subsequent years, Arianism swept the entire East and part of the West, but St. Athanasius and the Orthodox, supported by Emperor Constant, did not give up. After the death of Bishop Gregory, in 346, Saint Athanasius returned to Alexandria. His arrival was a real triumph, the whole people welcomed him as their spiritual leader.

The triumph of Orthodoxy was short-lived. In 350, Emperor Constans was assassinated, leaving Emperor Constantius as the sole ruler of the entire empire. A new struggle between the Arians and the Orthodox began. In Constantinople, Bishop Paul the Confessor died as a martyr, and many Orthodox Christians were killed.

In the West they fought against the Arians: Saint Hosea of ​​Corduba, Pope Liberius and Saint Hilary of Pictavia. The latter did especially a lot for the triumph of Orthodoxy and is called “Athanasius the Great of the West.”

Saint Hilary (ca. 300 – 367, commemorated January 14/27) was born in Gaul and received an excellent pagan education. He became interested in the Holy Scriptures and began to study them. Having been baptized, he devoted himself entirely to serving the Church. Elected in 350 as bishop of the city of Pictavia (modern Poitiers), he began the fight against Arianism, which had spread in the West. In 356 he was exiled to the East and continued there to fight for the purity of the Orthodox faith. He traveled to Constantinople to denounce Emperor Constantius and was exiled from the East to the West for the second time. Saint Hosea and Pope Liberius were exiled along with Saint Hilary.

Only after breaking the resistance of the friends and supporters of Saint Athanasius did Emperor Constantius decide to act against him. Troops were brought into Alexandria and, despite the popular uprising and resistance, besieged the main temple, in which the Archbishop of Alexandria was located. The latter managed to escape unnoticed and hide in the desert. It seemed that Orthodoxy was completely defeated. The entire Church was in the hands of the Arians.

But Saints Athanasius and Hilary wrote letters from exile and both compiled treatises on the Councils, in which they set out the teaching of the Church. Saint Hilary, after returning to Gaul, convened a Council in Paris in 360 and condemned Arianism.

During the period from 356 to 361, several Councils were convened, which tried to find a compromise solution with the exception of “consubstantial”, but with the preservation of the Nicene Symbol. At the Council of Constantinople in 360, the Arians won, but in 361, Emperor Constantius, who supported them, died, and his cousin, Julian, ascended the throne.

Julian the Apostate and the Restoration of Paganism

Emperor Julian, who was nicknamed "The Apostate", was raised in an Orthodox environment, but in his environment there was more hypocrisy than real piety. He was a reader in the temple and until the age of 20 he did not know the ancient Hellenic culture, which he became acquainted with after he had to hide and live away from the court. By nature he was a fanatic. He was attracted by religious syncretism and he not only rejected Christianity, but became its consistent and irreconcilable enemy. The Greek pagan religion of the mid-4th century was imbued with Eastern mysticism, full of symbols, emblems, secret rituals and initiations.

Having ascended the throne, Julian first declared complete freedom of worship, which the Orthodox Christians persecuted by the Arians took advantage of, but soon began to close and destroy Christian churches and build pagan ones. He created a pagan hierarchy parallel to the Christian one and began to de-Christianize schools, introducing compulsory teaching of ancient philosophical systems everywhere. Many Orthodox Christians were not only persecuted, but also died as martyrs.

Once he gave the order in the first week of Lent to secretly sprinkle all food supplies in the markets of Constantinople with blood sacrificed to idols. Then the holy martyr Theodore Tiron appeared to the Archbishop of Constantinople in a dream, who ordered to warn the people about evil intent, and that instead of products purchased at the market, they should eat boiled grain with honey (kolivo). Since then, in the Church, in the first week of Lent, the consecration of the koliva has been carried out in memory of this event.

Emperor Julian reigned for only a year and a half, but during this short period he managed to cause a lot of harm to the Church. Those who suffered under him were: the Holy Great Martyr Artemios, Prefect of Antioch (October 20/2), Saint Cyriacus of Jerusalem (November 28/10) and Saint John the Warrior (August 30/12. Emperor Julian was killed by the Persians in 363).

But Arianism did not die with the death of Arius, and the Arians managed to literally take Emperor Constantine “into a circle.” One of the most influential bishops turned out to be Eusebius of Nicomedia - another Eusebius, and Nicomedia had been the imperial residence since the time of Diocletian. Although Constantine was just during these years building a new capital - Constantinople, he still spent quite a long time in Nicomedia and therefore the influence of the local bishop overcame the influence of the Orthodox Hosea of ​​Corduba, who was too advanced in age and could not act as energetically as before. Trying to justify Arius in the eyes of St. Constantine, the heretics at the same time sought to discredit the most prominent opponents of Arius before him.

The most remarkable fighter against Arianism in these first decades after the first Ecumenical Council is, of course, considered to be Athanasius the Great, Bishop of Alexandria. The Arianists managed to ensure that Athanasius was exiled and was forced to spend several years away from his flock in the far West. St. Athanasius was accused of bringing confusion into church life, that is, the accusations were not dogmatic but canonical in nature, again for the reason that dogmatic accusations under St. Constantine would not have achieved their goal.

St. Constantine died in 337, having reigned for more than 30 years. The most significant document about the life of St. Constantine is the “Life of King Constantine,” compiled by one of his court bishops, Eusebius of Caesarea. This life was composed in a panegyric spirit, and therefore many doubted its historical value. However, recently science has treated the historical authenticity of this life as a firmly established fact. For example, those decrees of Constantine that Eusebius cites in his book were found in Egyptian papyri. One way or another, the life of Constantine was a kind of program for all subsequent generations, especially for emperors, and the place in the Church that it assigned to Constantine, of course, tried to retain for themselves his successors, who were, so to speak, more “normal” Christians . St. Constantine received St. baptism shortly before death. He apparently believed that it was impossible to be an emperor who passed death sentences and a member of the Church, especially since the reign of St. Konstantin’s life was very difficult; he sometimes had to show cruelty even to those closest to him. For example, at one time his wife and eldest son were executed. Subsequently, people who were baptized in infancy or at a young age became emperors.

In the speeches that Constantine makes at Eusebius before a meeting of bishops or in written documents that he, according to the same Eusebius, addresses to them, the emperor calls himself “bishop of the external affairs of the Church”, as well as “co-celebrant of the bishops.” The first expression can be interpreted in different ways. Some understand it to mean that St. Constantine considered it his goal to bring the pagans who were outside the church fence inside it - and nothing more. Others - in the sense that St. Constantine claimed to organize the external existence of the Church, while others organized its internal life. The fact that next to the first expression there is a second one - “co-servant of bishops” - rather confirms the second interpretation, and we note that this bishopric of Constantine is universal, just as his empire is universal. This is very important to realize - after all, the Roman Empire always thought of itself as a world state. If some countries still remained outside the power of the Roman emperors, then this was understood as some kind of historical misunderstanding, as an abnormal and temporary situation. The empire was identical to the universe. Therefore, by the way, the patriarch of the second Rome - Constantinople received the name Ecumenical Patriarch. And just as universal was the calling of the emperors themselves. The church calls St. Constantine Equal to the Apostles: just as the apostles brought the firstfruits of believers to the Church of Christ, so Equal to the Apostles Tsar Constantine created the conditions for all the subjects of his empire to become Christians. Indeed, the time of Constantine is a time of mass Christianization.


St. Constantine remained faithful to the decisions of the First Ecumenical Council until the end of his life, but the court intriguers managed to do a lot to subtly revise what happened in Nicaea in 325. In particular, they slandered St. Athanasius the Great before the emperor. The accusation was purely political: they said that he was preventing the sending of ships with grain to Constantinople. Egypt, where St. Athanasius was the high priest, he was the breadbasket of the empire, and the supply of Constantinople, whose residents received free bread (there was such a capital privilege), was completely dependent on this province. Such an accusation, of course, sounded very menacing; as a result, Saint Athanasius was sent into distant exile in the city of Trier (modern Germany). But, one way or another, St. Constantine adhered to the Nicene faith, and during his lifetime the dogmatic influence of the Council of Nicaea could not be revised.

The picture changed completely after his death (337). Having restored the unity of the empire with great difficulty, shortly before his death he again divided the state between his three sons. Two of them - Constant and Constantine - were of Orthodox beliefs, but they received the western part of the empire to rule, while Constantius, who received the eastern part, clearly sympathized with Arianism. The situation became more and more complex and confusing. On the one hand, not all opponents of the Nicene creed were heretics; among them there were quite a few narrow conservatives who did not want to change anything. For them, the Nicene Creed was unacceptable already because it contained the word “consubstantial” (in Greek “omousios”), which is absent from the Bible, which forms the dogmatic core of the Nicene Creed.

On the other hand, not all supporters of the Nicene creed were Orthodox. Here's the thing. As already mentioned, even in the pre-Nicene period, Orthodox triadology, that is, the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Trinity, was faced with two opposing misconceptions. One of them, subordinationism, very clearly represented by Origen, one of the most famous theologians of ante-Nicene times, insisted that the second hypostasis of the Holy Trinity is lower than the first, and the third is lower than the second. The other extreme, which also led away from the Orthodox understanding of the dogma of the Holy Trinity, was modalism, that is, the merging of the three hypostases, the denial of their independence. If Arianism represented an extreme form of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, where the relationship of hypostases was understood in the sense of subordination, then among the defenders of the Nicene Symbol there were also representatives of the opposite extreme - modalism, or Sabellianism. But there was no unanimity among the Arians; there were several parties and regroupings took place from time to time. Let us note two main trends among Arianism. Extreme Arians denied the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son; according to the content of their teaching, they received the name Anomeans, and after the name of one of the main representatives of this direction, Bishop. Eunomia - also began to be called Eunomians. More numerous were the moderate Arians, who proclaimed that the Son was subordinate to the Father. This new term “similar in essence” instead of “consubstantial”, in Greek sounds almost the same as the latter, i.e. - “omousios” (consubstantial) differs from “omiousios” (similar in essence) only by one extra iota. Here, as it were, the gospel word is fulfilled that not a single feature, that is, not a single letter, not a single iota should be changed, and just such a change happened. These Homiusians are often also called semi-Arians, although, in essence, among these moderate semi-Arians there were many who thought Orthodoxy and just did not want to accept the conciliar term “consubstantial.” This became clear later when, during disputes that lasted for decades, the Orthodox, especially the head of the second generation of Orthodox defenders of the Nicene Symbol, Basil the Great, managed to win this part of the Omiusians to the side of the Church.

The situation was still very much complicated by various kinds of personal issues, disputes between individual hierarchs and so on. The Arian emperor Constantius behaved quite moderately in the first period of his reign. He had to reckon with the fact that his brother Constant, who ruled in the west, was Orthodox. But when Constantius, after the death of the other two brothers, managed to establish his dominance over the entire empire, the situation changed. On the one hand, the triumph of Constantius could be seen as a triumph of Christianity. Having solemnly entered Rome, the emperor removed the statue and the altar of Victory from the Senate building and thereby put an end to the official position of paganism in the old capital of the empire. He took such sweeping measures against the pagans as his father had never dared to take. Constantius did a lot to convert barbarians to Christianity - during the reign of this emperor, for example, the Goths were baptized (this explains why the Goths accepted Christianity in the Arian form and remained faithful to it until the middle of the 6th century, until their states were crushed by Saint Justinian) . But, on the other hand, Constantius, being a convinced Arian, decided to bring victory to Arianism in the church dispute. Constantius convened several councils, and the Church’s attitude towards them was ambivalent. Of course, the dogmatic side of their activities is unacceptable, because they sought, by constantly modifying the statement of faith, to get away from the Nicene definition of faith. But on the other hand, the canonical acts of some of these councils were approved by the Church and are still in the Orthodox Book of Rules. There, among the rules of local councils, you can find those adopted by the councils of Constantius. In the end, the emperor managed to win over Pope Liverius, who had hitherto courageously resisted pressure from his side. As a result, Pope Liverius, towards the end of his career, compromised with the Arians and abandoned the confession of the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son.

This episode is important to note for various reasons. On the one hand, he shows that popes are not infallible in the Catholic sense of the word, that is, that they sometimes fall into dogmatic errors. On the other hand, it is interesting in light of the fact that Liverius, despite his cowardice, shown, however, in very difficult conditions, was canonized by the Church as a saint. You can find his name in our church calendar.

But, despite the most severe measures, Constantius was unable to persuade other courageous defenders of Orthodoxy to Arianism. After his death, the situation changed in a different direction - the short reign of the last representative of the dynasty of St. began. Constantine - Julian, known in history as Julian the Apostate.

After Julian, power in the eastern empire still belonged to the Arians for some time, but then Theodosius I the Great reigned here. This native of Spain adhered to strictly Orthodox beliefs and put a decisive end to Arianism. At the beginning of his reign, Theodosius the Great reigned only in the eastern part of the empire; It was precisely at this time, in 381, that he convened the Second Ecumenical Council. This Council was supposed to confirm the actions of the First Ecumenical Council, that is, to condemn Arianism - and, in particular, a branch of Arianism, the heresy of the so-called Doukhobors, who, in line with Arian teaching, denied the divinity of the Third Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity. This heresy is also called Macedonian, but the origin of this name is puzzling, since the famous Bishop of Macedonius in history is apparently completely innocent of it. In addition, the Council had to resolve several very complicated personal issues. During the troubled years of disputes with the Arians, serious conflicts sometimes arose locally among various parties, and even among the Orthodox themselves. In Constantinople itself, for example, under the rule of the Arians there was an Orthodox community, which was headed as a bishop by St. Gregory the Theologian, who with his sermons greatly contributed to the triumph of Orthodoxy. But at the same time, with the support of the Archbishop of Alexandria and with the assistance of the West, a certain philosopher Maxim Kinik received episcopal consecration. Thus, in Constantinople, along with the Arian one, there were two Orthodox bishops, challenging each other’s powers. The same situation was in the other largest center - Antioch.

The events of the Second Ecumenical Council showed extremely clearly that it was both conceived and actually was an imperial institution. It recognized itself as ecumenical, but was convened as a Council only for the eastern part of the empire (where only Theodosius then ruled). The West was not officially represented there. At the First Ecumenical Council, the Archbishop of Rome was represented by his two envoys, presbyters (such papal representatives both at the Councils and in other cases were called legates). And this created a precedent: the popes were also absent from subsequent councils, sending their legates to them. However, at the Second Council there were no papal legates. It cannot be said, however, that the West was completely absent from the Council, since the Archbishop of Thessaloniki was there. This archbishop was a person close to Rome. At that time, the city of Thessalonica was drawn into the orbit of Roman influence, although patriarchates in the later sense did not yet exist (they took shape only in the 5th century). But when the borders of the patriarchates were formed, Thessalonica fell under the jurisdiction of Rome and remained there for several centuries. Clinging to this detail, Western Catholic historians claim that the Archbishop of Thessaloniki was the official representative of the pope at the Council. In fact, this was not the case, and he came to the Council, most likely, at the invitation of Theodosius himself, for shortly before this, Theodosius was baptized by this same Thessalonian Archbishop. By the way, the popes recognized the Council of Constantinople of 381 as ecumenical only much later, at the end of the 6th century. The cathedral supplemented the Creed.

As you know, our Creed, which we read and sing during worship, is called Nicene-Constantinople. It could be called simply Constantinople, because in its current form it was set forth precisely at the Second Ecumenical Council. To overthrow the Doukhobor heretics, the last members were added there, in particular, about the Holy Spirit. The Council also issued four canons (rules) - much less than the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea. Here is one of the rules of the Council of Constantinople, the third, which is of very great importance, since the primacy of the See of Constantinople is established there. The episcopal see of Constantinople is declared second in honor after the Roman one, and this is justified in the text of the canon by the fact that Constantinople is the new Rome, i.e. a purely political argument is put forward. Since Constantinople is the new capital of the empire, its bishop receives almost the same importance as the bishop of ancient Rome. This was completely inconsistent with Roman ideas.

In Rome in the 4th century. A completely clear doctrine has already developed about the primacy of the Roman See, which has power over the entire Universal Church. This teaching, in particular, was expressed by a contemporary of the Council, Pope Damasus, although his statements met with decisive resistance in the East (this is evidenced, for example, by his extensive correspondence with St. Basil the Great - very sharp and conflicting in its content). The claims of the Roman bishop, by and large, did not find any recognition in the East. If one of the eastern hierarchs spoke out in favor of such claims, then this was done for purely tactical reasons - in those cases where the West could provide real assistance in the fight against heresy. It must be said that Rome, which was in more favorable conditions because it lived longer under the rule of Orthodox emperors, throughout the 4th century. acted as a principled opponent of Arianism, and as a defender of individual persecuted champions of Orthodoxy in the East. For example, defending the interests of St. Athanasius the Great, Rome justified its claims to primacy not by the fact that Rome was the first capital of the empire, but by the fact that it was the see of St. Peter, the first of the apostles. In Rome in the 4th century. There was already a doctrine that the chairs of the Apostle Peter should take precedence in the entire Universal Church.

There are three of these departments: in addition to the Roman one, they also included the Alexandrian department, as founded by the closest student of the ap. Peter by the Evangelist Mark, and Antioch (the Antioch Church arose very early and its beginning, no doubt, is also somehow connected with the Apostle Peter). Here are three Petrov departments, among which the Roman one takes precedence. The pulpit of Rome is the place where, as was believed in the West, the ap. Peter was a bishop for about a quarter of a century and where he suffered martyrdom (as church tradition unanimously says), so she was given primacy. This was the Roman idea of ​​church structure. It must be said that these Roman claims not only did not meet with any support at that time in the East, but also in the West itself not everyone aroused sympathy. For example, just in those years when the Second Ecumenical Council took place, one of the largest sees in Italy was the Milan (Mediolan) See, it was occupied at that time by one of the most remarkable fathers of the Western Church, Ambrose. But this see was of great importance not due to the influence of this great hierarch, but because Milan at that time became the imperial residence, that is, it rose to prominence for the same reasons as Constantinople. And when Saint Ambrose vigorously disputed the actions of the Eastern Church at the Second Ecumenical Council, accusing it of almost dissolving the bonds of church unity, he did not even think of referring to the primacy of the See of Peter. He had a completely different church mindset. Ambrose believed that all later issues should be resolved by the Church together, at a general council of bishops.

At the Second Ecumenical Council, one of the rules also states that the bishop should not do anything outside the boundaries of his diocese, i.e. The Council sought to give the Church a clear canonical structure. It must be said that long before this, the territorial and administrative structure of the Church more or less corresponded to the same structure of the empire. Now the Council seeks to consolidate this legislatively. And the structure of the empire was quite complex, there were small territorial units called “provinces”, or, in Greek, “dioceses”, then larger ones, uniting several dioceses each, they were called the Greek word “diocese”; several dioceses were united into even larger units called “prefectures.” And now the same structural units appear in the church system. Local Churches headed by a bishop receive the name of dioceses, borrowed from the state administrative dictionary.

Several dioceses are united into districts that can be called metropolitan, headed by hierarchs with the title of metropolitans or archbishops, and, finally, several cathedras rise, which are of paramount importance and which seek to unite several dioceses around themselves. These are the Roman, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch departments. Then the same position, due to the special historical and sacred significance of the city of Jerusalem, is given to the Jerusalem See (although in reality the Church of Jerusalem had much less influence on the life of the Universal Church than other important sees).

In the East, Roman argumentation could not have any weight for the following reason. If in the West Rome rose as almost the only see of apostolic origin, in the East there were a lot of such sees: in Asia Minor, of course, in Palestine, in Greece, etc. The apostolic origin of the see was not considered unique and did not automatically entail any some privileges. Of course, in the events of the Second Ecumenical Council, a certain alienation of East and West appeared, but subsequently the Western Church accepted the acts of the Second Ecumenical Council in their entirety, including even the rule on the advantages of the See of Constantinople. So at that time the Church was still united, although cracks were already beginning to appear in places, and we cannot hush this up. Of course, the fact that these cracks coincided with the borders of two large parts of the empire made the deepening of the gap very, very likely.

The Holy Church at the First Ecumenical Council revealed and more precisely formulated some points of its original and unchanged content of teaching. Along with the true understanding of Christian doctrine, religious errors and heresies appeared at that time.

Now, when the Greco-Roman Empire became a Christian state, they embraced the entire Empire, dividing it into two halves - Orthodox and non-Orthodox.

They gained a significant number of adherents. The heretics waged a stubborn and prolonged struggle against the Orthodox.

The government took part in this struggle, often taking the side of the heretics.

Religious disputes ended in the triumph of Orthodox teaching, which the Church defined at the Councils in strict and precise terms. But heretics, not submitting to the general church court, often even now separate from the Church and form their own large religious communities with their false teachings.

The First Ecumenical Council was convened in Nika in 325. In Alexandria, the educated priest Arius began to say in church conversations and in private conversations that the Son of God is not the Son in essence, but only by grace. He is a creation, although supreme and existing before others, but not one being with God. That God has Word and Wisdom, but not as special persons. And as properties, like reason and will in the human soul.

In essence, he denied the Holy Trinity. His heresy was a consequence of the previous Sabellian and Monarchian heresies.

Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, strictly following the teaching of the Holy Scriptures and the tradition of his pious predecessors, ordered Arius to stop spreading his false teaching.

The false teacher, having found like-minded people among some bishops, presbyters and deacons, began to gather them, expounding to them his heretical teaching.

Then Bishop Alexander, with the consent of the hierarchy, who gathered about 100 people, excommunicated Arius from the Church in 323. He was embittered against Bishop Alexander also because he wanted to be elected bishop in his place.

Arius turned with complaints about his bishop to some bishops he had previously known, asking for intercession. Bishop Alexander then considered it necessary to acquaint all bishops with the state of affairs in his diocese. He exposed the heresy of Arius in even more detail in a letter addressed to Alexander, bishop of Byzantium.

Emperor Constantine the Great then drew attention to the unrest in the Church. At the beginning of 325, the Emperor, by special command, invited the bishops to hasten to Nicaea, to the Council. He took upon himself all the costs of their travel and stay in Nicaea. Up to three hundred bishops arrived from the eastern regions alone. Bishop Sylvester of Rome, due to his old age, sent two presbyters in his place. The Church believes that there were 318 participants in the Council. The Antioch Patriarch Eustathius presided. The meetings, which took place in one of the chambers of the royal palace, lasted from June 19 to August 25.

Arius stubbornly defended his false teaching. But the deacon of the Bishop of Alexandria, Saint Athanasius and other zealots of Orthodoxy, Saint Nicholas of Myra, Saint Spyridon of Trimythous, defeated the opponents of the truth in disputes. And, finally, with a common voice it was decided to excommunicate unrepentant heretics from the Church and set out in writing the Orthodox teaching in the Creed.

The Creed was compiled, known as the Nicene Creed. It sets out with particular expressiveness the doctrine of the consubstantiality of the Son with God the Father.

Arius himself remained adamant in his opinions. He was sentenced to deposition and imprisonment. His works were set on fire, and everyone who was convicted of concealment and secret storage was threatened with the death penalty. Supporters of Arius, who would have decided, even after reasoning, to defend the teachings of their heresiarch, were also threatened, according to the emperor’s definition, with exile in prison.

The Emperor and the Council Fathers sent notices everywhere about what was happening at the Council of Nicaea. Emperor Constantine wrote on his own behalf to the Church of Alexandria against Arius.

– What was unanimously recognized by three hundred holy bishops is nothing other than the thought of the Son of God himself, especially when in the minds of so many great and many men the Holy Spirit was present, Who revealed to them the Divine will. Therefore, let all doubt and hesitation disappear from you. With a strong spirit, all of you step onto the path of truth, so that when I am with you, I can offer thanks to the all-seeing God for showing us true faith and returning our longed-for love. May God protect you, beloved brethren.

So if even now, someone, when asked whether he believes in God, answers that he believes in man, he must be recognized as mistaken and classified as a heretic.

It is no coincidence that the Venerable Joseph of Volotsk, the 500th anniversary of whose repose we celebrate in 2015, during the fight against the heresy of the Judaizers, called the famous icon painter Dionysius and asked him to paint images of the Ecumenical Councils. To clearly depict the danger arising from heresies.

The First Ecumenical Council also determined that the day of Holy Easter will be celebrated by all Christians at the same time. On the first Sunday after the full moon, which was on the spring equinox. How the Orthodox Church still celebrates Easter.

With the new conditions of church life created at the beginning of the 4th century, the Christian church experienced a time of intense activity, which was especially clearly expressed in the field of dogma. In the 4th century, dogmatic issues were no longer dealt with by individuals, as was the case in the 3rd century, for example Tertulian or Origen, but by entire, numerous, well-organized parties.

Councils in the 4th century became commonplace, and they were seen as the only means for resolving controversial church issues. But already in the conciliar movement of the 4th century, a new, extremely important feature was noticed for the entire subsequent history of relations between spiritual and secular authorities, between church and state. Since Constantine the Great, state power has intervened in dogmatic movements and directed them at its own discretion. In the latter case, state interests did not always coincide with church interests.

For a long time, the main cultural center of the East was Egyptian Alexandria, where intellectual life was in full swing. It is quite natural that new dogmatic movements developed in the same Alexandria, which from the end of the 2nd century “became,” according to Prof. A. Spassky, “the center of the theological development of the East and acquired special glory in the Christian world - the glory of the philosophical church, in which Interest in studying the highest questions of faith and knowledge has never waned."

However, it was the Alexandrian priest Arius who gave his name to the most significant "heretical" teaching of Constantine's time. The doctrine itself was formed in the second half of the 3rd century. in Antioch, in Syria, where Lucian, one of the most educated men of that time, founded a school of exegesis and theology. This school, as Harnack said, "is the nurse of the Arian doctrine, and Lucian, its head, is an Arius before Arius."

Arius put forward the idea that the Son of God was created, created. This was the essence of the Arian heresy. The teachings of Arius quickly spread not only in Egypt, but also beyond its borders. Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, and Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, went over to the side of Arius. Feeling ran high. Despite the efforts of like-minded people of Arius, Bishop Alexander of Alexandria refused to communicate with Arius. Attempts made by local means to calm the agitated church did not lead to the desired result.

Constantine, who had just defeated Licinius and became the sole sovereign, arrived in Nicomedia in 324, where he received a number of complaints from both Arius’s opponents and his supporters. Wanting first of all to preserve church peace in the state and not realizing the importance of the dogmatic strife that was taking place, the emperor addressed a letter to Alexander of Alexandria and Arius, where he urged them to reconcile, taking the example of philosophers who, although they argue among themselves, get along peacefully ; It is easy for them to reconcile, since both recognize Divine Providence and Jesus Christ. “Give me back peaceful days and good nights,” Konstantin writes in his message, “let me also enjoy a serene life.” With the letter, Constantine sent one of his most trusted representatives, Bishop of Corduba (in Spain) Hosea, to Alexandria, who, having handed over the letter and sorted out the matter on the spot, after returning, explained to the emperor the importance of the Arian movement. Then Constantine decided to convene a council.

The First Ecumenical Council was convened by imperial charters in 325 in the Bithynian city of Nicaea. The exact number of cathedral members who arrived is unknown; The number of Nicene fathers is usually determined to be 318. The majority consisted of eastern bishops. The elderly Roman bishop sent two presbyters in his place. Of the cases intended for consideration at the council, the most important was the issue of the Arian dispute. The council was presided over by the emperor, who even led the debate.

The acts (acts) of the Council of Nicaea have not survived. Some even doubt whether the minutes of the council were drawn up at all. Information about him has reached us in the writings of council participants and historians. After heated debates, the council condemned the heresy of Arius and, after some amendments and additions, adopted the Creed, in which, contrary to the teachings of Arius, Jesus Christ was recognized as the Son of God, uncreated, consubstantial with the Father. The archdeacon of the Alexandrian church, Athanasius, rebelled against Arius with special zeal and great skill. The Nicene symbol was signed by many of the Arian bishops. The most stubborn of them, including Arius himself, were expelled and imprisoned. One of the best experts on Arianism wrote: “Arianism began with power, promising a great future, and after a few years it seemed that in the East there was no equal contender for dominance. However, its strength broke at the moment of the council meeting, “withered” from the general condemnation of Christendom... Arianism seemed hopelessly crushed when the council closed." The solemn conciliar message announced to all communities the coming church harmony and peace. Constantine wrote: “Whatever the devil plotted against us, everything is (now) destroyed at the very foundation; double-mindedness, schisms, unrest, deadly poison, so to speak, disagreement - all this, by the command of God, was defeated by the light of truth.”

Reality did not live up to these rosy hopes. The Council of Nicea, with its condemnation of Arianism, not only did not put an end to the Arian disputes, but even caused new movements and complications. A very definite change in favor of the Arians is noticeable in the mood of Constantine himself. Three years after the council, Arius and his most ardent followers were returned from exile; Instead, the most prominent defenders of the Nicene symbol went into exile. If the Nicene symbol was not officially rejected and condemned, then it was deliberately forgotten and partly replaced by other formulas.

It is difficult to find out with certainty how the stubborn opposition to the Council of Nicea was created and what caused the change in the mood of Constantine himself. Perhaps, among the various explanations given for this from the field of court influences, intimate family relationships, etc., one explanation should be highlighted, namely, that Constantine, having begun to resolve the Arian question, was not familiar with the religious mood of the East, which in for the most part he sympathized with Arianism; the emperor himself, taught the faith by the West and under the influence of his Western leaders, for example Hosea, Bishop of Corduba, developed in this sense the Nicene symbol, which was not suitable for the East. Realizing that in the East the Nicene definitions ran counter to the mood of the church majority and the desires of the masses, Constantine began to lean toward Arianism.

In any case, in the last years of Constantine's reign, Arianism penetrated the court and every year it became more and more firmly established in the eastern half of the Empire. Many adherents of the Nicene symbol were deprived of their pulpits and went into exile. The history of Arian dominance during this time, due to the state of the sources, has not yet been sufficiently clarified by science.

As is known, Constantine remained officially a pagan until the last year of his life. Only on his deathbed did he receive baptism from the hands of Eusebius of Nicomedia, that is, an Arian; but, as Prof. notes. Spassky died with a will on his lips to return Athanasius, the famous opponent of Arius, from exile. Constantine made his sons Christians.

Having learned about this teaching, Bishop of Alexandria Alexander forbade Arius to preach his teachings. But Arius showed disobedience and as a result part of the Alexandrian clergy joined him. Arius had a very attractive appearance - both a scientist and an ascetic.
Bishop Alexander convened the Council of the Egyptian District and in 323 g The council condemns Arius and excommunicates him from church communion. But this Council did not stop the unrest. After his conviction, Arius wandered throughout Syria and Asia Minor, seeking support among the influential clergy.

Arius belonged to the Lucian school of Antioch. Lucian before 311 in Antioch he left many disciples, the so-called Solukianists. Then he accepted repentance, became a presbyter and died a martyr’s death.

Arius began to write letters to the Solukianists of Antioch, in particular to two bishops: Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea to gain influence at the court of Emperor Constantine. And soon Arius achieves his goal. After his conviction, Arius and his followers were expelled from Alexandria. But Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea insisted on his return to Alexandria, convening their Council, where they demand that Alexander of Alexandria recognize the teachings of Arius. Alexander sent other bishops to help him.

It all came down to Emperor Constantine, who experienced church unrest very painfully. Emperor Constantine writes letters to Alexander and Arius asking them not to quarrel over trifles, over sophisms. Emperor Constantine sends Hosea of ​​Kardubsky, his confidant, to Alexandria. Hosea realized that this was not a matter of trifles, he went to Antioch, where then it was necessary to elect a bishop, and a spontaneous Council took place there, which took upon itself this whole difficult situation. This Council condemns Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea. Returning to Emperor Constantine, Hosea told him that Arius was wrong. Emperor Constantine decides to convene an Ecumenical Council.

Before this, it was customary for the Church to deal with Local Councils. But the idea of ​​an Ecumenical Council came to the mind for the first time to Emperor Constantine. This idea seemed unusual to many. IN 325 g. all bishops, mainly from the eastern part of the empire, and some representatives of the western, as well as bishops from the non-Roman Empire: Scythia, Armenia, Persia, were invited to this Council. When most of the bishops, about 300, arrived in Nicaea, the Council was inaugurated.

There were 3 main parties before the Council:
1.like-minded with Arius(Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea and some others)
2.Orthodox(Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius the Great, Hosea of ​​Kardub, Eustathius of Antioch)
3.rest did not join either party. They did not understand how serious the theological question faced the Council.

The Arians agreed with all the conclusions of the Orthodox, but reinterpreted them in their own way. After the debate reached a dead end, Eusebius of Caesarea spoke. He suggested using his baptismal Creed so that the word of God would be sealed through it. Emperor Constantine agreed that this “Creed” be accepted as a basis, but demanded two clarifications: "Consubstantial" and "Uncreated". After Emperor Constantine agreed to this “Creed,” most of the bishops agreed with him. These two terms made the Arian interpretation of the Son of God impossible. “It-musios” is consubstantial.

Next came anathematism, which prohibited the teachings of Arius. This oros- a doctrinal definition - was signed by almost all the bishops, except Arius and two who sympathized with him. Most bishops never realized the importance of this problem. Arius and Eusebius of Nicodemus were sent into exile. But the problem was not solved; this is where it all began.

Next topic: Spread of Arianism