The Division Begins, and Alexander Excommunicates Arius

Having drawn this conclusion from his novel line of reasoning, Arius stirred up many to take up the question; and so from a little spark a great fire was kindled. The evil began in the church at Alexandria and ran through all Egypt, Libya and Upper Thebes, and at last spread over the rest of the provinces and cities. Many others also took up the opinion of Arius, but Eusebius in particular was a zealous defender of it: not Eusebius of Caesarea, but the one who had formerly been bishop of the church at Berytus, and was then, somehow or other, in possession of the bishopric of Nicomedia in Bithynia. When Alexander became aware of these things, both from what he saw himself and from what he heard, he was angered to the highest degree. He called a council of many church leaders and excommunicated Arius and those who supported his heresy, and at the same time he wrote as follows to the bishops in every city: [a]

The Letter of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria

To our beloved and most honored fellow ministers of the catholic church everywhere, Alexander sends greeting in the Lord. [b]

Since the catholic church is one body, and we are commanded in the holy Scriptures to keep “the bond of unity and peace,” it is right for us to write and let one another know how things stand with each of us, so that “if one member suffers or rejoices,” we may either suffer with one another or rejoice together. Know, then, that there have recently arisen in our diocese lawless men, enemies of Christ, teaching an apostasy that one could rightly consider and call the forerunner of Antichrist. I wished indeed to pass over this disorder in silence, so that, if possible, the evil might stay confined to the apostates themselves and not go out into other districts and defile the ears of some of the simple. [c]

But Eusebius, now at Nicomedia, thinks the affairs of the church are under his control, because, if you please, he deserted his charge at Berytus and took authority over the church at Nicomedia without being punished. He has put himself at the head of these apostates, and he even dares to send letters of commendation for them in every direction, hoping by any means to lure some of the ignorant into this most impious heresy, which is hostile to Christ. So I felt bound to be silent no longer, knowing what is written in the law, but to inform you of all these things, so that you may understand both who the apostates are and the contemptible character of their heresy, and may pay no attention to anything Eusebius may write to you. For now, wishing to renew his old malice, which seemed to have been buried in forgetfulness by time, he pretends to write on their behalf, while the facts themselves plainly show that he does it to advance his own purposes.

These, then, are the ones who have become apostates: Arius, Achillas, Aithales and Carpones, another Arius, Sarmates, Euzoius, Lucius, Julian, Menas, Helladius and Gaius. With these must also be counted Secundus and Theonas, who were once called bishops.

The teachings they have invented and assert, contrary to the Scriptures, are these. They say that God was not always the Father, but there was a time when he was not the Father; that the Word of God was not from eternity, but was made out of nothing; for the God who always is (“the I AM,” the eternal One) made out of nothing the one who did not exist before, so that there was a time when he did not exist, since the Son is a creature and a thing made. They say that he is not like the Father in being, and is not by nature either the Father’s true Word or his true Wisdom, but is one of his works and creatures, and is wrongly called Word and Wisdom, since he himself was made by God’s own Word and by the Wisdom that is in God, through which God made all things and him as well. Therefore, they say, he is by nature changeable and capable of change, as all other rational creatures are; the Word is foreign to the being of God and other than it; and the Father cannot be described by the Son and is invisible to him, for the Word neither knows the Father perfectly and accurately nor can see him clearly. The Son does not know the nature of his own being; for he was made for our sake, so that God might create us through him as through an instrument; and he would never have existed if God had not wished to create us.

Someone, then, asked them whether the Word of God could change, as the devil has changed; and they were not afraid to say, “Yes, he could; for being begotten, he is capable of change.” So we, with the bishops of Egypt and Libya, nearly a hundred of us gathered together, have pronounced anathema on Arius for shamelessly professing these heresies, together with all who have supported them. Yet the partisans of Eusebius have received them, trying to mix falsehood with truth, and what is impious with what is sacred. But they will not prevail, for the truth must triumph, and “light has no fellowship with darkness, nor has Christ any agreement with Belial.” [f]

Who ever heard such blasphemies? What man of any piety, hearing them now, is not struck with horror and does not stop his ears, so that the filth of these expressions may not pollute his hearing? Who that hears John saying, “In the beginning was the Word,” does not condemn those who say, “There was a time when the Word was not”? Or who, hearing in the Gospel of “the only Son,” and that “all things were made through him,” will not loathe those who declare the Son to be one of the things made? How can he be one of the things that were made through himself? Or how can he be the only Son, if he is counted among created things? And how could he have come into existence from things that were not, when the Father has said, “My heart has composed a good matter,” and, “I begot you out of my bosom before the dawn”? Or how is he unlike the Father’s being, when he is “his perfect image” and “the brightness of his glory,” and says, “Whoever has seen me has seen the Father”? Again, if the Son is the Word and Wisdom of God, how was there a time when he did not exist? That is the same as saying that God was once without both Word and Wisdom. How can he be changeable and capable of change, when he says of himself, “I am in the Father, and the Father in me,” and, “I and the Father are one,” and again through the prophet, “Look at me, for I am, and I have not changed”? And even if someone applies that saying to the Father himself, it would now be said still more fittingly of the Word, because he was not changed by becoming man; but, as the apostle says, “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.” And what could persuade them to say that he was made for our sake, when Paul has plainly declared that “all things are for him and through him”?

We need not wonder, indeed, at their blasphemous claim that the Son does not perfectly know the Father; for once they had made up their minds to fight against Christ, they reject even the words of the Lord himself when he says, “As the Father knows me, so I know the Father.” If, then, the Father knows the Son only in part, it is plain that the Son also knows the Father only in part. But if it would be wrong to say this, and it is admitted that the Father knows the Son perfectly, it is clear that as the Father knows his own Word, so the Word knows his own Father, whose Word he is.

By saying these things and opening up the divine Scriptures we have often refuted them; but like chameleons they changed again, striving to make what is written true of themselves: “When the ungodly has reached the depths of wickedness, he becomes contemptuous.” Many heresies have arisen before these, which went beyond all bounds in their daring and fell into utter folly; but these men, by trying in all their talk to overthrow the divinity of the Word, have come nearer to Antichrist, and so have made the hatred felt for the earlier heresies seem smaller by comparison. That is why they have been publicly rejected by the church and placed under anathema. We grieve indeed over the destruction of these men, and especially because, after being taught the doctrines of the church, they have now fallen away from them. Yet we are not greatly surprised at this, for Hymenaeus and Philetus fell in the same way, and before them Judas, who had followed the Savior but afterward deserted him and became his betrayer.

Nor were we left without warning about these very men; for the Lord himself said, “Take care that no one deceives you; for many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many”; and, “The time is near; do not go after them.” And Paul, having learned these things from the Savior, wrote that “in the latter times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceiving spirits and teachings of demons” who pervert the truth. Since, then, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has himself commanded this, and has also given us notice through the apostle about such men, we, having heard their impiety for ourselves, have accordingly placed them under anathema, as we said before, and declared them cut off from the catholic church and faith.

We have also made this known to your piety, beloved and most honored fellow ministers, so that you may neither receive any of them if they presume to come to you, nor be led to put your trust in Eusebius or anyone else who may write to you about them. For it is our duty as Christians to turn away from all who speak or think anything against Christ, as from those who resist God and destroy the souls of men. Nor is it right for us even “to greet such men,” as the blessed John has forbidden, “so that we may never share in their sins.” Greet the brothers and sisters who are with you; those who are with me greet you.

When Alexander had written in this way to the bishops in every city, the evil only grew worse, since those he wrote to were roused to contention by it. Some fully agreed with the views in this letter and signed it, while others did the opposite. But Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, was stirred to controversy beyond all the rest, because Alexander in his letter had made a personal and critical reference to him. At that moment Eusebius had great influence, because the emperor was living at Nicomedia; in fact, Diocletian had built a palace there a short time before. For this reason many of the bishops paid court to Eusebius. He wrote again and again, both to Alexander, urging him to set aside the dispute that had been stirred up and to receive Arius and his followers back into communion, and to the bishops in each city, urging them not to go along with what Alexander had done. By these means confusion reigned everywhere. One could see not only the leaders of the churches arguing, but the people divided as well, some siding with one party and some with the other. The affair was carried to such a disgraceful length that Christianity became a subject of popular ridicule, even in the theaters. Those at Alexandria argued sharply about the highest points of doctrine and sent delegations to the bishops of the various dioceses, while those of the opposite faction stirred up a similar disturbance.

The Melitians, who a little while before had separated from the church, now mixed in with the Arians. But who these Melitians are must now be explained.

Peter, bishop of Alexandria, who suffered martyrdom in the reign of Diocletian, deposed a certain Melitius, bishop of one of the cities in Egypt, on many other charges, but above all because during the persecution he had denied the faith and offered sacrifice. Stripped of his rank, but still having many followers, this man became the leader of the heresy of those who to this day are called Melitians after him throughout Egypt. Since he had no reasonable excuse for his separation from the church, he claimed that he had simply been wronged, and he heaped slanderous reproaches on Peter. Then Peter died a martyr’s death in the persecution, and Melitius turned his abuse first on Achillas, who succeeded Peter as bishop, and afterward on Alexander, the successor of Achillas. While things stood this way among them, the dispute about Arius arose, and Melitius and his followers took the side of Arius and joined in a conspiracy with him against the bishop. But all who regarded the opinion of Arius as indefensible upheld Alexander’s decision against him and thought that those who favored his views had been justly condemned. Meanwhile Eusebius of Nicomedia and his party, along with those who favored the views of Arius, demanded by letter that the sentence of excommunication pronounced against him be withdrawn, and that those who had been shut out be received back into the church, since they held no unsound doctrine. So letters from the opposing parties were sent to the bishop of Alexandria; and Arius made a collection of those that were favorable to himself, while Alexander did the same with those that were against him. This gave a plausible means of defense to the sects now flourishing, the Arians, the Eunomians and those named after Macedonius; for each of them uses these letters to defend its heresy. [p]