mountainman

Arius – Heresy & Tradition
By Rowan Williams

INTRODUCTION
Images of a Heresy


The victors of the rise of fourth century christianity portray Arius
as a dissident Christian bishop of Alexandria when the demographics
of christians to pagans is variously estimated. I use the term "pagans"
as an abbreviation for the Graeco-Roman or Hellenistic cultural milieu
of Alexandria. But what if Arius was simply the pagan Alexandrian resistance
described retrospectively using "christian glasses"

The Arian controversy was named after Arius himself.
More explicity the words of Arius.
A number of sources state implicitly that the Council of Nicaea
was summoned on acount of the words of Arius.

What was Arius saying?
Just a few simple aphorisms.

There was a time when Jesus was not.


etc


We have been instructed to view these statements
as statement concerning theology, but they also
represent historical political evidence. The utter
turbulence and persistence of the heresey
known as the Arian controversy raged for centuries.
That is, generations.

What do we really know about Arius of Alexandria?

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 associates [Ed: "Gnostics"?] called this inexpressible essence unbegotten, in contrast to an essence who by nature is begotten.
He claimed that he and his associates praised this inexpressible essence as without beginning in contrast to an essence who has a beginning.
He claimed that he and his associates 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 was known to have made Constantine amazed over the fact that he had not immediately presented himself when summoned.
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 your 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 impled 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


SOURCES for Arius of Alexandria

(1): 0000 CE - Thalia; Rowan Williams, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, Revised Edition, 98-116
(2): 0325 CE - Earliest of the Nicaean "Creeds"
(3): 0327 CE - Emperor Constantine to Arius
(4): 0333 CE - Emperor Constantine's "Circular"
(5): 0333 CE - Constantine's "Dear Arius Letter



Also be sure to see the
SOURCES for Leucius Charinus

(1) Tertullian Prescription against Heretics
(2) Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica - On Heretical Books
(3) Epiphanius' "Against Heresies"
(4) Augustine's Contra Faustum Manichaeum
(5) Chapter 5 - Decretum Gelasianum
(6) Gregory of Tours' epitome of the Acts of Andrew
(7) Photius' BIBLIOTHECA OR MYRIOBIBLON

What were the names of some of the "Early Christains?
Eusebius names hundreds and hundreds.
What were the names of some of the "Early Gnostics"?
Eusebius goes deathly quiet.
Eusebius does not name the heretics.

In opening comments to his history Eusebius writes:


Eusebius purpose was to give the names of the heretics.
He failed to do so because the name of the heretic had suffered imperial Damnatio memoriae
Eusebius may have mentioned names, but later preservers of Eusebius may have removed the names.
We must not forget this was some form of authenticity problem.
There were supposed to be only four gospels and one act of the apostles.
Some clever satirist composed a few more.
They were forbidden to be read!

IMO Arius of Alexandria authored the new testament apocrypha.
He was perhaps the last voice of the Second Sophistic.
He wrote Greek satire.
His works were banned and buried.
His name was removed from his books and history.
An expedient pseudonym "Leucius Charinus" was temporarily utilised.
If there had been photographs of Arius of Alexandria in those days,
his image would have been removed therefrom.