Council of Nicaea: meaning. First Council of Nicaea. The First Ecumenical Council: for which Aria was slapped

The Lord Jesus left the Church militant as Her Head and Founder, a great promise that brings courage to the hearts of His faithful followers. “I will build,” He said, “My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against It” ( Matthew 16:18). But in this joyful promise there is a prophetic indication of that sad phenomenon that the life of the Church of Christ here on earth must take place in the struggle against the dark forces of hell, which tirelessly in one way or another try to destroy the unshakable stronghold erected from below among the raging waves of world evil. . The first three centuries in the life of the Church were accompanied by Her persecution: first by the Jews, and then by the Gentiles. The best sons of the Church, for confessing the name of Christ, suffered torment and even death itself: at times, in some places of the Greco-Roman Empire, streams of Christian blood flowed. But the strength of external weapons could not defeat the internal strength of the spirit, and the pagan sword was finally forced to bow before the humble sign of the Cross of Christ, when at the beginning of the 4th century the Christian emperor, St. and Equal-to-the-Apostles Constantine the Great, reigned over the Greco-Roman world for the first time. With his accession, the very possibility of persecution ceased, but the activity of the enemy of the Church, the devil, did not cease. Without defeating the Church from the outside, he tried to strike Her from within, inciting the Arian heresy, which destroyed the Face of the Founder of the Church, Christ Jesus.

The main provisions of the Arian heresy are as follows. "There was a time when there was only God the Father, the unbegotten, the root cause of all things. Having desired to create the world and knowing that the world, infinitely distant from God, cannot bear the direct action of His creative power, God the Father creates from the bearer a mediating Being between Him and the world , - the Son of God, in order to create the world through Him. As created from the non-existent, the Son is also changeable by nature, like all creations. In a word, the heresy recognized Christ, the Son of God, not as God, consubstantial with the Father, but as a created Being, although the most perfect of all created beings. From its ancestor this heresy is known in the history of the Christian Church under the name Arian.

Arius was born in 256 in Libya, according to other sources, in Alexandria. A disciple of Lucian, presbyter of Antioch, Arius was a man of a strict, impeccable life, who combined pleasant manners with a stern, imposing appearance; modest in appearance, he was in fact very ambitious. Ordained a deacon by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, Arius was excommunicated by the same bishop for his active sympathy with one local church party, imbued with schismatic aspirations. Achilles, the successor of Bishop Peter, having accepted the excommunicated Arius into communion with the Church, consecrated him a presbyter and entrusted the parish in Alexandria to his care. After the death of Achilles, Arius, as some church writers testify, expected to be his deputy, but Alexander was elected to the episcopal throne of Alexandria.

At one of the meetings of the Alexandrian presbyters (318), when Bishop Alexander was talking about the unity of the Most Holy Trinity, Arius accused him of Sabellianism, expressing his heretical convictions on the question of the Person of the Son of God. The heretic Savely (3rd century), distorting the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, argued that God is One Person: as the Father, He is in heaven, as the Son is on earth, and as the Holy Spirit is in creation. The bishop tried to reason with the erring presbyter at first with friendly exhortations, but he remained adamant. Meanwhile, some zealots of the right faith condemned the condescending attitude towards Arius on the part of the bishop so strongly that the Church of Alexandria was even threatened with a split. Then Bishop Alexander, recognizing the unorthodox thoughts of Arius, excommunicated him from church communion. The side of Arius was taken by some bishops, of which the most famous are: Theon of Marmaric and Secundus of Ptolemais. He was also joined by about twenty presbyters, the same number of deacons and many virgins. Seeing that evil was growing, Alexander convened (320 or 321) from the bishops under his jurisdiction a council, which also excommunicated Arius from the Church.

The impossibility of remaining longer in Alexandria forced Arius to seek refuge first in Palestine, from where he tried to expand the circle of his supporters, while Bishop Alexander distributed messages warning against being carried away by heretical teachings, resolutely refusing to reconcile with Arius, for whom some with Eusebius are in front of him. , Bishop of Caesarea at the head, interceded. Removed from Palestine at the insistence of the Bishop of Alexandria, Arius moved to Nicomedia, where Eusebius was bishop, as was Arius, a disciple and admirer of Lucian. One Bithynian local council, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, recognized Arius as Orthodox, and Eusebius accepted him into church communion. During his stay in Nicomedia, Arius compiled the book "Phalia", intended for the common people, whose favor he knew how to win. Here, in an easy, accessible, semi-poetic form, Arius expounded his heretical teaching about the Son of God in order to root him and make him known. Arius also composed songs for millers, sailors and travelers.

The turmoil in the Church, raised by heresy, grew more and more, so that Emperor Constantine himself turned his attention to it. In order to put an end to the disputes that were tearing apart the Church, he, on the advice of some bishops, mainly Eusebius of Caesarea, who had a special influence on him, sent a letter addressed to the bishops Alexander and Arius, in which he called on both to peace and unity. With this letter from the emperor, Hosea of ​​Kordub, one of the oldest and most respected bishops, was sent to Alexandria. In Alexandria, at the site of disputes, Hosea became convinced of the need for decisive measures to destroy evil, since disagreements in the Church were already ridiculed in pagan theaters, and in some places, engulfed in confusion, even insults were made to the statues of the emperor. When Hosea, returning, explained to Emperor Constantine the real situation and the true essence of the matter, the latter, with due seriousness, drew attention to the disagreements in the Church that arose through the fault of Arius. It was decided to convene an Ecumenical Council in order to restore the disturbed peace, ecclesiastical and social, and also to resolve the recently renewed dispute about the time of the celebration of Easter. With the unification of East and West under the rule of one Christian emperor, the possibility of convening an Ecumenical Council first appeared.

The Council was determined to be held in Nicaea. Now the poor village of Isnik, at the time described, Nicaea was the main seaside and rich city of the Bithynian region. Here was the vast palace of the emperor and other buildings in which the participants of the Council could comfortably accommodate; it was only 20 miles from Nicomedia, then the residence of the emperor, and was equally well accessible both from the sea and from land. Moreover, the emperor issued special orders that facilitated the arrival of the convened bishops; their maintenance at the time of the conciliar sessions, he ordered to be attributed to the state. Most of the bishops came from eastern half empires; there was one bishop from Scythia and one from Persia; from the western half, where the confusion caused by Arianism had not yet penetrated, only Hosea of ​​Cordub, Caecilian of Carthage and the deputies of the aged Bishop Sylvester of Rome, presbyters Viton and Vicentius, were present at the Council. There were 318 bishops in all. Historians give an unequal number of members of the cathedral. Eusebius speaks of 250, Athanasius the Great and Socrates count "more than 300"; according to Sozomen there were "only 320". The number 318 given by St. Athanasius in one epistle to the African Church, as well as Epiphanius and Theodoret, according to tradition, according to a mysterious ratio with the number of servants of Abraham ( Gen. 14, 14) and also because the Greek inscription of it TIH resembles the cross of Jesus Christ.

The presbyters and deacons who arrived with them were more than 2,000 people. Even some pagan philosophers appeared at the Council and held discussions on controversial issues with the bishops. The church historian (5th century) Sozomen has a story about how one little-literate bishop converted a philosopher only by reading him a creed, he also tells about the Byzantine bishop Alexander, who deprived the ability of speech of a philosopher who was arguing with him, saying to him: "In the name of Jesus Christ, I command don't tell you!"

Three already established parties spoke at the Council: two of them held opposing views on the Person of the Son of God, and the third occupied a middle, reconciling position between the two extremes. The Orthodox party was predominantly made up of confessors who suffered torment for the name of Christ during the time of persecution. Members of this party "shunned, - according to Sozomen, - innovations in the faith, betrayed from ancient times"; especially in relation to the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, they considered it necessary to subordinate the mind to holy faith, for "the sacrament of the Holy Trinity worshiped exceeds every mind and word, is completely incomprehensible and is assimilated only by faith." Therefore, the Orthodox viewed the question of the essence of the Son of God, which was subject to resolution by the Council, as a mystery beyond the power of the human mind, while at the same time expressing a strictly defined dogmatic teaching that the Son of God is just as perfect God as the Father: “Christ said: Az and the Father are One Esma" ( John, 10:30). By these words, the Lord expresses not that two natures constitute one hypostasis, but that the Son of God exactly and perfectly retains and preserves one nature with the Father, has in Himself the likeness of Himself imprinted by His very nature and in no way differs from Him in His image.

The most famous representatives of the Orthodox party at the Council were: Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, Hosea, Bishop of Kordub, Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem, James, Bishop of Nisibis, Spiridon, Bishop of Fr. Cyprus, Paphnutius, Bishop of the Upper Thebaid, and Nicholas, Bishop of Mir Lycian. The first of them, Alexander of Alexandria and Hosea Kordubsky, were leaders of the Orthodox party. Completely opposite to it was the strictly Arian party, which was made up of people "skillful in questioning and averse to the simplicity of faith", subjecting questions of faith, like any other, to rational research and wanting to subordinate faith to knowledge. At the head of this party, which shook the very foundations of Christianity with its heretical teachings, were: the support of Arianism and the "paramount bishop of the time" Eusebius of Nicomedia, as well as the bishops: Minophanes of Ephesus, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Theognis of Nicaea, Theon of Marmaric and Secundus of Ptolemais. There were no more than 17 people in the Strict Arian party. The middle party, quite significant in terms of the number of members, fluctuating between Orthodox and Arians, included persons who later received the name semi-Arians; Although they revered the Son of God as God, they recognized His Divinity as unequal to the Divinity of the Father, who was in a subordinate relation to Him. The leader of this party was the well-known historian of the Church, Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea.

The council began in June 325; its first meetings, as one can probably think, took place in the temple. Two weeks after the opening of the Council, Emperor Constantine himself arrived in Nicaea, and the meetings were transferred to the vast chamber of the royal palace, where the emperor appeared at them, behaving himself not as a leader, but as an observer. During his first appearance at the Council, after listening to the welcoming speeches of Eustathius of Antioch and Eusebius of Caesarea, Constantine the Great turned to the fathers of the Council with a speech, imploring them to stop "civil strife in the Church of Christ!" The council first of all focused its intense attention on the issue that caused these internecine strife, that is, on the teaching of Arius; having denounced the latter as a heretic, the fathers of the Council approved the Orthodox teaching about the Person of the Son of God, more precisely about His essence. Preliminary discussions on this main question were conducted at the Council with complete tolerance: both Arian and semi-Arian were expressed on the same rights as the Orthodox bishops. In a word, - as the Greek church historian Socrates (5th century) notes - "the definition of faith was not made simply and as it happened, but announced after a long study and test - and not so that one is shown, and the other is silent, but taken into attention is all related to the affirmation of dogma, and that faith is not simply defined, but carefully considered in advance, so that any opinion is eliminated that represents a reason for reciprocity or division of thoughts. The Spirit of God established the consent of the bishops.

The strictly Arian party was heard first, since it was precisely their teaching, which violated the church peace, that was the main reason convocation of the Council. Eusebius of Nicomedia, the main representative of this party, introduced on behalf of it for consideration by the fathers a symbol containing the following expressions, exhausting the essence of the teaching of the strict Arians about the Person of the Son of God: "The Son of God is a work and a creature"; "...there was a time when the Son was not"; "... The son is changing in essence." Immediately after reading this symbol, the fathers of the Council unanimously and decisively rejected it, recognizing it as full of lies and ugly; moreover, even the scroll itself, which contained the symbol, was torn, as it deserved, to shreds. The main reason for the condemnation of the symbol of Eusebius of Nicomedia for the fathers of the Council was the important circumstance that in the heretical symbol there was not a single expression about the Son of God from those that are about Him in Holy Scripture. At the same time, the fathers "meekly" - according to the testimony of ancient church historians - demanded from Eusebius of Nicomedia and from Arius that they set forth arguments confirming the validity of their reasoning; after listening to these arguments, the Council also rejected them as completely false and unconvincing. In the midst of these debates with heresy teachers from among the Orthodox came forward as zealous defenders of the true faith and skillful exposers of heresy: the deacon of Alexandria, who ministered to his bishop, Athanasius and Markell, bishop of Ancyra.

By the time of the council meetings, obviously, it is necessary to coincide with the following tradition, preserved by the monk of the Studion monastery John, about a participant in the Cathedral of St. Bishop Nicholas of Myra. When Arius expounded his heretical teaching, many stopped their ears so as not to hear him; Saint Nicholas, who was present at the same time, animated by zeal for God, like the zeal of the prophet Elijah, could not bear the blasphemy and struck the heretic teacher on the cheek. The Fathers of the Council, indignant at such an act of the saint, decided to deprive him of his episcopal rank. But they had to cancel this decision after one miraculous vision that some of them had: they saw that on one side of St. Nicholas stands the Lord Jesus Christ with the Gospel, and on the other - Holy Mother of God with an omophorion and hand over to him the signs of the episcopal dignity, of which he was deprived. The Fathers of the Council, enlightened from above, ceased to reproach Saint Nicholas and gave him honor as a great saint of God.

After condemning the symbol of the strict Arians, which contained the heretical teaching about the Face of the Son of God, the fathers had to express the true, Orthodox teaching about Him. In contrast to the heretics, who avoided the sayings of Holy Scripture when presenting their false teaching, the Fathers of the Council, on the contrary, turn to Holy Scripture in order to introduce its expressions about the Son of God into the definition of faith, which the Council was to issue on a controversial issue. But the attempt made in this direction by the zealots of the right faith, suffered a complete failure due to the fact that literally every expression regarding the Divinity of Christ the Savior, cited by the Fathers from Holy Scripture, was interpreted by the Arians and semi-Arians in the sense of their non-Orthodox views.

So, when Orthodox bishops, based on the testimony of the Gospel of John ( I, 1, 14, 18), wanted to include the words Son “from God” in the conciliar definition of faith, then the Arianists had nothing against this expression, interpreting it in the sense that, according to the teaching of the Apostle Paul, “everything is from God” ( 2 Cor. 5, 18), "one God ... from Worthless all" ( 1 Cor. 8, 6). Then the fathers proposed to call the Son the true God, as He is called in the 1st epistle ( 5, 20 ) Evangelist John; Arianists accepted this expression too, asserting that "if the Son became God, then, of course, He is the true God." The same thing happened with the following expression of the Orthodox bishops: "in Him (i.e., the Father) the Son abides"; according to the fathers, this expression, resting on the first words of the Gospel of John: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God, and God was the Word" (1, 1), quite definitely expressed the teaching that the Son with the Father and in The Father always abides inseparably; but here, too, the Arianists found an opportunity to point out that the last kind of property is quite applicable to people, since Scripture says: "... in Him (i.e., God) we live and move and we" ( Acts. 17, 28). After that, the Fathers put forward a new expression, applying to the Son of God the name of power taken from the Apostle Paul: "The Word is the power of God" ( 1 Cor. 1, 24); however, the Arianists found a way out here too, proving that in the Holy Scriptures not only people, but even caterpillars and locusts are called great power ( Ref. 12, 41; Joel. 2.25). Finally, the fathers, in order to reflect Arianism, decided to introduce into the definition of faith the saying from the epistle to the Hebrews: the Son is "the radiance of glory and the image of His hypostasis" - that is, the Father ( Heb. 13), and then the Arianists objected that Holy Scripture says the same about every person, calling him the image and glory of God ( 1 Cor. 11, 7). Thus, the striving of the Fathers of the Council to express the Orthodox teaching about the Son of God by introducing the corresponding biblical sayings into the definition of faith was not successful.

A difficulty arose, which the representative of the semi-Arian party, Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, tried to eliminate. He introduced a ready-made symbol to the discussion of the Council, proposing that it be approved by the general consent of the members, and the symbol was drawn up in such a way that it seemed that it could be accepted by both Orthodox and strict Arians; referring to the former, Eusebius of Caesarea expounds the definition of faith in the words of Holy Scripture; in order to please the second, extreme Arians, he introduced into his symbol too general expressions that heretics could interpret in the sense they needed. In addition, in order to incline the members of the council in the same way to approve the symbol and eliminate all kinds of suspicions, Eusebius made the following statement at the beginning of it: “We maintain and profess the faith as we received it from our previous bishops, as we learned it from Divine Scripture, as they observed and confessed in the presbytery, and then in the bishopric." To the main question about the Son of God - what exactly was the degree of closeness of the Son to the Father, the symbol of Eusebius of Caesarea gave an answer that, due to its uncertainty, could be accepted by strict Arians and which, for the same reason, could not satisfy the defenders of the right faith at the council: " We believe, says the symbol of Eusebius according to Holy Scripture, in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, the only begotten Son, the firstborn of all creation, born before the age of the Father.

After reading the symbol, there was silence, interpreted by Eusebius of Caesarea as approval. Emperor Constantine was the first to break this silence, and at the same time destroyed Eusebius' premature hopes of victory with his own words. Constantine the Great approved of the symbol, saying that he himself thinks in the same way as the symbol teaches, and desires that others hold the same creed; then, in order to determine the relationship of the Son of God to God the Father, he proposed to introduce the word consubstantial into the symbol. This word, with the strength and certainty desired by the Orthodox members of the Council, not allowing for reinterpretation, expressed the necessary idea of ​​the equality of the Divinity of the Son of God with the Divinity of the Father. By introducing it into the symbol, the hopes of Eusebius of Caesarea were shattered to dust, because it, with an obviousness that could not be more desired, denounced the heretical philosophies of the semi-Arians and extreme Arians, at the same time ensuring the triumph of Orthodoxy for all subsequent centuries. Restrained by the authority of the emperor, the Arianists could only point out against the inclusion of a consubstantial symbol in the circumstance that this concept introduces representations of a too material nature into the doctrine of the essence of the Deity: “Consubstantial,” they said, “is called that which is from something else, like, for example, two or three golden vessels from one ingot." In any case, the debate over the word consubstantial was peaceful - the Arianists were forced, following the emperor, to agree to accept the word that destroyed their heresy. Representatives of the Orthodox party, taking into account the forced compliance of the heretical members of the Council, made other amendments and changes to the symbol, thanks to which the symbol took on the following form, alien to any ambiguity:

"We believe in one God the Father, Almighty, Creator of all things visible and invisible; - and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, born of the Father (from the essence of the Father), God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God begotten, uncreated, consubstantial with the Father, through whom (the Son) everything happened both in heaven and on earth; - for the sake of us humans and for the sake of our salvation descended and became incarnate, became man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, and who is to come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit."

In order to eliminate any possibility of any reinterpretation of the symbol, the fathers of the Council added to it such an anathematization of the Arian heresy: , or those who affirm that the Son of God has being from another being or essence, or that He is created, or changeable, or changeable, is anathematized by the Catholic Church.

With the exception of the two Egyptian bishops Secundus and Theona, all the rest signed the Nicene symbol, thus expressing their agreement with its content; however, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea refused to give their signatures on the anathematization attached to the symbol. Thus, the universal definition of faith was, apparently, almost universally accepted unanimously. But the subsequent history of the Arian movements showed that many, very many bishops "signed the symbol only with their hand, and not with their soul." In order to avoid excommunication and not lose the chairs, the strict Arians signed the symbol, in their souls remaining the same as before, heretics. For reasons far from sincerity, representatives of the semi-Arian party also signed the symbol. Their head, Eusebius of Caesarea, in a letter written to the flock after the end of the Council, explains that he and his adherents "did not reject the word: consubstantial, meaning to preserve peace, which we desire with all our souls," i.e. from external considerations, and not from the conviction of the truth of the meaning contained in it; As for the anathematism attached to the symbol, Eusebius explains it not as a curse on the very meaning of the Arian doctrine, but only as a condemnation of the outward expressions of the latter because they are not found in Holy Scripture.

The Council, in solving the main dogmatic issue, established twenty canons on issues of church administration and discipline; The Paschal issue was also settled: the council decided that Easter should be celebrated by Christians without fail separately from the Jews and without fail on the first Sunday that happened on the day of the vernal equinox, or immediately after it. The council ended with the celebration of the 20th anniversary of the reign of Emperor Constantine, during which he arranged a magnificent feast in honor of the bishops. The emperor parted with the fathers of the Council very graciously, admonishing them to maintain peace among themselves and asking them to pray for him.

Ariya and two open adherents of his Secundus and Theon, the emperor, at the end of the Council, sent into exile in Illyria, proclaiming severe punishments for the followers of the heresy teacher, and even one possession of his writings was imputed as a criminal offense.

The Nicene symbol, which revealed the Orthodox teaching about the Divinity of the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity of the Lord Jesus Christ and condemned, as heresy, blasphemous Arian philosophies, did not put an end to the church turmoil: the Arian bishops, who sealed the conciliar creed with their signatures solely out of fear of state power, soon managed to to attract the latter to their side and, supported by it, entered into a fierce struggle with the defenders of the right faith; in the middle of the 4th c. they won an almost complete external victory over their opponents, united under the sacred banner of the Nicene symbol. This banner was firmly and selflessly held at first by St. Athanasius the Great, and then, with the death of the aged Bishop of Alexandria, it passed into the no less courageous and selfless hands of the Great Bishop of Caesarea, St. Vasily. About these two prominent saints Orthodox Church of the time described, other bishops who remained faithful to Her also united.

The commemoration of the First Great Ecumenical Council, which was in Nicaea, is celebrated by the Church on Week (Sunday) the 7th after Pascha.

Notes:

Phalia - (Greek) happiness; in many number - a feast. The book contained poems that could be sung during dinner.

From the content of this letter it is clear that the emperor had little idea of ​​how important the subject of church contention was in essence.

The outstanding defender of Orthodoxy, St. Athanasius of Alexandria says of Hosea of ​​Cordub: “He is far more famous than all the others. At what council did he not preside?

Easter is the main holiday of the Christian Church, established on the days of St. Apostles, was originally dedicated to the remembrance of the death of the Lord Jesus and therefore was performed throughout the East on Nisan 14, on the day the Jews prepared the Paschal lamb, when, according to the Gospel of John and according to the ancient fathers of the Church (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen), death on the cross followed Christ the Savior; therefore, the very name of Easter is derived by the most ancient Fathers of the Church (Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian) not from the Hebrew Pesakh (to pass by), but from the Greek - to suffer. According to the instructions of the holy evangelists Matthew, Mark and Luke, the death of the Lord Jesus took place not on the 14th, but on the 15th of Nisan; but Christians still celebrated Pascha on Nisan 14 in remembrance, however, of the Last Supper of the Lord with the disciples. However, the Fathers of the Church closest in time to the Apostles do not speak of the feast of Pascha as an annual feast, i.e. performed on a particular day or period. In the "Shepherd", the work of the apostolic husband Hermas, we find a mention of Friday as a day weekly fasting and mourning in remembrance of the suffering and death of Jesus Christ; Tertullian points to sunday as a day of joy, when fasting and kneeling were canceled in memory of the resurrection of Christ. Already in the II century, the celebration of the suffering and death of Christ and His Resurrection stood out in special holidays called Easter: 1) pascha crucificationis - Easter of the Cross, i.e. in honor of the death of the Savior; this Easter was held in strict post, which lasted from Friday to Sunday morning and ended with the Sunday Eucharist. This Eucharist began 2) pascha resurrectionis - Easter Sunday. Some testimonies indicate that Easter Sunday lasted fifty days, being, in addition, the feast of the Ascension and Descent of the Holy Spirit; why these days are called Pentecost. The more the Christian Church freed itself from Judaism, the more and more incongruous became the custom, which was especially stubbornly held in the churches of Asia Minor, to celebrate Easter on Nisan 14, simultaneously with the Jews. Churches formed from pagans, celebrating Easter on this day, were called Judaizers, moreover, in the West, the celebration of Easter was never associated with Jewish Easter, here it was celebrated not on Friday, but on the first Sunday after the full moon. Therefore, between the East and the West, more precisely, between the Asian bishops and Rome, an “Easter dispute” arose, which continued from the end of the 2nd century throughout the entire 3rd century and almost led to a break in communion between the arguing churches.

In the history of the development of the doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ, the term hypostasis was used either in the meaning of essence, or in the meaning of a person; since the 4th century, according to the usage adopted after Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian, as well as two Ecumenical Councils, the word hypostasis has been used by the whole Church in the meaning of the Person.

The Council of Nicaea, or the First Ecumenical, calls him in a letter to the Alexandrian Church "the main figure and participant in everything that happened at the Council."

The Arians themselves later spoke of Hosea of ​​Kordub: "Hosea presides over councils, his writings are heard everywhere, and he expounded the faith in Nicaea (that is, at the First Ecumenical Council)."

Without a doubt, the semi-Arians also condemned the symbol of Eusebius of Nicomedia, because they never used the expressions “Son of creation” and the like about the Son of God.

Some historians suggest that Eustathius of Antioch was the chairman of the council; others consider them to be Eusebius of Caesarea. There is, moreover, an opinion that the Bishops of Antioch and

Alexandria (Alexander); the majority is inclined to recognize as chairman of the Council Hosea, Bishop of Cordub, who was the first to subscribe to the Council's decrees.

Omophorus (from Greek. amice) - one of the seven bishop's vestments, which is a long narrow board with four crosses; The omophorion is placed on the bishop's shoulders in such a way that its ends descend front and back. The omophorion marks the lost sheep (that is, humanity taken by Christ on His shoulders).

It is noteworthy that, as A. N. Muravyov testifies, a tradition about this has been preserved in Nicaea even among the Turks: in one of the loopholes of this city they show the dungeon of St. Nicholas, where, according to legend, he was imprisoned after being convicted for an act with Arius.

Referring to the said sayings of St. Paul, the Arianists wanted to say that they recognize the origin of the Son from God in the sense of creation, just as everything that exists in the world in the same sense comes from God.

According to the Orthodox teaching, the Son did not become God, but remains God from time immemorial.

This is the name of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of God. This name is taken from the Gospel of John ( 1, 1— 14 ). Why is the Son of God called the Word? 1 - Compared to His birth with the origin of our human word: just as our word is passionlessly, spiritually born from our mind or thought, so the Son of God is passionlessly and spiritually born from the Father; 2 - just as our thought is revealed or expressed in our word, so the Son of God in His essence and perfections is the most accurate reflection of God and therefore is called "the radiance of His glory and the image (imprint) of His Hypostasis ( Heb. 13); 3 - just as we communicate our thoughts to others through the word, so God, who repeatedly spoke to people through the prophets, finally spoke through the Son ( Heb. 12), who was incarnated for this and revealed the will of His Father so fully that he who saw the Son saw the Father ( In. 14, 3); 4 - just as our word is the cause of certain actions, so God the Father created everything through the Word - His Son ( In. 1.3).

"The word consubstantial indicates not only the unity of the essence of the Father and the Son, but also the sameness, so that in one word there is an indication of both the unity of God and the difference in the persons of the Son of God and God the Father, for only two persons can be consubstantial", consubstantial and it means precisely “not merged in essence, but also not divided.” According to other ancient historians of the Christian Church, the word consubstantial, consecrated by Church Tradition, was proclaimed by the bishops of the Council, and therefore not the emperor, as Eusebius of Caesarea says. The seeming inconsistency of these two testimonies can be explained by the very probable consideration that Emperor Constantine in this case acted in agreement with the Orthodox bishops, who found it more convenient to proclaim it through his mouth right word, since the authority of the emperor destroyed the possibility of lengthy disputes, which would certainly have arisen if the term consubstantial had been proposed to the Council by a person who was not so influential for all parties.

The party of Eusebius, enjoying more and more influence at court after the Council, achieved through the emperor's sister Constance that Arius was returned from exile to the court soon after the condemnation. In 336, the Council in Constantinople decided, as one might think, to accept Arius into church communion; on the eve of the Sunday appointed for the implementation of this decision, the emperor, deceived by Arius, who hypocritically signed the Orthodox symbol, purposely summoned the aged Byzantine Bishop Alexander, instilling him not to interfere with the acceptance of Arius into the Church. Leaving the emperor, Alexander went to the temple of Peace and prayed to God that he himself or the heresiarch would be taken out of the world, since the bishop did not want to be a witness to such sacrilege as the acceptance of a heretic into communion with the Church. And the Providence of God showed His fair judgment over Arius, on the day of triumph, sending him an unexpected death. “Leaving the imperial palace,” says the historian Socrates about the death of Arius, “accompanied by a crowd of Eusebian adherents, like bodyguards, Arius proudly walked through the middle of the city, drawing the attention of all the people. On approaching a place called Constantine Square, where a porphyry column was erected , the horror from the consciousness of his wickedness seized him and was accompanied by severe pain in his stomach.Therefore, he asked if there was a convenient place nearby, and when he was shown the back of Konstantinovskaya Square, he hurried there. Soon after, he fainted and with the stool came out his entrails, accompanied by a profuse haemorrhoidal discharge and prolapse of the small intestines. Then, with the outpouring of blood, parts of his liver and spleen came out, so that he died almost immediately."

Illyria - common name in antiquity of the entire eastern coast Adriatic Sea with the localities lying behind it (present-day Dalmatia, Bosnia and Albania).

St. Athanasius the Great - Archbishop of Alexandria, who acquired the name "Father of Orthodoxy" for his zealous defense during the Arian Troubles, was born in Alexandria in 293; in 319 Bishop Alexander of Alexandria consecrated him a deacon. Around this time, St. Athanasius wrote the first two works: 1) "The Word against the Greeks", where it turns out that faith in Christ the Savior has reasonable grounds and is a real knowledge of the truth; 2) "The Incarnation of God the Word", which reveals that the incarnation of the Son of God was necessary and worthy of God. These writings drew attention to St. Athanasius, who then, as already noted, at the First Ecumenical Council, while still a young deacon, came to the fore as a fearless and skillful denouncer of the Arian heresy. It is not surprising, therefore, that after the death of Bishop Alexander, St. Athanasius, who was only 33 years old, was elected (June 8, 326) to the See of Alexandria. During the years of the bishopric, St. Athanasius endured many sorrows from the Arians who persecuted him: suffice it to say that out of the forty years of his episcopal service, thanks to the Arians, he spent 17 years, 6 months and 10 days in exile. He died on May 2, 373, occupying the chair upon his return from exile. After St. Athanasius left numerous works, divided in content into 1) apologetic, 2) dogmatic-polemical, 3) dogmatic-historical, 4) works on the interpretation of Holy Scripture, 5) moralizing, 6) Easter epistles, where, according to ancient custom, St. Athanasius informed the rest of the churches about the time of the celebration of Easter, adding instructions regarding the faith and Christian life. About the writings of these Rev. Cosmas notes that if you find any of the books of St. Athanasius and if you don’t have paper to write it down, then you must “write it down at least on your clothes.” Memory of St. Athanasius is celebrated by the Orthodox Church twice: on May 2 and on January 18.

St. Basil the Great was born in 329 in Caesarea in Cappadocia. His father and mother belonged to the well-born families of Cappadocia and Pontus and had the opportunity to give their numerous children the best education for that time. In the 18th year, Basil listened to the famous sophist Livanius in Constantinople, then spent several years in Athens, the center of higher philosophical education. Here at this time he struck up close friendly relations with Gregory of Nazianzus; here he also met the future emperor Julian the Apostate. Returning to his homeland, Vasily was baptized, and then was initiated into a reader. Wanting to get to know the monastic life, to which his soul aspired, Basil went through Syria and Palestine to Egypt, where it flourished especially. Returning from here to Caesarea, Basil set about organizing the monastic life here, whose representatives in Egypt amazed him with their exploits. Basil the Great founded several monasteries in the Pontic region, writing a charter for them. In 364 St. Basil was ordained a presbyter. In the rank of presbyter, he successfully fought the Arians, who, using the patronage of the emperor Valens, wanted to take over the Church of Caesarea. An intercessor before the authorities of the oppressed and destitute, Basil, in addition, founded many shelters for the poor; all this, combined with an impeccable personal life, won him the love of the people. In 370, Basil was elected archbishop of his native city and, being a saint, entered the field of general church activity; through ambassadors, he entered into active relations with St. Athanasius the Great, who also supported through written communication; He also entered into relations with Pope Damasus, with the hope of uniting the Orthodox in order to defeat the Arians and appease the Church. In 372, the emperor Valens, trying to introduce Arianism into the Caesarean Church, wanted to shake the steadfastness of St. Vasily. To do this, he sent to Caesarea, first the prefect Evippius with his other courtier, and then he himself appeared. St. Basil excommunicated the heretic nobles from the Church, and allowed the emperor himself into the temple only to bring gifts. The emperor did not dare to carry out his threats against the courageous bishop. St. Basil the Great died in 378 at the age of 49. The Orthodox Church celebrates his memory on January 1 and 30. He left behind the following works, which are a rich contribution to patristic literature: nine discourses for six days; sixteen discourses on various psalms; five books in defense of the Orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity (against Eunomius); twenty-four discourses on various subjects; short and lengthy monastic rules; ascetic charter; two books on baptism; book about St. spirit; several sermons and 366 letters to various people.

Tomorrow the Church will celebrate the memory of the holy fathers of the First (Nicene) Ecumenical Council. It was at this council that the heresy of Arius was exposed, the first Creed was drawn up; it was attended by St. Nicholas of Myra and Spiridon of Trimifuntsky.

I Ecumenical Council was convened in 325 in the city of Nicaea under the emperor Constantine the Great. His main task was to expose the false teachings of the Alexandrian priest Arius, who rejected the Divinity and pre-eternal birth from God the Father of the Son of God and taught that Christ is only the highest creation.

Aria was supported by Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia (Palestine), who was very influential in the royal court, so the heresy was very widespread at that time. And to this day, the enemies of Christianity, taking the heresy of Arius as a basis and giving it a different name, confuse the minds and tempt many people.

318 bishops participated in the First Ecumenical Council, among which were:, and others. The false teaching of Arius was brilliantly refuted by Archdeacon Athanasius, who, being an assistant to Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, eventually replaced his teacher at this very influential chair in the Christian world.

The Council condemned and rejected the heresy of Arius and affirmed the immutable truth - the dogma: the Son of God is the true God, born of God the Father before all ages and is just as eternal as God the Father; He is begotten, not created, and consubstantial with God the Father. In order for all Orthodox Christians to know exactly the true teaching of the faith, it was clearly and briefly stated in the first seven members of the Creed. At the same Council, it was decided to celebrate on the first Sunday after the first full moon in spring, it was also determined for priests to be married, and many other rules were established.

The memory of the First Ecumenical Council has been celebrated by the Church of Christ since ancient times. The Lord Jesus Christ left a great promise to the Church: "I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against It" (Matthew 16:18). In this joyful promise there is a prophetic indication that, although the life of the Church of Christ on earth will pass in a difficult struggle with the enemy of salvation, victory is on Her side. The holy martyrs testified to the truth of the words of the Savior, enduring suffering for the confession of the Name of Christ, and the sword of the persecutors bowed before the victorious sign of the Cross of Christ.

From the 4th century, the persecution of Christians ceased, but heresies arose within the Church itself, to combat which the Church convened Ecumenical Councils. One of the most dangerous heresies was Arianism. Arius, the Alexandrian presbyter, was a man of immense pride and ambition. He, rejecting the divine dignity of Jesus Christ and His equality with God the Father, falsely taught that the Son of God is not consubstantial with the Father, but was created by the Father in time.

The Local Council, convened at the insistence of Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria, condemned the false teaching of Arius, but he did not submit and, having written letters to many bishops complaining about the definition of the Local Council, he spread his false teaching throughout the East, for he received support in his error from some Eastern bishops.

To investigate the turmoil that had arisen, the holy Equal-to-the-Apostles Emperor Constantine (Comm. 21 May) sent Bishop Hosius of Kordub and, having received from him a certificate that the heresy of Arius was directed against the most basic dogma of Christ's Church, he decided to convene an Ecumenical Council. At the invitation of Saint Constantine, 318 bishops representing Christian Churches from different countries gathered in the city of Nicaea in the year 325.

Among the bishops who arrived there were many confessors who suffered during the persecution and bore marks of torture on their bodies. The Council was also attended by the great luminaries of the Church - (December 6 and May 9), (December 12), and other holy fathers revered by the Church.

Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria arrived with his deacon Athanasius, later Patriarch of Alexandria (Comm. 2 May), called the Great, as a zealous fighter for the purity of Orthodoxy. Equal-to-the-Apostles Emperor Constantine was present at the sessions of the Council. In his speech, delivered in response to the greeting of Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, he said: "God helped me overthrow the impious power of the persecutors, but incomparably more regrettable for me than any war, any bloody battle, and incomparably more pernicious internal internecine strife in the Church of God."

Arius, having 17 bishops as his supporters, held himself proudly, but his teaching was refuted and he was excommunicated by the Council from the Church, and the holy deacon of the Church of Alexandria Athanasius in his speech finally refuted the blasphemous fabrications of Arius. The Council Fathers rejected the creed proposed by the Arians. The Orthodox Creed was approved. Equal-to-the-Apostles Constantine proposed to the Council that the word "consubstantial" be introduced into the text of the Creed, which he often heard in the speeches of bishops. The Fathers of the Council unanimously accepted this proposal.

In the Nicene Symbol, the holy fathers formulated the apostolic teaching about Divine dignity Second Person of the Holy Trinity - the Lord Jesus Christ. The heresy of Arius, as a delusion of a proud mind, was denounced and rejected. After resolving the main dogmatic issue, the Council also established twenty canons (rules) on issues of church administration and discipline. The issue of the day of celebration of Holy Pascha was resolved. By the decision of the Council, Holy Pascha should be celebrated by Christians not on the same day as the Jewish one, and without fail on the first Sunday after the day of the vernal equinox (which in 325 fell on March 22).

The heresy of Arius concerned the main Christian dogma on which all faith and the whole Church of Christ are founded, which constitutes the sole foundation of all the hope of our salvation. If the heresy of Aria, who rejected the Divinity of the Son of God Jesus Christ, then shook the whole Church and dragged along with it a great multitude of both shepherds and flocks, had overcome the true teaching of the Church and become dominant, then Christianity itself would long ago have ceased to exist, and the whole world would have plunged into the former darkness of unbelief and superstition.

Aria was supported by Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was very influential in the royal court, so the heresy was very widespread at that time. To this day, the enemies of Christianity (for example, the "Jehovah's Witnesses"), taking the heresy of Arius as a basis and giving it a different name, confuse the minds and tempt many people.

Troparion of St. Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council, Tone 8:

Glorified art Thou, O Christ our God, / our fathers who have shone on the earth / and by those who instructed us all to the true faith, / Many-merciful, glory to Thee

Since the time of the apostles... Christians have used "creeds" to remind themselves of the basic truths of the Christian faith. There were several short creeds in the ancient Church. In the fourth century, when false teachings about God, the Son, and the Holy Spirit appeared, it became necessary to supplement and clarify the old symbols. Thus arose the creed now used by the Orthodox Church. It was compiled by the Fathers of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils. The First Ecumenical Council accepted the first seven members of the Symbol, the Second - the remaining five. According to the two cities in which the fathers of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils met, the Symbol is called Niceo-Tsaregradsky. When studied, the Creed is divided into twelve terms. The first part speaks of God the Father, then up to the seventh inclusive - about God the Son, in the eighth part - about God the Holy Spirit, in the ninth - about the Church, in the tenth - about baptism, in the eleventh and twelfth - about the resurrection of the dead and about eternal life.

THE SYMBOL OF FAITH of three hundred and ten saints of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea.

We believe in one God the Father, the Almighty, the Creator of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father, that is, from the essence of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, God is true from God is true, begotten, not created, consubstantial with the Father, Whom all was, even in heaven and on earth; for us, and for our salvation, who descended, and became incarnate and became human, suffered, and rose again on the third day, and ascended into heaven, and again to be judged by the living and the dead. And in the Holy Spirit. Those who speak about the Son of God, as if there was a time, when there was no time, or as if they were not born before, there was no time, or as if from those who did not exist, or from another hypostasis or essence of those who say to be, or the Son of God is transformed or changed, these are anathematized by the Catholic and Apostolic Church.

SYMBOL OF FAITH (now used in the Orthodox Church) of one hundred and fifty saints of the Second Ecumenical Council, Constantinople.

We believe in one God the Father, Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, visible to all and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten, Who from the Father was born before all ages, Light from Light, God is true from God is true, begotten, not created, consubstantial with the Father, Whom all was; for us, man, and for our salvation, descended from heaven, and incarnated from the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin, and became human; crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried; and resurrected on the third day according to the scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father; and the packs of the one to come with glory to be judged by the living and the dead, His kingdom will have no end. And in the Holy Spirit, the life-giving Lord, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who spoke the prophets. Into one Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We confess one baptism for the remission of sins. tea resurrection of the dead and the life of the next century. Amen.

First Ecumenical Council

He was convened in connection with the heresy of Arius in Nicaea in 325.

/Sources for the depiction of the activities of the Council of Nicaea and the presentation of the Arian doctrine, in the absence of official acts that were not conducted either at the 1st or at the 2nd Ecumenical Councils, the writings of the participants and contemporaries of the Council - Eusebius of Caesarea, Eustathius of Antioch and Athanasius of Alexandria can serve. Eusebius has information in two of his writings, The Life of King Constantine and The Epistle to the Caesareans in Palestine. Of the works of Athanasius, the “Determinations of the Council of Nicaea” and the “Epistle to the African Bishops” are of particular importance here. Of the rather large number of works by Eustathius of Antioch, we possess almost only fragments - his one speech, the explanation of Genesis 1:26 and "On the Acts of the Nicene Council." In addition, there are legends of historians - not contemporaries of the Cathedral: Greek - Philostorgius, Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret, Latin - Rufinus and Sulpicius Severus. Then, we should mention the news about Arianism and the Council of Nicaea by Epiphanius of Cyprus, then the anonymous work "Acts of the Council of Nicaea" and the complete history of the Council of Nicaea compiled by a little-known author Gelasius Cyzicus in the last quarter of the 5th century (476). There are other brief references to the Council of Nicaea, such as the speech of Gregory, presbyter of Caesarea, about 318 fathers. All this is collected in one exemplary edition: Patrum Nicaenorum latine, graece, coptice, arabice, armenice sociata opera ediderunt I. Gelzer, H. Hilgenfeld, Q. Cuntz. Adjecta et tabula geographica (Leipzig. 1898). In Russian there is an essay by Rozanov. The historian O. Seeck speaks a lot about the nature of the special messages of Eusebius, who generally has a negative attitude towards him /.

Arius, perhaps a Libyan by birth, was educated at the school of the martyr Lucian. In Alexandria, he appears during the Galerian persecution. His zeal for the faith makes him a supporter of the rigorous Meletios, Bishop of Likopol, an opponent of Bishop Peter of Alexandria (300-310) on the question of accepting the fallen into the Church. However, according to Sozomen, he soon left Meletius and joined Bishop Peter, who was appointed deacon. But when the latter excommunicated the adherents of Meletius from the Church and did not recognize their baptism, Arius rebelled against these harsh measures and was himself excommunicated by Peter. After the martyrdom of Peter (310), he united with the Church of Alexandria, under the new bishop Achilles. According to Philostorgius, Achila made Arius a presbyter and, after his death († 311 or 313), he was allegedly considered a candidate for the See of Alexandria. According to Gelasius of Cyzicus, on the contrary, Akhila's successor, Bishop Alexander (since 311 or 313), appointed Arius to the presbyter and appointed him to one city church, called Gavkaliya. According to Theocritus, Arius was entrusted with the task of interpreting the Holy Scriptures. He was venerated by Bishop Alexander. Respect for him on the part of pious women is attested by Bishop Alexander. By appearance, Arius was tall, thin, like an ascetic, serious, but pleasant to handle, eloquent and skillful in dialectics, but also cunning and ambitious; He was a man with a restless soul. In general, Arius is portrayed as richly gifted in nature, although not alien to shortcomings. Obviously, subsequent generations, according to Loofs, could not say anything bad about him if, having already become old (?????, according to Epiphanius), he had not become the culprit of a dispute that forever turned his name into a synonym for the most terrible retreat and curses. In this dispute, his later life passed. The same dispute put him, probably for the first time, with a pen in his hands in order to defend his teaching, making him a writer and even a poet.

When Arius, in a collision with Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, turned to the eastern bishops for support, he called Eusebius of Nicomedia a "Sollukianist", i.e., his fellow student, a colleague in the Antiochian school. In general, Arius considered himself a follower of the Antiochian school and sought sympathy in his position and indeed found it - among his former school colleagues. Alexander of Alexandria and Philostorgius also refer to Arius as a disciple of Lucian. In view of this, we must say a few words about the founder of the Antiochian school, Presbyter Lucian. Very little is known about him and his teachings. He received his early education from Macarius of Ephesus. In the 60s of the 3rd century, he acted in Antioch in unanimity with his countryman Paul of Samosata. The latter was condemned at the Council of Antioch in 268-269. However, apparently, Lucian of Samosata, head of the Antioch school in 275-303, did not agree with such a condemnation; he remained faithful to Paul and remained out of communion, and even in excommunication, from the three successors of Paul - Domnus, Timaeus, Cyril. Lucian's collaborator at school was probably Presbyter Dorotheus, about whom Eusebius also speaks very well (Eusebius, Church History VIII, 13: IX, 6). Toward the end of his life, Lucian apparently reconciled himself with the Church of Antioch and was received into communion. He was finally reconciled to the Church by his glorious martyrdom, which Eusebius (Ibidem) so enthusiastically mentions. His disagreement with church teaching was forgotten, and his disciples could freely occupy episcopal chairs in the East. In the absence of historical data, it is extremely difficult to speak of Lucian's dogmatic beliefs. Since all "Sollukianists" rejected the eternity of the Son to the Father, it means that this position was one of the main dogmas of Lucian's teaching. The characterization of Lucian's teaching is somewhat helped by his close connection with Paul of Samosata. On the other hand, one must think that Lucian, working on the text Holy Books, thoroughly acquainted with Origen and, on the basis of the theological method, coming close to him, combined his teaching on the second person with Pavlov. This could result in the unification of the Logos of Christ with Jesus the man, the Son of God by adoption, after gradual perfection. Epiphanius names Lucian and Origen as teachers of the Arians. It is unlikely that Arius added a “new heresy” to the teaching he received earlier: he invariably referred to the sympathy of his fellow students, which means that he did not introduce anything new, original into his teaching. Harnack emphasizes in particular the importance of the Antiochian school in the origin of the heresy of Arius, calling it the bosom of the Arian doctrine, and Lucian, its head, "Arius before Arius."

Aria's teachings largely determined by the general premises of the Antiochian school from the philosophy of Aristotle. At the beginning of theology there was a position about transcendence God and (as a conclusion) His innocence to whatever emanations- in the form of an outpouring (???????, prolatio) or crushing (???????, divisio), or birth???? ?????????. From this point of view, there could be no question of ???? ????, how modern God; in sharp contradiction would be the idea of birth(i.e., some emanation) of the Son from the Father, even if in time. One can speak of the Son only in time appeared and not from the being of the Father, but created from nothing(?????? ?? ??? ?????). The Son of God, according to Arius, came into being by the will of God, before time and ages, precisely when God wanted to create us through Him. The main provisions of the teachings of Arius are as follows:

1. Logos had its beginning(?? ???? ??? ??? ??, erat, quando non erat), because otherwise there would be no monarchy, but there would be diarchy (two principles); otherwise He would not have been the Son; for the Son is not the Father.

2. The Logos did not originate from the being of the Father - which would lead to a gnostic division or fragmentation of the Divine being, or to sensual representations that bring the Divine into the human world - but He was created from nothing by the will of the Father («???????? ??? ?????? … ?? ??? ????? ??????? ? ?????»).

3. True, he has a pre-peaceful and pre-temporal existence, but by no means eternal; He, therefore, is not truly God, but is essentially different from God the Father; He is a creature(??????, ??????), and Scripture uses such expressions about Him (Acts 2:36; Heb. 3:2) and calls Him the firstborn (Col. 1:15).

4. Although the Son is essentially a creature, yet He has an advantage over other creatures: after God, He has the highest dignity; through him God created all things, as well as time itself (Heb. 1:3). God first created the Son as "the beginning of the ways" (Prov. 8:22: ? ?????? ?????? ??). There is an infinite difference between God and the Logos; between the Logos and the creatures is only relative.

5. If the Son is called equal to the Father, then it must be understood that by the grace and good will of the Father he became such - He is the adopted Son; somewhat incorrectly, in a broad sense, He is called God.

6. His will, as created, was originally also mutable - equally capable (disposed) of both good and evil. It is not immutable (????????); only through the direction of his free will did he become sinless and good. His glorification is the merit of His holy, God-foreseen life (Phil. 2:9).

Teachings of Bishop Alexander set out in his letter to Bishop Alexander of Byzantium (Theodore. Ts. History I, 3), in the encyclical (Socrates. Ts. I. I, 6), in his speech, preserved in Syriac - sernao de anima - and in the transmission of Arius in his letters to Bishop Alexander himself and to Eusebius of Nicomedia. “We believe,” he writes in the first roundabout letter, as he teaches apostolic church into one unbegotten Father, Who has no originator of His being… and into one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, born not from a non-begotten, but from an existing Father, not in the likeness of a material process, not through separation or outflow… but inexpressibly, since His essence (?????????) is incomprehensible to created beings”… The expression “was always before the ages”, ?? ??? ??? ??????, is by no means identical with the concept of “unbegotten” (not = ????????) ??????) recognizing that He does not have in anyone the cause of His being; but it must also give due honor to the Son, attributing to Him a beginningless birth from the Father, (??? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ?), not to deny his deity, but to recognize in Him the exact correspondence of the image of the Father in everything, and to assimilate the sign of unbornness only to the Father, which is why the Savior Himself says: “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). For Bishop Alexander, there was no doubt that to say that there had once been no Son meant the same thing as “acknowledging that God once was ??????, ??????.

As can be seen, the teaching of Bishop Alexander is very closely connected with the theology of Origen, however, in contrast to Arianism, representing its development to the right. It softens Origen's harsh expressions. In this case, it is necessary to recognize the influence on the dogmatics of Bishop Alexander of the Asia Minor traditions preserved from St. Irenaeus and partly from Meliton.

1.1.20. "First and Second" Ecumenical Council. Canonization of Paschalia In the era of the canonization of Paschalia - or perhaps even earlier, in the era of the development of the Paschal astronomical theory - the first year of the Great Indiction should have been established. That is, the year from which