Areios

Arius (ca 250/256 - 336) oli kristlik preester Aleksxandrias neljanda sajandi alguses. Umbes 318. aastal sattus ta vaidlusesse oma piiskopiga, Aleksandria Alexanderiga, väites talle vastu, et Jumala Poeg ei olnud samast substantsist elik ühise olemusega Jumal-isaga, vaid et kunagi oli olnud aeg, enne Kristuse sigitamist, kui teda ei eksisteerinud. Seepeale visati Arius koos teiste preestritega, kes tema õpetust järgisid, kirikust välja, aga debatt jätkus, kuna kumbagi osapoolt toetasid erinevad piiskopid üle terve ida-Rooma impeeriumi. Paljud piiskopid, eriti need, kes olid õpetust saanud Amtiookia Lucianuse juures, ühtisid Ariuse seisukohtadega. Ajaks, mil constantinus Suur võttis Ida-Rooma keisririigi üle 324. aastal, oli erimeelsus kasvanud suureks ja tuliseks vaidluseks ning levinud üle terve impeeriumi, kus erinevad konsiilid mõistsid hukka/võtsid omaks Ariuse arusaama Pojast. Et erimeelsusi lahendada, kutsus Constantinus kokku I Nikaia kirikukogu aastal 325, kus Ariuse õpetus mõisteti hukka, ning Arius saadeti pagendusse. Arius kutsuti siiski aga paari aasta jooksul tagasi, ning tundub, et oma ülejäänud elu veetis ta, üritades tagasi saada Aleksandria kogudusse, mida aga Athanasius ei lubanud. Lõpuks lubati Ariusle Konstantinoopoli kogudusega ühineda, aga ta suri äkitselt eelneval ööl.

Vaidlused ei saanud sellega aga sugugi mitte läbi ning neid ei lahendatud ka järgmistel aastakümnetelgi, vaid neid jätkati veel kaua aega pärast seda, ka Läänes. Neid, kes uskusid, et Poeg ei olnud Isaga ühest substantsist, nimetati Ariaanideks, eriti Aleksandria piiskopi Athanasiuse poolt ning siit on tulnud ka selle õpetuse nimi, Arianism ehk ariaanlus. See nimi ei ole aga päris korrektne, kuna Ariuse roll ei ole selles usuliikumises kunagi olnud eriti tähtis, tema oli vaid vaidluste alustaja. Poja ja Isa omavaheline suhe on olnud diskussiooniteemaks kiriku ajaloos alati. Teised "Ariaanlased", nagu näiteks Nikomeedia Eusebius ja Caesarea Eusebius olid palju tähtsamad tegelased ariaanliku teoloogia väljakujundamises. Paljud hilisemad ariaanlased hakkasid ka sellisele nimetamisele vastu, üteldes, et nad ei tea mitte midagi Ariusest. Aga Ariuse ja tema piiskoppide põikpäine pealekäimine tõi selle probleemi teoloogia keskmesse, ning seetõttu kannab see probleem ka tema nime.

Varane elu ja iseloom

On võimalik, et Arius oli pärit Liibüast. Tema isa nimi olevat olnud Ammonius. Arius oli arvatavasti õpilane eksegeetilises koolis Antiookias, kus ta võis õppida Antiookia Lucianuse juures.

Tulles tagasi Aleksandriasse, sai Arius sõbraks mehega kelle nimi oli Meletius Lycopolisest ja ordineeriti diakoniks viimase juhtimise all. Arius ekskommunitseeriti Piiskopi Peetrus Aleksandriast poolt aastal 311 Meletiuse vaadete toetamise pärast, aga Peetruse järglase, Achillase ajal lubati ta taas armulauale ning aastal 313 tehti tast Aleksandrias Baucalise piirkonna presbüter.

Ehkki Ariuse iseloomu on tigedalt rünnatud ja maha tehtud tema vaenlaste poolt, tundub, et ta oli askeetilise iseloomuga isik, hea moraali ning kindlate põhimõtetega. Warren H. Carroll (parafraseerides Epiphanius Salamiest, Ariuse opponenti) kirjeldab teda "pika ja kõhna, silmatorkava välimuse ja lihvitud kommetega. Naised armusid temasse ogaralt, olles võlutud tema imeilusatest kommetest, puudutatud tema askeetliku välimuse poolt. Meestele avaldas muljet tema intellektuaalse paremuse aura.”

Vaidlus

Ajaloolane Socrates Konstantinoopolist teatab, et Arius sattus esimest korda vaidlusesse, kui Aleksander aleksandriast, kes sai pärast Achillast Aleksandria piiskopiks, pidas jutluse Poja sarnasusest Isaga. Arius nägi Aleksandri jutluses Sabellianismi taaselustamist, mõistis selle hukka ning vaidles et "kui isa sigitas Poja, siis temal, kes oli sigitatud, oli eksistentsi algus: ja siit on selge, et oli aeg, mil Poega ei olnud. Siit järeldub, et ta sai oma substantsi mittemillegist.

Usutakse, et Ariuse doktriinid olid mõjutatud Lucianuseõpetuse poolt, kes oli tunnustatud kristlik õpetaja ja usumärter. Kirjas Konstantinoopoli piiskopile Aleksandrile kirjutas Aleksander Aleksandriast, et Arius tuletas oma teoloogia Lucianuse omast. Selle kirja eesmärk oli kurta doktriinide üle, mida Arius toona esitas, aga tema süüdistus hereesias Ariuse vastu oli siis veel üsna nõrk ning teiste autoriteetide poolt mittetoetatud, ning Aleksandri keelekasutus oli pigem sõimav ja robustne kui hästiargumenteeritud. Ka Lucianust ei süüdista Aleksander siin selles, et ta õpetaks samu doktriine, mida Arius, vaid lihtsalt selles, et too on ad invidiam hereetiliste kalduvustega.

Aleksandria patriarhi kritiseeriti tema aeglase reageerimise eest Ariuse õpetusele. Nagu tema eelkäija Dionüsiuski, oli ta ebakindel ning otsustusvõimetu. On aga siiski raske ette kujutada, kuidas teisiti oleks ta saanud käituda. Küsimus, mille Arius esitas, jäi lahendamata kaks generatsiooni varem, ning ei olnud lihtne kohe sellele küsimusele vastust leida. Pealegi, kui oleks kohe tulnud sellele vaidlusele vastust leida, oleks olnud suur tõenäosus, et Ariuse pooldajatele oleks õigus jäänud. Niisiis sallis Aleksander vaidluste jätkumist sinnamaani, kuni tundus, et need on läinud sedavõrd tuliseks, et hakkavad ohustama Kiriku rahu. Siis alles kutsus ta kokku piiskoppide kogu ning küsis nende nõu. Niipea kui nad langetasid oma otsuse Ariuse vastu, tegutses Aleksander viivitamatult. Ta vallandas Ariuse tema ametikohalt ning heitis kirikust välja nii tema kui ka ta järgijad.

Ariuse doktriinid

 Pikemalt artiklis Arianism

Seletamaks oma samme Ariuse vastu, kirjutas Aleksandria Aleksander kirja Konstantinoopoli Aleksandrile ning Eusebiusele Nikomeediast (kus viibis sel hetkel ka keiser), andes ülevaate vigadest, mida ta arvas, et Arius oli teinud. Aleksandri järgi õpetas Arius:

Et Jumal ei olnud alati Isa, vaid et kunagi oli aeg, mil ta ei olnud isa; et Jumala sõna ei olnud igavikust, vaid oli tehtud mittemillestki; et igavesti eksisteeriv Jumal ('MINA OLEN'/ Igavene) tegi tema kes ei eksisteerinud varem, mitte millestki; seega oli aeg, millal ta ei eksisteerinud, niipalju on Poeg loodud olend, loodu. Et ta ei ole mitte Isa moodi, mis puutub olemusse, ega ei ole ta oma loomuse poolest ei Isa tõeline Sõna ega tõeline Tarkus, vaid tõesi vaid üks tema töid ja loodud olendeid, olles vääriti kutsutud Sõnaks ja Tarkuseks, kuna ta oli ise tehtud Jumala omast Sõnast ja Tarkusest, mis on Jumalas, mille läbi Jumal tegi nii kõik muud asjad kui ka Tema. Seega on ta oma loomuses muutuv ning muutustele aldis, nagu kõik teisedki mõistusega olendid on: seega on Maailm võõras kõigele muule kui Jumala olemusele; ja Isa on seletamatu läbi Poja, ning nähtamatu talle, sest ei tea Maailm täiuslikult ja täpselt Isa, ega saa tema selgelt näha teda. Poeg ei tea oma enese olemuse loomust: sest ta oli tehtud meie jaoks, et Jumal võiks luua meid läbi tema, nagu läbi instrumendi. Samuti ei võinud ta kunagi eksisteerida, kui Jumal poleks tahtnud meid luua.

Ta tsiteerib midagi sarnast Thaliast:

Jumal ei ole alati olnud Isa; Oli aeg, mil ta oli üksi, ning ei olnud veel Isa: hiljem ta sai selleks. Poeg ei ole igavikust, ta tuli mittemillegist.

Ariuse säilinud kirjutised

Ariuse elu ja õpetuse rekonstrueerimine on problemaatiline ja raske, kuna väga vähe on säilinud Ariuse enese kirjutisi. Constantinus käskis kõik Ariuse tekstid ära põletada juba Ariuse enese eluajal, ning see vähene, mis tulest puutumata jäi, hävitati hiljem Ariuse opponentide poolt. Säilinud teoseid võib leida vaid teiste kirikumeeste töödes, kes kirjutasid pärast Ariuse surma ning üritasid kinnitada tema ketserlikku maailmavaadet jättes meile seega vähe ja ühetaolisi ning üsnagi ebausaldusväärseid andmeid Ariuse kirjutistest.

Kolm allesolevat kirja, mida peetakse Ariuse omadeks, on tema kiri Aleksandria Aleksandrile (Säilinud Athanasiuse teoses), tema kiri Eusebiusele Nikomeediast, ning tema ülestunnistus Konstantinusele. On alles ka palju kirju, mida omistatakse temale, ning mitmetel kordadel on teda tsiteeritud tema opponentide poolt. Mõistagi on raske ütelda, kui täpselt nad teda tsiteerivad, samuti on ka tsitaadid ise sageli liiga lühikesed ning kontekstist välja rebitud.

Tema Thalia (sõna-sõnalt "pidustus"), on populariseeritud teos, kus ta kombineerib proosat ja värsivormi, ning sellest on fragmente säilinud. Mõlemad viited on talletatud tema opponendi Athanasiuse poolt. Esimene on teade Ariuse õpetusest teoses Kõned Ariaanide vastu., 1.5-6. Sellel ümbersõnastusel on negatiivseid kommentaare vahele lükitud, nii et on raske pidada seda usaldusväärseks tsitaadiks.

Teine on veidi otsesem tsitaat teoses Arminumi ja Seleucia Konsiilidest, 15. See on täiesti korrapäratu värss, ning see tundub olevat sõna-sõnaline tsitaat või tsitaatide kogum. Keegi teine kui Athanasius, võibolla isegi keegi, kes oli Ariuse vastu positiivselt meelestatud, võis olla koostanud need tsitaadid. See teine tsitaat tundub üsnagi täpne, sest see ei sisalda mitmeid võtmelauseid, mida tavaliselt Ariuse opponendid temale omistavad (nt. "Oli aeg, kui Poega ei eksisteerinud"), ning seal on ka mõningaid positiivseid lausungeid poja kohta, see on korrapärase lauseehitusega ning sarnaneb teistele lauselõikudele, mida on omistatud Ariusele. Aga ehkki need tsitaadid tunduvad üsnagi täpsed, on nende kontekst kadunud, nii et nende kohta suuremas mõttesüsteemis on võimatu rekonstrueerida.

Ariuse arusaam Maailmast

Küsimust, milline tegelikult on suhe Isa ja Poja vahel, Kristoloogia osa, on küsitud juba 50 aastat enne Ariust, kui Paulus Samosatast oli võimult kõrvaldatud aastal 269 tema lepingu pärast nendega, kes olid kasutanud sõnahomoousios (Kreeka keeles samast ainest) et väljendada Isa ja Poja vahelist suhet. Väljendil arvati olevat Sabeliaanlik kalduvus...

Pooleli. Ma jätkan asja veel nädala jooksul.

tendency, though, as events showed, this was on account of its scope not having been satisfactorily defined. In the discussion which followed, Dionysius, Patriarch of Alexandria, had used much the same language as Arius did later, and correspondence survives in which Pope Dionysius blames his brother of Alexandria for using such language. Dionysius of Alexandria responded with an explanation, which posterity has been inclined to interpret as vacillating. So far as the earlier controversy could be said to have been decided, it was decided in favor of the opinions later championed by Arius. But this settlement was so unsatisfactory that the question would have been reopened sooner or later, especially in an atmosphere so intellectual as that of Alexandria. For the synod of Antioch which condemned Paul of Samosata had expressed its disapproval of the word homoousios in one sense, and Patriarch Alexander undertook its defense in another.

Arius endorsed the following doctrines about The Son/The Word (Logos, referring to Jesus, see the Gospel of John chapter 1):

1. that the Word (Logos) and the Father were not of the same essence (ousia);
2. that the Son was a created being (ktisma or poiema); and
3. that the worlds were created through him, so he must have existed before them and before all time.
4. However, there was a "once" [Arius did not use words meaning "time", such as chronos or aion] when He did not exist, before he was begotten of the Father.

The subsequent controversy shows that Arius' avoidance of the words chronos and aion was adroit; when defending himself he clearly argued that there was a time when the Son did not exist. Moreover, he asserted that the Logos had a beginning. By way of contrast, Origen had taught that the relation of the Son to the Father had no beginning.

Arius obviously objected to this doctrine, for he complains of it in his letter to the Nicomedian Eusebius, who also studied under Lucian. Arius also contended that the Son was unchangeable (atreptos). But so far as we can understand his language on a subject that Athanasius admitted was beyond his power to thoroughly comprehend, Arius taught that the Logos was changeable in essence, but not in will. Arius drew support from the writings of Origen, who had made use of expressions which favored Arius' statement that the Logos was of a different substance than the Father, and that he owed his existence to the Father's will. But the theological speculations of Origen were often proffered to stimulate further inquiry rather than to enable men to dispense with it. This explains why in this, as well as other controversies, the authority of Origen is so frequently invoked by both sides.

Wider Church reaction and The Council of Nicaea

 Pikemalt artiklis Council of Nicaea

Vaata ka: Nicene Creed

The Christian church had by this time become so powerful a force in the Roman world that Constantine found himself unable to keep aloof from the controversy. He therefore sent Hosius, bishop of Córdoba-the one who reportedly instructed him in the faith just before his march to Rome--to investigate and to put an end, if possible, to the controversy, armed with an open letter from the Emperor: "Wherefore let each one of you, showing consideration for the other, listen to the impartial exhortation of your fellow-servant." But as it continued to rage, Constantine took an unprecedented step: he called a council of delegates, summoned from all parts of the empire, to resolve this issue (possibly at Hosius' recommendation).

All of the secular dioceses into which the empire had been divided, Roman Britain only excepted, sent one or more representatives to the council, the majority of the bishops coming from the East. Pope Sylvester I, himself too aged to be present, sent two presbyters as his delegates. Attending the conference, there was the already mentioned Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Alexander, patriarch of Alexandria. There was also the historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, as well as the young Athanasius, who was to eventually spend most of his life battling Arianism.

Before the main council, Hosius met with Alexander and his supporters at Nicomedia.

This was the First Council of Nicaea, which met in 325, near Constantinople. Some twenty-two of the bishops at the council, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, came as supporters of Arius. But when some of the passages from Arius' writings were read aloud, they are reported to have been denounced as blasphemous by most of the council participants. Under the influence of Emperor Constantine, the assembled bishops agreed upon a creed. This creed, which is known as the Nicene creed specifically included the word homoousios--“consubstantial,” or “one in being,”-- which was incompatible with the beliefs of Arius. On June 19, 325, both council and emperor issued a circular letter to the churches in and around Alexandria. Arius and two unyielding supporters (Theonas, and Secundus) were deposed and exiled to Illyricum, while three other bishops, who had also been supportive of Arius, namely Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea, and Maris of Chalcedon, were unwilling signatories of the document, but affixed their signatures in deference to the emperor. However, Constantine found some reason to suspect the sincerity of Eusebius of Nicomedia, as well as that of Theognis and Maris, for he soon after included them in the sentence pronounced on Arius. Eusebius of Caesarea defended himself in a letter as having objected to the changes in the creed which he had originally presented, but finally accepted them in the interests of peace (Theod. H. E. i. 12).

After the Council of Nicaea

That the apparent public unanimity of the council (Secundus and Theonas of Lower Egypt being the only dissenters) masked a considerable amount of divergent opinion is indisputable. Doubts over the use of a term which had been previously denounced as Sabellian weighed on the minds of many. Eusebius of Caesarea has been charged by many later writers as having embraced Arianism. But his attitude suggests that his objections to the decision, which he allowed his love of peace to overrule, owed more to the dread of possible consequences than to the decision in itself. And his allusion to the proceedings at Nicaea in the letter just mentioned shows that his apprehensions were not unreasonable. For he remarks how the final consensus emerged after considerable discussion that the term homoousion was not intended to indicate that the Son formed an actual portion of the Father, which would have led to Sabellianism, the fear of which fed much of the dissension to the creed. On the other hand, Athanasius was convinced that unless the essence of the Son was definitely understood to be the same as that of the Father, it would inevitably follow that the Son would at best be no more than an aeon.

The homoousian party's victory at Nicaea was short-lived, however. The controversy recommenced as soon as the decrees were promulgated. When Alexander died at Alexandria in 327, Athanasius succeeded him despite not meeting the age requirement for a bishop. Eusebius of Nicomedia, after writing a diplomatic letter to Constantine, was soon reinstated to his see and the good graces of the emperor. Arius, who had taken refuge in Palestine, was also soon permitted to return, after reformulating his Christology in an effort to mute the ideas his opponents found most objectionable. Before long, this turn of events led to a complete reversal of the position of the contending parties. Eustathius of Antioch, a staunch supporter of Athanasius, was deposed after involving himself in a controversy with Eusebius of Caesarea. Marcellus of Ancyra, another partisan of Athanasius, was charged with Sabellianism in attempting to defend Nicene Christology and was deposed in 336. In the meantime, Eusebius of Nicomedia turned against pugnacious Athanasius. Following Arius' restoration to the Constantine's favor, the emperor admonished Athanasius to readmit Arius to communion. Athanasius refused and was exiled to Trier.

Arius was summoned before Constantine and judged suitably compliant, whereupon the emperor directed Alexander of Constantinople to receive Arius back into communion despite his objections. However, the day before he was to be readmitted to communion, Arius is reported to have died suddenly. Socrates Scholasticus, a detractor, describes Arius' death as follows:

It was then Saturday, and . . . going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian [Eusebius of Nicomedia is meant] partisans like guards, he [Arius] paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine's Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, and with the terror a violent relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a convenient place near, and being directed to the back of Constantine's Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died. The scene of this catastrophe still is shown at Constantinople, as I have said, behind the shambles in the colonnade: and by persons going by pointing the finger at the place, there is a perpetual remembrance preserved of this extraordinary kind of death.

Whether Arius' death was miraculous, as many Nicene Christians asserted, or he was the victim of poisoning by his enemies, cannot be determined. In any event, the death of Arius, followed a year later by that of Constantine, did not end the controversy.

This article uses text from A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies by Henry Wace.

See also

• Arianism
• Anomoeanism
• Arian Catholicism
• Nontrinitarianism
• Semi-Arianism
• Unitarian Christianity

Bibliography

• Athanasius of Alexandria, History of the Arians Part I Part II Part III Part IV Part V Part VI Part VII Part VIII
• Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004).
• R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381 (T&T Clark, 1988).
• Sarah Parvis, Marcellus of Ancyra And the Lost Years of the Arian Controversy 325-345 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006).
• William C. Rusch, The Trinitarian Controversy, (Sources of Early Christian Thought), 1980, ISBN 0-8006-1410-0
• Schaff, Philip Theological Controversies and the Development of Orthodoxy, History of the Christian Church, Vol III, Ch. IX
• Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies
• Williams, Rowan, Arius: Heresy and Tradition, revised edition 2001, ISBN 0-8028-4969-5

External links

• The complete extant works of Arius
• Catholic Encyclopedia (Roman Catholic viewpoint)
• Holy Arian Catholic and Apostolic Church (Arian Catholic viewpoint)
• Athanasius' Discourse against the Arians
• Eusebius's Letter regarding the Council of Nicaea
• Constantine's open letter, by Socrates Scolasticus, opponent of Arius
• Letters relating to Early Arianism, many of which are to or from Arius

Mall:Arianism et:Areios Areios [ar'eios] (ladinapäraselt Arius [ar'iius] (256–336) oli kristlik presbüter Aleksandriast. Tema järgi on nime saanud arianism ehk ariaanlus, mida kirik peab ketserluseks.

Areiosel olid kristoloogias järgmised õpetused:

• Logosel ja Isal ei ole ühesugune olemus
• Poeg on Isa loodu
• oli aeg, mil Poeg ei eksisteerinud (Isa ja Poja võrdigavesuse eitamine).

Areiose õpetuse järgi on ainult üks tõeline Jumal ning Jeesus on (eriti väljapaistev) loodu. Isa olemus on Pojale tunnetamatu.

Umbes 318 tekkis tüli Aleksandria patriarhi Alexandrose ning Areiose vahel. Areios süüdistas Alexandrost sabellianismis. Alexandros kutsus seepeale kokku kirikukogu, mis mõistis Areiose hukka.

Areiosel oli siiski arvukalt pooldajaid ning tüli laienes Aleksandriast üle kogu Hommikumaa. Areios leidis varjupaiga Kaisarea Eusebiose juurest.

Et kristluse ühtsust taastada, kutsus keiser Constantinus I kokku Esimese Nikaia kirikukogu (325), kus piiskopid mõistsid Areiose õpetuse ketserlusena hukka.

Areios pagendati, aga juba 328 tühistati pagendus Nikomedeia Eusebiose mõjuvõimu tõttu. Samal aastal sai Aleksandria patriarhiks Athanasios.

Aastal 335 pidi Areios keisri käsul täielikult rehabiliteeritama. Ta kuulutas valmisolekut kirjutada alla Nikaia kirikukogu tulemustele, mis ta omal ajal oli tagasi lükanud. Ent enne kui ta jõudis Konstantinoopolis armulauda saada, suri ta äkitselt. Mõningate allikate järgi mürgitati ta vastaste poolt. Sokrates Scholastikose järgi (Kirikuajalugu, I, XXXVIII) olevat metropoliit Alexandros Konstantinoopolist, kes keisri käsu tõttu sattus südametunnistusekonflikti, palvetanud, et kas tema või Areios maailmast kõrvaldataks, enne kui Areios armulauale lubataks.

Vaata ka

• Athanasios
• Priscillianus