(H. E. 1.15.)
After this Arius again opposed Peter for his treatment of Mcletius and his followers, and was
in consequence excommunicated by Peter. After the death of the latter, Achillas, his successor
in the see of Alexandria, not only forgave Arius his offence and admitted him deacon again,
but ordained him presbyter, Haeres. 68. 4.) The
opinion that, after the death of Achillas, Arius himself wanted to become bishop of
Alexandria, and that for this reason he was hostile to Alexander, who became the successor of
Achillas, is a mere conjecture, based upon the fact, that Theodoret H. E.
1.2) accuses Arius of envy against Alexander. The official position of Arius at Alexandria, by
virtue of which he interpreted the Scriptures, had andoubtedly gained for him already Haeres. 69. 3; Socrat.
H. E. 1.5; Sozom. H. E. 1.15; Philostorg. 1.4), but
all agree in stating that Alexander after having heard some reports respecting Arius's novel
views about the Trinity, attcked them in a public assembly of presbyters. Hereupon Arius
charged the bishop with being guilty of the errors of Sabellius, and endeavoured tdefend his
own opinions. He maintained that the Son of God had been created by God, previous to the
existence of the world and of time, by an act of God's own free will and out of nothing; that
therefore the Son had not existed from all eternity; and that consequently in this respect the
Son was not perfectly equal to the Father, although he was raised far above all men. This
first dispute was followed by a circular letter from Alexander to his clergy, and by a second
conference, but all had no effect. As in the meantime the number of Arius's followers was
rapidly increasing, and as both the clergy and laity of Egypt, as well as several bishops of
Syria and Asia Minor, were favourably disposed towards Arius, partly because his doctrines
resembled those of Lucian, who had died a martyr about ten years before, and partly because
they were captivated by Arius's insinuating letters addressed to them, Alexander, in ALEXANDER, p. 111b.]
It was owing to these letters and to the extensive exertions of Arius to defend his
doctrines and to win more followers, that the possibility of an amicable settlement of the
question diminished more and more every day. At Alexandria the Arians regularly withdrew from
the church, and had their separate places of worship; and in Palestine, whither Arius had fled
from Egypt, he found a favourable reception. Here he addressed a letter, still extant
(Epiphan. Hacres. 69. 6 ; Theodoret. H. E. 1.5), to
his friend, Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedeia, the most influential bishop of the time, and who
himself bore a grudge against Alexander of Alexandria. Eusebius in his answer, as well as in a
letter he addressed to Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, expressed his perfect agreement with the
views of Arius (Athanas. de Synod. § 17; Theodoret. H. E. 1.6), and even received Arius into his own house. During his stay at Nicomedeia,
Arius wrote a theological work called Thaleia (SOTADES.] He also
addressed a letter to bishop Alexander, in which he entered into an explanation of his
doctrines, and which was signed by the clergy who had been excommunicated with him. Of his
Thaleia we possess only some abstracts made by his enemy Athanasius, which are written in a
philosophical and earnest tone; but they contain statements, which could not but be offensive
to a believer in the divinity of Christ. These things, when compared with the spirit of
Arius's letters, might lead to the belief that Athanasius in his epitome exaggerated the
statements of Arius; but we must remember that Arius in his letters was always prudent and
moderate, to avoid giving offence, by not shewing how far his theory might be carried. On the
whole, the controversy between Arius and Alexander presents no features of noble generosity or
impartiality; each is ambitious and obstinate. Arius was as zealous in endeavouring to acquire
new followers as Alexander was fierce and stubborn in his persecution. At last, in De Vit. Const. M. 2.64, &c.) This letter was
carried to Alexandria, whither Arius had returned in the meantime, by Hosius, bishop of
Corduba, who was also to act as mediator. But Hosius soon adopted the views of Alexander, and
his mission had no effect.
The disputes became more vehement from day to day, and Constantine at last saw himself
obliged to convoke a general council at Nicaea,
Arius remained in Illyricum till H. E. 1.25; Rufin. H. E. 1.5.) On the
arrival of Arius in Alexandria, Apolog. § 59.)
Eusebius, who was still the main supporter of the Arian party, had secured its ascendancy in
Syria, and caused the synod of Tyre, in H. E.
1.38; Epiphan. Haeres. 69. 10; Rufin. H. E. 1.13.)
His sudden death in such a place and at such a moment, naturally gave rise to a number of
strange suspicions and surmises; the orthodox regarded it as a direct judgment from heaven,
while his friends supposed that he had been poisoned by his enemies.
Arius must have been at a very advanced age when he died, since he is called the old Arius
at the time when he began his disputes with Alexander, and he was undoubtedly worn out and
exhausted by the continued struggles to which his life had been exposed. He is said to have
been unusually tall, pale, and thin, of a severe and gloomy appearance, though of captivating
and modest manners. The excellence of his moral character seems to be sufficiently attested by
the silence of his enemies to the contrary. That he was of a covetous and sensual disposition,
is an opinion unsupported by any historical evidence. Besides the works already referred to in
this article, Arius is said to have written songs for sailors, millers, and travellers; but no
specimen or fragment of them is now extant. (Q. M. Travasa, Storia critica
della Vita di Ario, Venice, 1746 ; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. ix. p. 214,
&c.; Walch, Historie der Ketzercien ; and the church histories of
Mosheim, Neander, and Gieseler.)