Heresy Arius and 1 Ecumenical Council. Church history

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.

The First Ecumenical Council was convened in 325 in the city of Nicaea under 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 be 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 participants in the Council were also 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 sad 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 on the Divine dignity of the Second Person of the Most 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 the whole faith and the whole Church of Christ are based, which constitutes the only 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. And to this day, the enemies of Christianity (for example, "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 Lord, the life-giving, 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 of ​​the resurrection of the dead and the life of the age to come. Amen.

First Ecumenical Council was collected by Emperor Constantine the Great in 325 in the city of Nicaea, a suburb of Constantinople, which is why it is also called Council of Nicaea. Commemorated on May 29 and on the 7th week after Easter.

The Council was convened primarily in order to resolve the theological dispute between the supporters of the Alexandrian Protopresbyter Arius with the Bishop of Alexandria, Alexander and his supporters, regarding the Triune Essence of God. This dispute quickly spread beyond the borders of Alexandria and captured a large part of the Roman Empire, threatening peace in the Church. Emperor Constantine, seeing in the Church the basis of the stability of the Roman Empire, hastened to convene bishops from all over the continent to resolve this dispute and establish peace in the Church and the empire.

Cathedral members

Liturgical tradition fixed the number of participants in the Council as 318. The Holy Tsar Constantine the Great in his speech to the Council expressed: "More than 300." St. Athanasius the Great, Pope Julius, Lucifer of Calabria speak of 300. A member of the Council, St. Eustathius of Antioch, speaks of 270. Another participant, Eusebius of Caesarea, calls the figure "more than 250". In the manuscript lists that have come down to us in Greek, Coptic, Syriac, Arabic and other languages, we find up to 220 names.

I Ecumenical Council. Icon of the 17th century.

The minutes of this council have not come down to us. However, what the disputes were about at this Council and its decisions are known quite well from the works and correspondence of its participants.

From the side of the Arians, in addition to Arius himself, his closest associates Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Caesarea, as well as the local bishop of the city of Nicaea Theognis, Marius of Chalcedon, came to the Council. Together with Eusebius of Caesarea, his conciliar associates were also present: Peacock of Tire and Patrophilus of Scythopol, there were Arius' fellow countrymen, the Libyans who supported him: Secundus of Ptolemaida (Cyrenaica) and Theon of Marmarik.

The Orthodox side was represented at the Council by outstanding bishops, both in learning and in asceticism and confession: Alexander I of Alexandria, Athanasius the Great, Eustathius of Antioch, Markell of Ancyra. Leontius of Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia and James of Nisibis were known for the holiness of their lives. The confessors were Amphion of Epiphany of Cilicia, Paul of Neocaesarea with burnt hands, Paphnutius of Thebaid and Potamon the Egyptian with gouged out eyes. Potamon's legs were also dislocated, and in this form he worked in exile in the quarries. He was known as a miracle worker and healer. Spyridon Trimifuntsky arrived from the island of Cyprus. He was a holy simpleton who continued to shepherd in the bishopric; he was known as a seer and miracle worker. (According to some testimonies, St. Nicholas, Archbishop of the World of Lycia, took part in the Council. But strictly speaking, there are no exact indications of the participation of St. Nicholas in this Ecumenical Council. There is a legend about the “bearing” of Arius by St. Nicholas, which we give below.)

Since the Arian disputes disturbed the calm only in the eastern part of the Roman Empire, the Western Church did not consider it necessary to send many of its representatives to this Council. Pope Sylvester delegated two presbyters as his deputies: Vincent and Viton. Apart from this, only St. Hosius of Corduvia from Spain (according to some reports, the chairman of the Council), Mark of Calabria and Eustathius of Milan from Italy, Kekilian of Carthage from Africa, Nicasius of Dijon from Gaul, and Domnus of Stridon from Dalmatia arrived from the Latin-speaking provinces.

From outside the Roman Empire, delegates arrived at the Council from Pitiunt in the Caucasus, from the Vospor (Bosphorus) kingdom (Kerch), from Scythia, two delegates from Armenia, one - James of Nisibis - from Persia.

Progress of the Cathedral

According to Socrates, the Cathedral opened on May 20, and the solemn closing of the Cathedral was timed by the emperor on August 25, the day he celebrated the 20th anniversary of his reign. But some historians refer to June 14 as the beginning of the Council. The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (451) date the adoption of the Nicaean Ordinance on 19 June.

Historians propose to coordinate the stages of the Council on dates as follows:

"May 20 is the opening parade of the Cathedral. A church parade, inserted into the framework of the court parade, an unprecedented "review of the forces" of the church until then. The plenum of the Council was determined and formal voting began only on June 14. And on June 19 the main creed was voted. August 25 took place already the triumph of the closing of the Cathedral. At the same time, Eusebius of Caesarea delivered his laudatory speech to the emperor, placed by him in his Life of Constantine. The celebration ended with a sumptuous dinner."

The Council began with a speech by Emperor Constantine in Latin. “Do not hesitate,” said the emperor, “oh, friends, servants of God and servants of our common Lord Savior! Do not hesitate to consider the reasons for your disagreement at the very beginning and resolve all disputed issues by peaceful resolutions. Through this you will do what is pleasing to God and bring the greatest joy me, your companion."

There are references to the fact that St. Nicholas and St. Athanasius of Alexandria, who was then still a deacon and who suffered from them all his life for zealous opposition to heretics, struggled most in refuting the ungodly Aryan Teachings.

Other saints defended Orthodoxy using their enlightenment, with the help of theological arguments. Saint Nicholas, on the other hand, defended the faith by faith itself — by the fact that all Christians, beginning with the Apostles, believed in the Divinity of Jesus Christ.

According to legend, during one of the conciliar sessions, unable to endure the blasphemy of Arius, Saint Nicholas struck this heretic on the cheek. The Fathers of the Council considered such an act an excess of jealousy, deprived Saint Nicholas of the advantage of his episcopal rank - omophorion and imprisoned him in a prison tower.

But soon they were convinced that Saint Nicholas was right, especially since many of them had a vision when, before their eyes, our Lord Jesus Christ gave Saint Nicholas the Gospel, and the Most Holy Theotokos placed an omophorion on him. They freed him from prison, returned him to his former dignity and glorified him as a great Pleasure of God. The adoption of the Creed was very dramatic.

According to Eusebius of Caesarea, on the issue of the creed during the debate, Arius and his associates expressed their position directly and boldly, counting on the emperor's tolerance and hoping to convince him and win over to their side. Their blasphemous speeches outraged the Orthodox. The intensity of passions grew. At the right moment, a cunning diplomatic proposal was made ((Eusebius of Caesarea), which consisted in taking the text of the baptismal creed, familiar to most, as the basis for the definition of the Council:

"We believe in the One God the Father, the Almighty, the Creator of all (άπάντων) visible and invisible. And in the One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, the Only Begotten Son, the Firstborn of all creation ( Col. 1:15), before all ages from the Father, Born, through Whom everything happened ... Incarnate ... We believe in one Holy Spirit.

Eusebius's cunning plan was to help Arius reduce this Council to the formal adoption of a formula familiar to everyone, to which the majority would easily have to agree. However, the wording left room for the heretical teachings of Arius.

But Emperor Constantine did not allow this trick to take place. Having approved the text, he, as if by the way, proposed to enrich it with only a small addition, in one word "consubstantial" (omousios). With the support of authoritative Orthodox bishops, the majority of the episcopate, who, being Orthodox, were nevertheless not sufficiently educated to penetrate and understand all the subtleties of this issue, supported and voted for this addition proposed by the emperor, reliably cutting off the Arian heresy from Orthodoxy.

Results of the First Ecumenical Council

At this Council, which lasted about two months, the Creed was introduced into general church use, (subsequently supplemented and completed at the Second Ecumenical Council, which was in Constantinople in 381 after the Nativity of Christ).

At the same Ecumenical Council, Meletius was condemned, who appropriated the rights of a bishop, being himself a violator of church rules.

Finally, at this Council the teachings of Arius and his followers were rejected and solemnly anathematized.

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 be fought 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 ​​Cordub, 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 the eastern half of the empire; 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 its teaching, which violated the peace of the Church, that was the main reason for convening 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 hit 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, the Most Holy Theotokos with an omophorion, and they handed him the signs of episcopal rank, 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 include in 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. thirteen), 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; bearing in mind 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 with an obviousness that could not be more desired, it 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 its 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. Around these two outstanding hierarchs of the 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 Pascha was celebrated in a strict fast, 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 subsequently 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 Hosea, Bishop of Kordub, who was the first to sign the Council's decrees, as chairman of the Council.

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. thirteen); 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 likely consideration that Emperor Constantine in this case acted in agreement with the Orthodox bishops, who found it more convenient to proclaim the right word through his mouth, since the authority of the emperor eliminated 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 that comes from the consciousness of his impiety, seized him and was accompanied by severe pain in his stomach.So 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 is the common name in antiquity for the entire eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea with the areas 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 the year 372, the emperor Valens, in an attempt to introduce Arianism into the Church of Caesarea, 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.

The Second Ecumenical Council, the 1st Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, took place under Emperor Theodosius I the Great, in 381, first under the chairmanship of Meletios of Antioch, then the famous Nazianzus, known in the Church under the name of Theologian, and finally, Nectarios, Gregory’s successor at the Constantinople see. This council was assembled against the Bishop of Constantinople Macedonia and his followers, the semi-Arian Doukhobors, who considered the Son only similar to the Father, and the Holy Spirit the first creation and instrument of the Son. The Council also had in mind the Anomeans, the followers of Aetius and Eunomius, who taught that the Son is not like the Father, but a different essence from Him, the followers of Photinus, who resumed Sabellianism, and Apollinaris (Laodicean), who taught that the flesh of Christ, brought from heaven from the bosom Father, did not have a rational soul, which was replaced by the Deity of the Word. Meletios, who united zeal for Orthodoxy with the spirit of Christian meekness, died shortly after the opening of the Council. His death gave scope to the passions that forced Gregory of Nazianzus to refuse not only participation in the Council, but also the See of Constantinople. Gregory of Nyssa, a man who combined extensive learning and high intelligence with exemplary holiness of life, remained the main figure in the Council. The Council affirmed inviolably the Nicene Symbol; besides this, he added to it the last five members; where the concept of consubstantiality is extended in the same force of unconditional meaning to the Holy Spirit, contrary to the heresy of the Dukhobors, erected by Macedon, Bishop of Constantinople, under the emperor Constantius, who was deposed at the same time, but found support in the local Lampsaki Cathedral. At the same time, the heresy of Apollinaris, bishop of Syrian Laodicea, was also condemned. With regard to the church hierarchy, the comparison of the Bishop of Constantinople with other exarchs is remarkable, not only in the honorary name, but also in the rights of the high priesthood; at the same time, the metropolises of Pontus, Asia Minor and Thrace are included in his region. In conclusion, the Council established the form of a conciliar judgment and the acceptance of heretics into church communion after repentance, some through baptism, others through chrismation, depending on the importance of the delusion” (Bulgakov, Handbook of clergy, Kiev, 1913).

Third Ecumenical Council.

By the end of the 4th century, after struggling with various kinds of heretics, the Church fully revealed the doctrine of the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, confirming that He is God and at the same time man. But the men of science were not satisfied with the positive teaching of the Church; in the teaching about the God-manhood of Jesus Christ, they found a point that was not clear to the mind. This is a question about the image of the union in the Person of Jesus Christ of the Divine and human nature and the mutual relationship of one and the other. This question is at the end of the 4th and the beginning of the 5th c. occupied the Antiochian theologians, who undertook the task of explaining it scientifically, by way of reason. But since they attached more importance to reason than they should have, in clarifying this issue, as in previous explanations, they did not do without heresies that agitated the Church in the 5th, 6th, and even 7th centuries.

Heresy of Nestorius was the first of the heresies that developed in the Church with a scientific explanation of the question of the image of the union in the Person of Jesus Christ of the Divine and human nature and their mutual relationship. She, like the heresy of Arius, came out of the Antioch school, which did not allow mystery in understanding the dogmas of faith. It seemed incomprehensible and even impossible to the theologians of the Antioch school that the doctrine of the union of the two natures Divine and human, limited and unlimited, into one Person of God-man Jesus Christ. Wishing to give this doctrine a reasonable and understandable explanation, they came to heretical thoughts. Diodorus, Bishop of Tarsus (d. 394), formerly a presbyter of Antioch and a school teacher, was the first to develop this kind of thought. In refutation of Apollinaris, he wrote an essay in which he argued that in Jesus Christ human nature, both before union and after union with the Divine, was complete and independent. But, defining the image of the union of two complete natures, he found it difficult (due to the views of the Antiochian school on dogmas) to say that the human and Divine natures constituted the single Person of Jesus, and therefore distinguished them from each other because there was no complete and essential unification between them. He taught that the perfect Son before the ages received the perfect from David, that God the Word dwelt in the one born of the seed of David, as in a temple, and that a man was born from the Virgin Mary, and not God the Word, for the mortal gives birth to the mortal by nature. Hence, according to Diodorus, Jesus Christ was a simple man in whom the Divinity dwelt, or who carried the Divinity within himself.

The disciple of Diodorus, Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuet (d. 429), developed this idea even more fully. He sharply distinguished in Jesus Christ the human person from the divine. The essential union of God the Word with the man Jesus into one person, according to his conception, would be a limitation of the Godhead, and therefore it is impossible. Between them, only external unity is possible, contact of one with the other. Theodore revealed this contact in this way: the man Jesus was born of Mary, like all people naturally, with all human passions and shortcomings. God the Word, foreseeing that He would endure the struggle with all passions and triumph over them, wanted to save the human race through Him, and for this, from the moment of His conception, He was united with Him by His grace. The grace of God the Word, which rested on the man Jesus, sanctified and strengthened His powers even after His birth, so that, having entered into life, He began to struggle with the passions of body and soul, destroyed sin in the flesh and exterminated his lusts. For such a virtuous life, the man-Jesus was honored to be adopted by God: it was from the time of baptism that He was recognized as the Son of God. When then Jesus overcame all the devilish temptations in the wilderness and reached the most perfect life, God the Word poured out on Him the gifts of the Holy Spirit in an incomparably higher degree than on the prophets, apostles and saints, for example, he gave Him the highest knowledge. Finally, during the suffering, the man-Jesus endured the last struggle with human infirmities and was awarded for this divine knowledge and divine holiness. Now, God the Word has become intimately united with the man Jesus; a unity of action was established between them, and the man-Jesus became an instrument of God the Word in the work of saving people.

Thus, in Theodore of Mopsuet, the God-Word and the man-Jesus are completely separate and independent personalities. Therefore, he did not allow the use of expressions relating to the man-Jesus in application to God the Word. For example, in his opinion, one cannot say: God was born, Mother of God, because not God was born from Mary, but a man, or: God suffered, God was crucified, because the man Jesus suffered again. This teaching is completely heretical. His last conclusions are the denial of the sacrament of the incarnation of God the Word, the redemption of the human race through the suffering and death of the Lord Jesus Christ, since the suffering and death of an ordinary person cannot have a saving value for the entire human race, and, in the end, the denial of all Christianity.

While the teaching of Diodorus and Theodore was spread only as a private opinion in a circle of people dealing with theological issues, it did not meet with refutation and condemnation from the Church. But when the Archbishop of Constantinople Nestorius wanted to make it church-wide teaching, the Church spoke out against him as a heresy and solemnly condemned him. Nestorius was a student of Theodore of Mopsuet and a graduate of the Antioch school. He led the fight against the Church and gave his name to this heretical doctrine. While still a hieromonk in Antioch, he was famous for his eloquence and strictness of life. In 428, Emperor Theodosius II the Younger made him Archbishop of Constantinople. Nestorius brought Presbyter Anastasius from Antioch, who delivered several sermons in the church in the spirit of the teachings of F. Mopsuetsky, that the Virgin Mary should not be called the Mother of God, but the Mother of Man. Such a teaching was news, since in Constantinople, Alexandria and other churches the ancient Orthodox teaching about the union of two natures in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ was preserved. This connection was looked upon as an essential connection into one God-Man Face, and it was not allowed in Him, as a single person, the separation of the Deity from humanity. Hence the public name of the Blessed Virgin Mary was Mother of God. These sermons of Anastassy excited the entire clergy, monks and people. To stop the unrest, Nestorius himself began to preach and reject the name of the Mother of God, in his opinion, irreconcilable with reason and Christianity, but he did not allow the name of the human-bearer, but called the Most Holy Virgin the Mother of Christ. After this explanation, the unrest in Constantinople did not subside. Nestorius began to be accused of heresy by Paul of Samosata, since it was clear that it was not only about the name of the Virgin Mary the Theotokos, but about the Face of Jesus Christ. Nestorius began to persecute his opponents and even condemned them at the Council of Constantinople (429), but this only increased the number of his enemies, who were already many on the occasion of the correction of the morals of the clergy undertaken by him. Soon the rumor of these controversies spread to other churches, and discussions began here.

In Antioch and Syria, very many took the side of Nestorius, mostly people who had left the Antioch school. But in Alexandria and Rome, the teachings of Nestorius met with strong opposition. The Bishop of Alexandria at that time was St. Cyril (since 412), a theologically educated person and a zealous defender of Orthodoxy. First of all, in his Paschal epistle, he outlined how harmful the teaching of Nestorius was to Christianity. This did not affect Nestorius, and he continued to defend the correctness of his teaching in letters to Cyril. Then Cyril informed Emperor Theodosius II, his wife Eudoxia and sister Pulcheria about the teachings of Nestorius with a special message. He then reported this heresy to Pope Celestine. Nestorius also wrote to Rome. Pope Celestine convened a council in Rome (430), condemned the teachings of Nestorius and demanded from him, under the threat of excommunication and deposition, to abandon his thoughts within 10 days. The conclusion of the council was sent to Nestorius and the eastern bishops through Cyril, to whom the pope gave his vote. Cyril informed Nestorius and the bishops of the decrees of the Council of Rome, and especially urged John, Archbishop of Antioch, to uphold Orthodoxy. If they take the side of Nestorius, they will give rise to a break with the churches of Alexandria and Rome, which have already spoken out against Nestorius. John, who sympathized with the way of thinking of Nestorius, in view of Cyril's warning, wrote Nestorius a friendly letter in which he urged him to use the expressions about the Blessed Virgin Mary adopted by the ancient fathers.

Meanwhile, Cyril at the council in Alexandria (430) condemned the teachings of Nestorius and issued 12 anathematisms against him, in which he proved the inseparable union in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ of two natures. Cyril transmitted these anathematisms to Nestorius with his message. Nestorius, for his part, responded with 12 anathematisms, in which he condemned those who attribute suffering to the Divine and so on. They were directed against Cyril, although they do not apply to the latter. The Syrian bishops, having received the anathematisms of Cyril, also rebelled against them. They had a point of view on the ideas of Theodore of Mopsuet. Blessed Theodoret, the learned Bishop of Cyrus, wrote a refutation on them. To stop such discord between the primates of the famous churches and the approval of the Orthodox teaching, imp. Theodosius II decided to convene an ecumenical council. Nestorius, whose side Theodosius took at that time, himself asked for the convocation of an ecumenical council, being convinced that his teaching, as correct, would triumph.

Theodosius appointed a council in Ephesus on the very day of Pentecost 431. It was the Third Ecumenical Council. Cyril arrived in Ephesus with 40 Egyptian bishops, Juvenal of Jerusalem with Palestinian bishops, Firm, ep. Caesarea of ​​Cappadocia, Flavian of Thessaloniki. Nestorius also arrived with 10 bishops and two senior officials, friends of Nestorius. The first Candidian, as a representative of the emperor, the second Irenaeus - simply as being disposed towards Nestorius. Only John of Antioch and papal legates were missing. After 16 days of the deadline set by the emperor for the opening of the cathedral, Cyril decided to open the cathedral without waiting for those absent. The official Candidian protested against this and sent a denunciation to Constantinople. The first meeting was on June 22 at the Church of the Virgin. Nestorius was invited to the cathedral three times. But the first time he gave an vague answer, the second time he answered that he would come when all the bishops had come together, and the third time he did not even listen to the invitation. Then the council decided to consider the case of Nestorius without him. The Creed of Niceo-Tsaregradsky, the epistles to Nestorius, the anathematisms of Cyril and the epistles of Nestorius to Cyril, his conversations and so on were read.

The Fathers found that Cyril's epistles contain Orthodox teaching and, on the contrary, Nestorius's epistles and conversations are non-Orthodox. Then the fathers checked, as Nestorius teaches at the present time, whether he had already abandoned his thoughts. According to the testimony of the bishops who spoke with Nestorius in Ephesus, it turned out that he adheres to his former thoughts. Finally, the sayings of the Fathers of the Church, who wrote about the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, were read. Here, too, Nestorius contradicts them. Taking all this into account, the fathers of the Ephesian Council recognized the teachings of Nestorius as heretical and decided to deprive him of his dignity and excommunicate him from church communion. The verdict was signed by 200 bishops and the first meeting was over.

On the same day, the council in Ephesus announced the deposition of Nestorius and sent a notice to the clergy in Constantinople. Cyril wrote letters on his behalf to the bishops and the abbot of the monastery of Constantinople, Abba Dalmatius. Soon the acts of the council were sent to the emperor. Nestorius was sentenced the next day after the meeting. He, of course, did not accept it and in a report to the emperor complained about the supposedly wrong actions of the council, blamed especially Cyril and Memnon and asked the emperor either to transfer the cathedral to another place, or to give him the opportunity to safely return to Constantinople, because, he complained with his bishops - his life is in danger.

Meanwhile, John of Antioch arrived in Ephesus with 33 Syrian bishops. The fathers of the cathedral warned him not to enter into communion with the condemned Nestorius. But John was not satisfied with the decision of the case not in favor of Nestorius, and therefore, without entering into communion with Cyril and his council, he composed his own council with Nestorius and the visiting bishops. John was joined by several bishops who were at the Cathedral of St. Kirill. An imperial representative also arrived at the Cathedral of St. John. The Council of John recognized the condemnation of Nestorius as illegal and began the trial of Cyril, Memnon and other bishops who condemned Nestorius. Cyril was unjustly blamed, among other things, that the teaching set forth in his anathematisms is similar to the impiety of Arius, Apollinaris and Eunomius. And so, the council of John condemned and deposed Cyril and Memnon, excommunicated from church communion, until repentance, the other bishops who condemned Nestorius, reported everything to Constantinople to the emperor, clergy and people, asking the emperor to approve the deposition of Cyril and Memnon. Theodosius, who received, in addition to the reports of Cyril, Nestorius and John, also the report of Candidian, did not know what to do in this case. Finally, he ordered that all the decrees of the councils of Cyril and John be destroyed and that all the bishops who arrived in Ephesus should gather together and end the disputes in a peaceful manner. Cyril could not agree with such a proposal, since the correct decision was made at his council, and John of Antioch presented the actions of his council as correct, which both reported to Constantinople.

While this correspondence was being carried on, the cathedral, under the chairmanship of Cyril, continued its meetings, of which there were seven. At the second meeting, the message of Pope Celestine, brought by the legates who had just arrived, was read, and it was recognized as completely Orthodox; in the third, the Roman legates signed the condemnation of Nestorius; in the fourth - Cyril and Memnon, wrongly condemned by John (who did not appear at the invitation to appear at the meeting) were acquitted; in the fifth - Cyril and Memnon, in order to refute the accusations raised against them by John, condemned the heresies of Arius, Apollinaris and Eunomius, and the council excommunicated John himself and the Syrian bishops from church communion; in the sixth, it is forbidden for the future to change anything in the Nicene-Tsaregrad Symbol or to compose others instead; finally, in the seventh, the council took up the solution of private issues of delimitation of the dioceses. All conciliar acts were sent to the emperor for approval.

Now Theodosius was in even greater difficulty than before, because the enmity between the council and the supporters of John had increased to a great extent. And the nobleman Irenaeus, who arrived in the capital from Ephesus, acted strongly at court in favor of Nestorius. Bishop Akakiy of Beria gave advice to the emperor, removing Cyril, Memnon and Nestorius from the conciliar discussions, and instructing all the other bishops to reconsider the case of Nestorius. The Emperor did just that. He sent an official to Ephesus, who took into custody Cyril, Memnon and Nestorius, and began to force the other bishops to agree. But no agreement followed. Meanwhile, St. Cyril found an opportunity from custody to write to the clergy and people of Constantinople, as well as to Abba Dalmatia about what was happening in Ephesus. Abba Dalmatius gathered the monks of the monasteries of Constantinople and together with them, with a large gathering of people, with the singing of psalms, with burning lamps, went to the emperor's palace. Entering the palace, Dalmatius asked the emperor that the Orthodox fathers be released from prison and that the decision of the council regarding Nestorius be approved.

The appearance of the famous Abba, who had not left his monastery for 48 years, made a strong impression on the emperor. He promised to approve the council's decision. Then, in the church where Abba Dalmatius went with the monks, the people openly proclaimed an anathema to Nestorius. Thus the hesitation of the emperor ended. It only remained to bring the Syrian bishops into agreement with the council. To do this, the emperor ordered the disputing parties to choose 8 deputies and send them to Chalcedon for mutual discussions in the presence of the emperor. On the part of the Orthodox, this deputation included two Roman legates and the Bishop of Jerusalem, Juvenaly. From the defenders of Nestorius - John of Antioch and Theodoret of Cyrus. But even in Chalcedon no agreement was reached, despite the concerns of Theodosius. The Orthodox demanded that the Syrian bishops sign the condemnation of Nestorius, while the Syrian ones did not agree and did not want to accept, as they put it, the dogmas of Cyril (anathematisms). So the matter remained unresolved. However, Theodosius now decisively went over to the side of the Orthodox bishops. At the end of the Chalcedonian meeting, he issued a decree in which he ordered all the bishops to return to their sees, including Cyril, and Nestorius had previously removed to the Antioch monastery, from which he had previously been taken to the See of Constantinople. The Orthodox bishops appointed Maximilian, known for his pious life, as the successor to Nestorius.

The bishops of the East, led by John of Antioch, departing from Chalcedon and Ephesus for their sees, formed two synods on the way, one at Tarsus, at which they again condemned Cyril and Memnon, and the other at Antioch, at which they composed their confession of faith. In this confession, it was said that the Lord Jesus Christ is a perfect God and a perfect man, and that on the basis of the unity of Divinity and humanity not merged in Him, the Most Holy Virgin Mary can be called the Theotokos. Thus, the Eastern Fathers retreated from their Nestorian views, but did not abandon the person of Nestorius, which is why the division between them and Cyril continued. Emperor Theodosius did not lose hope of reconciling the churches, and instructed his official Aristolaus to do this. But only Paul, Bishop of Emesa, succeeded in reconciling the fathers of Syria with those of Alexandria. He persuaded John of Antioch and the other Bishops of Syria to agree to the condemnation of Nestorius, and Cyril of Alexandria to sign the Antiochian Confession of Faith. Cyril, seeing that this was an Orthodox confession, signed it, but did not renounce his anathematisms either. Thus the world was restored. The entire Ecumenical Church agreed with the Antiochian Confession of Faith, as with the Orthodox, and it received the meaning of an exact confession of the faith of the ancient Orthodox teaching about the image of the union in the Lord Jesus Christ of two natures and their mutual relationship. The emperor approved this confession and made the final decision regarding Nestorius. He was exiled (435) to an oasis in the Egyptian deserts, where he died (440).

Along with the delusions of Nestorius, at the Third Ecumenical Council, the heresy that appeared in the west was also condemned. Pelagian. Pelagius, originally from Britain, did not accept monasticism, led a strict ascetic life, and, falling into spiritual pride, began to deny original sin, belittling the significance of God's grace in the matter of salvation and attributing all the merits of a virtuous life and a person's own strengths. In its further development, Pelagianism led to a denial of the need for redemption and redemption itself. To spread this false teaching, Pelagius arrived in Rome, and then in Carthage, but here he met a strong opponent in the person of the famous teacher of the Western Church, Blessed Augustine. Having experienced with his own painful experience the weakness of the will in the fight against passions, Augustine with all his might refuted the false teaching of the proud Briton and revealed in his creations what great significance divine grace has for doing good and achieving bliss. The condemnation of the heresy of Pelagius was pronounced as early as 418 at the local council in Carthage, and was only confirmed by the Third Ecumenical Council.

All 8 canons were expounded at the council. Of these, in addition to condemning the Nestorian heresy, it is important - a complete prohibition not only to compose a new one, but even to supplement or reduce, at least in one word, the Symbol set forth at the first two Ecumenical Councils.

History of Nestorianism after the Council.

Adherents of Nestorius rebelled against John of Antioch for treason and formed a strong party in Syria. Among them was even the blessed Theodoret of Cyrus. He condemned the delusions of Nestorius, agreed with Orthodox teaching, but also did not want to agree with the condemnation of Nestorius. John of Antioch was forced to strive to destroy the heretical party. His assistant was Ravula, Bishop of Edessa. Having achieved nothing by the power of persuasion, John had to turn to the help of civil authorities. The emperor removed several Nestorian bishops from the sees in the churches of Syria and Mesopotamia, but Nestorianism held on.

The main reason for this was not Nestorius himself (for whom the majority of bishops did not stand), but the dissemination of his heretical thoughts in the writings of Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuet. They were looked upon in Syria as great teachers of the Church. Orthodox bishops understood this and therefore began to act against these teachers of Nestorianism. Thus, the Bishop of Edessa Ravula destroyed the Edessa school, which carried out the ideas of the Antiochian school. At the head of this school was Presbyter Yves, like Theodoret, who agreed to the Antioch confession, but suspected Cyril himself of non-Orthodoxy. Iva with other teachers of the Edessa school was expelled. Then Ravula at the council organized by him condemned the writings of Diodorus and Theodore, which caused great unrest in the Eastern churches. St. himself Cyril, who wished along with Proclus, ep. Constantinople, to solemnly condemn the teachers of Nestorianism, had only to confine himself in his essay to a refutation of Theodore of Mopsuet. But this work also caused strong discontent in the East, and objections arose against it. Blessed Theodoret also defended Theodore of Mopsuet. During this struggle, St. Cyril (444), and during the same struggle the Syrian Christians with their bishops became even more distant from the Church. Ravula of Edessa died even before Cyril (436). Under the influence of the Nestorian party, the exiled Yves was elected his successor, who again restored the Edessa school. Yves, by the way, wrote a letter to a Persian bishop, Mary, about the events in the Syrian church and about the dispute between Cyril and Nestorius. Reproaching Nestorius that, with his expression about the Blessed Virgin Mary, he gave rise to an accusation of heresy, Yves especially rebelled against Cyril, accusing him unjustly of destroying human nature in Jesus Christ and recognizing the Divine alone, and thereby renews the heresy of Apollinaris. This letter was of great importance in the further disputes of the Church with heretics. Yves also translated the writings of Theodore and Diodorus into Syriac. But the Bishop of Nisibia, Thomas Varsuma, who had previously been a teacher at the Edessa school, acted much more in favor of Nestorianism. He enjoyed the favor of the Persian government, to which Nisibia then belonged, and which, in political opinion, approved of the separation of the Persian Christians from the Christians of the empire. In 489 the Edessa school was again destroyed. Teachers and students went to Persia and founded a school in Nisibia, which became a hotbed of Nestorianism.

In 499, the bishop of Seleucia, Babeus, a Nestorian, convened a council in Seleucia, at which Nestorianism was approved and the separation of the Persian church from the Greco-Roman empire was formally declared. The Nestorians began to be called by their liturgical language Chaldean Christians. They had their own patriarch called catholicos. In addition to dogmatic differences, the Nestorian Persian Church allowed differences in its church structure. So, she allowed marriage not only for priests, but also for bishops. From Persia, Nestorianism spread to India. Here they are named fomite christians, named app. Thomas.

Fourth Ecumenical Council.

The fourth ecumenical council - Chalcedon is directly connected with the history of the third ecumenical council - Ephesus (writes Bishop John of Aksay). We know that the main figure in the enlightenment and preservation of the Orthodox teaching at the 3rd Ecumenical Council was St. Cyril, archbishop Alexandrian. The main culprit of all the worries was Eutyches, Archim. Constantinople, who was an admirer of St. Kirill. Saint Cyril, respecting Eutyches, sent him a copy of the Acts of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. But just as it happens in other cases that inspiration goes to extremes, so here, too, zeal for the theological judgments of St. Cyril crossed the line. The high theology of St. Cyril was not understood and Eutychius degenerated into a false teaching, a new system of monophysitism was built, in which it was stated that in Jesus Christ there were not two natures, but one. When it came to explanations with Eutyches at the council, he expressed his teaching as follows: “After the incarnation of God the Word, I worship one nature, the nature of God, incarnate and incarnate; I confess that our Lord consists of two natures before the union, and after the union I confess one nature” (History of ecumenical councils).

heretical monophysite shared the doctrine Dioscorus who, after Cyril, occupied the See of Alexandria. Dioscorus was supported by Emperor Theodosius II, who valued him as a fighter against Nestorianism. Eutychius was venerated by the court party, headed by Empress Eudoxia. On the advice of this party, Eutyches transferred his case to the court of the churches of Rome and Alexandria, presenting himself as the defender of the Orthodox teaching, and Flavian and Eusebius, Bishop. Dorilean by the Nestorians. Pope Leo the Great, aware of everything Flavian, agreed to the condemnation of Eutychius. Dioscorus, taking the side of the latter, asked the emperor to convene an ecumenical council to approve the pseudo-Orthodox teaching of Eutychius and condemn Nestorianism, allegedly revived by Flavian. Theodosius II appointed a council in Ephesus in 449, presided over by Dioscorus.

The council was attended by 127 bishops in person and 8 had commissioners. The Pope sent a "dogmatic epistle", famous for its purity of understanding of the truth and for its clarity of presentation (epistola dogmatica). Three of his legates were in session. Council meetings on the case of Eutychius began. Dioscorus did not read out the message of the pope, contented himself with confessing the faith of Eutychius and declaring that the two natures in Christ were not spoken of at the previous ecumenical councils. Dioscorus declared Flavian a heretic and defrocked, as did Eusebius of Doryleus, Domnus of Antioch, and Theodore of Cyrus. With them, for fear of violence, 114 bishops agreed. The legates of Rome refused to vote.

“When Flavian was leaving the cathedral hall,” writes Bishop. Arseny, “the Syrian archimandrite Varsum and other monks attacked him, and beat him so much that he soon died on the way to the town of Lydia, the place of his imprisonment.”

Flavian's successor was Anatoly, a priest, confidant of Dioscorus under the imp. Yard. The emperor, deceived by his courtiers, confirmed all the definitions of the Ephesian “robber council”.

Pope of Rome defends Orthodoxy St. Leo the Great. At the council in Rome, everything that was decided in Ephesus was condemned. The pope, in letters to the east, demanded the convening of a legal ecumenical council in Italy. At his request, the same demanded and app. Emperor Valentinian III. But Theodosius was under the influence of the Monophysite court party, especially Theodosius, and therefore did not heed the requests. Then, the court party lost its significance, the empress was removed under the pretext of a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. The party of the sister Theodosius, Pulcheria, an admirer of Patriarch Flavian, gained importance. His relics were solemnly transferred to Constantinople. Theodosius died soon after (450). He was succeeded by Marcian, who married Pulcheria.

V Chalcedon legal 4th Ecumenical Council. All the fathers on it were 630. Of the most remarkable were: Anatoly of Constantinople, who took the side of the Orthodox, Domnus of Antioch (deposed by Dioscorus and returned by Marcian), Maximus, put in his place, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea-Cappadocia, Blessed Theodoret, Eusebius of Dorileus, Dioscorus of Alexandria and others. The pope, who desired a council in Italy, nevertheless sent his legates to Chalcedon. Anatoly of Constantinople was the chairman of the council. First of all, the fathers took up the consideration of deeds robbery council and the trial of Dioscorus. His accuser was the famous Eusebius of Dorileus, who presented the fathers with a note outlining all the violence of Dioscorus at the robber cathedral. Having familiarized themselves, the fathers took away the right to vote from Dioscorus, after which he was among the defendants. In addition, many accusations were presented against him by the Egyptian bishops, who spoke about the immorality and cruelty of Dioscorus and his various kinds of violence. After discussing all this, the fathers condemned him and deposed him, just as they condemned the robber council and Eutyches. Those bishops who took part in the robber council were forgiven by the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon, because they repented and explained in their defense that they acted under fear of the threats of Dioscorus.

Then the fathers began to define the doctrine. They were to present such a doctrine of two natures in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, which would be alien to the extremes of Nestorianism and Monophysitism. The teaching between these extremes was precisely Orthodox. The Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon did just that. Taking as a model the statement of faith of St. Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch, as well as the message of Pope Leo of Rome to Flavian, they thus defined the dogma about the image of the union in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ of two natures: “following the divine fathers, we all unanimously teach to confess ..... one and that but Christ, the Son, the only-begotten Lord, in two natures, inseparable, unchanging, indivisible, inseparable cognizable (not by the difference of two natures consumed by the union, but rather by the property of each nature being preserved into one person and copulated into one hypostasis): not into two persons cut or divided, but one and the same Son and the only-begotten God the Word. This definition of faith condemned both Nestorianism and Monophysitism. All fathers agreed with this definition. Blessed Theodoret, who was suspected of Nestorianism at the council, especially by the Egyptian bishops, pronounced an anathema on Nestorius and signed his condemnation. Therefore, the Council removed from him the condemnation of Dioscorus and restored him to the dignity, as well as removed the condemnation from Willows, Bishop of Edessa. Only the Egyptian bishops were ambiguous about creeds. Although they signed the condemnation of Eutychius, they did not want to sign the letters of Leo of Rome to Flavian, on the pretext that, according to the custom existing in Egypt, they do nothing important, without the permission and determination of their archbishop, who, in connection with the deposition of Dioscorus, they didn't have. The council obliged them to sign with an oath when an archbishop was installed. - When Marcian was informed that everything was done, he himself arrived at the cathedral for the 6th meeting, delivered a speech in which he expressed his joy that everything was done according to the general desire and peacefully. However, the meetings of the council were not over yet. The fathers were busy compiling 30 rules. The main subjects of the rules are church administration and church deanery.

After the council, the emperor issued strict laws regarding the Monophysites. Everyone was ordered to accept the doctrine determined by the Council of Chalcedon; monophysites to exile or exile; burn their writings, and execute them for their distribution, etc. Dioscorus and Eutyches were exiled to distant provinces.”

The Council of Chalcedon approved the decisions not only of the three previous Ecumenical Councils, but also of the local ones: Ancyra, Neocaesarea, Gangra, Antioch and Laodicea, which were in the 4th century. From that time on, the leading bishops in the main five church districts began to be called patriarchs, and the most distinguished metropolitans, deprived of certain rights of independence, were given the title of exarch as an honorary distinction: for example, Ephesus, Caesarea, Heraclius.

Bishop Arseniy, noting this, adds: “The name has been used before; so imp. Theodosius, in a letter of 449, called the Bishop of Rome Patriarch. At the 2nd meeting of Chalcedon. Sobor, the imperial representatives said: "Let the most holy patriarchs of each district choose two from the district for discourse on faith." From this we see that this name has already come into official use. As for the name “pope”, in Egypt and Carthage the common people called the leading bishops so, and the rest were “fathers”, and these “grandfathers” (popes). From Africa, this name passed to Rome.

Monophysite heresy after the council.

The Monophysite heresy brought more evil to the Church than any other heresy. The conciliar condemnation could not destroy her. The Monophysites, especially the Egyptians, did not like the doctrine of two natures in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ, the main thing about the human. Many monks in other churches were also opposed to this teaching and went over to the ranks of the Monophysites. It seemed impossible for them to ascribe to the Lord Jesus Christ a human nature similar to our sinful one, against the shortcomings of which all their exploits were directed. Even during the Council of Chalcedon, the monastics sent three archimandrites who undertook to defend the Monophysite doctrine and asked for the restoration of Dioscorus. After the council, some of the monks went straight from Chalcedon to Palestine and caused great confusion there with stories that the Chalcedon council restored Nestorianism. Ten thousand Palestinian monks, led by people from Chalcedon, attacked Jerusalem, plundered it, drove out Patriarch Juvenal, and put their Theodosius in his place. Only two years later (453), with the help of military force, Juvenal again took the throne of Jerusalem. The Monophysites staged similar disturbances in Alexandria. Here, military force did not lead to anything. The mob drove the warriors into the former temple of Serapis and burned them alive along with the temple. Strengthened military measures led to the final separation of the Monophysites from the Orthodox Patriarch Proterius, who was put in the place of Dioscorus, and the creation of a separate society under the leadership of Presbyter Timothy Elur.

Taking advantage of the death of the emperor Marcian (457), the Monophysites of Alexandria staged a revolt, during which Proterius was killed, and Elur was erected in his place, who deposed all the bishops of the Council of Chalcedon, and condemned the patriarchs: Constantinople, Antioch and Rome. Marcian's successor, Leo 1 Thracian (457-474) could not immediately suppress the uprising in Alexandria. To restore peace in the Church, he decided on a special measure: he demanded that all the metropolitans of the empire give him their opinion about the Council of Chalcedon and whether Elur should be recognized as the legitimate Patriarch of Alexandria. More than 1,600 metropolitans and bishops spoke out in favor of the Council of Chalcedon and against Timothy Elur.

Then Leo deposed Elur (460) and appointed the Orthodox Timothy Salafakiol as Patriarch of Alexandria. The piety and meekness of this patriarch won him the love and respect of the Monophysites, and the Alexandrian church was calm for some time. Patriarch Peter Gnafevs of Antioch was also deposed (470). While still a monk, he formed a strong Monophysite party in Antioch, forced the Orthodox patriarch to leave the chair, and took it himself. In order to establish forever Monophysitism in Antioch, he, in the thrice-sacred song after the words: holy immortal - made a Monophysite addition - crucified for us.

But now, in 476, the imperial throne was occupied by Basilisk, who took it from Leo Zeno. In order to strengthen himself on the throne with the help of the Monophysites, Basilisk took their side. He issued a roundabout letter in which, condemning the Council of Chalcedon and the letter of Leo to Flavian, he ordered to adhere only to the Nicene symbol and the definitions of the second and third ecumenical councils confirming this symbol. Such a message was to be signed by all the bishops of the empire, and indeed many signed it, some out of conviction, others out of fear. At the same time, Timothy Elur and Peter Gnafevs were restored to their chairs, and the Orthodox patriarchs - Alexandria and Antioch - were removed. The restoration of Monophysitism created great excitement among the Orthodox, especially in Constantinople. Here, Patriarch Akakiy was at the head of the Orthodox. The basilisk, wishing to prevent unrest that threatened even his throne, issued another circular letter, canceling the first, but it was too late. Zeno, with the help of the Orthodox, especially Akakios, defeated Basilisk and took the imperial throne (477). Now the Orthodox have again gained the upper hand over the Monophysites. After the death of Elur, Timothy Salafakiol again took the chair. But Zeno wanted not only the victory of the Orthodox, but also the accession of the Monophysites to the Orthodox Church. He understood that religious divisions had a bad effect on the well-being of the state. Patriarch Akakiy also sympathized with him in this. But these attempts to join the Monophysites, begun by Zeno and continued into the next reign, only led to unrest in the Church, and, finally, were resolved by a new heresy.

In 484, the Patriarch of Alexandria Timothy Salafakiol died. In his place, the Orthodox chose John Talaia, and the Monophysites Peter Mong, who began to zealously work in Constantinople for his approval, and, among other things, proposed a plan for the annexation of the Monophysites. Zenon and Patriarch Akaki agreed to his plan. And so, in 482, Zeno issues a conciliatory creed, on the basis of which communion between the Orthodox and the Monophysites was to be established. It approved the Nicene symbol (confirmed by the second Ecumenical Council), anathematized Nestorius and Eutychius with like-minded people, accepted 12 anathematisms of St. Cyril, it was stated that the only-begotten Son of God, descended and incarnated from the Holy Spirit and Mary the Virgin Theotokos, is one, and not two: one in miracles and in sufferings that he voluntarily endured in the flesh; finally, anathema was pronounced against those who thought or are now thinking of anything other than what was approved at the Council of Chalcedon or another. Zeno wanted to achieve a connection by silence about the natures in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ and an ambiguous expression about the Council of Chalcedon. Such a conciliatory confession was adopted by Patriarch Akakiy, Peter Mong, who received the Alexandrian see for this, and Peter Gnafevs, who again took the see of Antioch. But at the same time this conciliatory confession did not satisfy either the strict Orthodox or the strict Monophysites. The Orthodox suspected in him the recognition of Monophysitism, and they demanded an explicit condemnation of the Council of Chalcedon. John Talaia, not approved by the emperor at the Alexandrian see, went to Rome with complaints to Pope Felix II about Akakios, who had taken the enoticon. Felix, feeling completely independent from Constantinople after the fall of the Western Empire (476), condemned the enotikon as a heretical creed, excommunicated Akakios and all the bishops who accepted the enotikon, as well as Zeno himself, and even broke off communion with the Eastern churches. Strict Monophysites, for their part, rebelled against their patriarchs Gnafevs and Mong, for the adoption of the enotikon, separated from them and formed a separate Monophysite society akephalites(headless).

Under Zeno's successor Anastasia (491-518), things were in the same position. Anastasius demanded that everyone take the enotikon. But the Orthodox have already managed to understand that condescending measures in relation to heretics do not bring good consequences and even damage Orthodoxy, so they began to abandon the enoticon. Anastasius began to pursue them, and, apparently, had already gone over to the side of the Monophysites. Meanwhile, ardent champions of Monophysitism appeared among the Akefalites - Xenay (Philoxenus), Bishop of Hierapolis in Syria, and Severus, Patriarch of Antioch. Severus, for the success of Monophysitism in Constantinople, suggested that Anastasius add an addition to the trisagion song: crucify for us. Patriarch Macedonian of Constantinople, fearing exile, was forced to obey the order of the emperor. But the people, having learned about this, staged a riot in Constantinople. Although Anastasius managed to temporarily reassure the people and even exile the Patriarch of Macedon into prison, nevertheless, an open war soon began between the Orthodox and the tsar. The leader of the Orthodox Vitalian, with his victories, forced Anastasius to promise to convene a council to confirm the sanctity of the Chalcedon Cathedral and restore communion with Rome. Anastasius died soon after (518), having failed to fulfill his promises.

Under his successor Justin (518-27), the patron saint of Orthodoxy, it again gained the upper hand. Relations with the Roman Church were renewed (519) under the new Patriarch John of Cappadocia; the importance of the Council of Chalcedon was confirmed, the Monophysite bishops were deposed, and so on.

Fifth Ecumenical Council.

In 527, he ascended the imperial throne Justinian I, a remarkable sovereign in the history of civil and church (527-65). To reconcile the Church and the state, Justinian was occupied with the idea of ​​joining the Monophysites to Orthodoxy. In Egypt, the Orthodox were a minority, and such a division was a danger to the Church and the state. But Justinian failed to achieve his goal, and even, under the influence of his wife, the secret Monophysite Theodora, he sometimes acted to the detriment of Orthodoxy. So, under her influence, in 533 he made a concession to the Monophysites, allowing the addition in the thrice-sacred song: crucify for us, although the strict followers of the Council of Chalcedon considered such an addition to be Monophysite. Justinian also elevated (535) to the patriarchal throne of Constantinople Anthim, a secret Monophysite. Fortunately, Justinian soon learned of the intrigues of the Monophysites. At that time (536), Pope Agapit arrived in the capital as an ambassador of the Ostrogothic king Theodoric the Great. Having learned about Anfim's heresy, Agapit (despite Theodora's threats) informed the king about it. Justinian immediately deposed Anthim, and in his place put the presbyter Minna. Still, he did not lose hope of annexing the Monophysites. Therefore, under the chairmanship of Minna, a small council was composed of Orthodox and Monophysite bishops, at which the question of joining the Monophysites was discussed. But due to their persistence, the reasoning led nowhere. The patriarch again condemned them, and the emperor confirmed the former strict laws against them. The Monophysites then fled to Greater Armenia and there they consolidated their heresy.

Meanwhile, Theodora continued to intrigue in favor of the Monophysites. According to her intrigues, after the death of Pope Agapitus (537), the Roman deacon Vigilius was appointed to the Roman cathedra, who had given her a promise to help the Monophysites with a subscription. Then she found herself two more zealous assistants who lived at the court of the bishops - Fedor Askida and Domitian, who were secret Monophysites. Both of them advised the emperor to take up the conversion of the Monophysites and even proposed a plan for this. Namely, that they will be able to join only when the Orthodox Church condemns the Nestorian teacher Theodore of Mopsuet and his followers - Blessed Theodoret and Iva of Edessa. Since their writings are not condemned, this serves as a temptation for the Monophysites, and they suspect the Orthodox Church of Nestorianism. This plan was drawn up in favor of the Monophysites and to the detriment of the Orthodox: if it were carried out, the Church would be in conflict with itself, condemning Theodore and Iva, who were recognized as Orthodox at the Council of Chalcedon. The emperor, in order to pacify the life of the Church, agreed to test this plan, and in 544 issued the first edict of three chapters. It condemned Theodore of Mopsuet as the father of the Nestorian heresy, the writings of Theodoret against St. Cyril and Iva's letter to the Persian Marius. But at the same time it was added that this condemnation does not contradict the Council of Chalcedon, and anyone who thinks otherwise will be anathematized. This edict was to be signed by all the bishops. Minna, Patriarch of Constantinople, after some resistance, signed, and after him the eastern bishops. But in the Western churches the edict met with strong opposition. The Bishop of Carthage Pontianus resolutely refused to sign, and the learned deacon of the Carthaginian church, Fulgentius Ferranus, wrote a treatise in refutation of the edict, with which everyone in the West agreed. Roman Vigilius was also against the edict. The Westerners saw in the condemnation of the three chapters the humiliation of the Council of Chalcedon, although this was not the case in an impartial view. At the Council of Chalcedon there was no discussion about Theodore of Mopsuet. Theodoret was acquitted by the council after he pronounced an anathema on Nestorius, and, consequently, renounced his writings in defense of him against St. Cyril, and Iva's letter was condemned in the form in which it existed in the 6th century. during the publication of the edict, that is, distorted in Persia by the Nestorians.

The opposition of the Western bishops confused Justinian. In 547 he summoned Vigilius and many other Western bishops to Constantinople, hoping to persuade them to sign the condemnation of the three chapters. However, the bishops did not agree, and Vigilius had to contribute to the condemnation when Theodosia showed him a signature upon his entry into the Roman see. He compiled a judicatum into three chapters, by cunning persuaded the western bishops who were in Constantinople to subscribe to it, and presented it to the king. But the western bishops, having learned about the trick, rebelled against Vigilius. They were led by an African Bishop. Fakund Hermian, who wrote 12 books in defense of the three chapters. The most unfavorable rumors about the pope were spread in the Western churches. Vigilius then asked the emperor for his iudicatum back and offered to convene an ecumenical council, the determinations of which everyone must obey. Justinian agreed to convene a council, but did not return the Judicatum. In 551, the emperor invited the western bishops to a council to persuade them to condemn the three heads. But they did not go, and a few arrived, who nevertheless did not agree with the edict. Then Justinian deposed and imprisoned them, and put in their place those who agreed to the condemnation of the three heads. Then, in the same year 551, having issued a new edict on three chapters, in which the idea was developed that the condemnation of the three chapters did not contradict the Council of Chalcedon, the king in 553 convened the fifth Ecumenical Council in Constantinople to finally resolve the issue of Theodore of Mopsuet, blissful Theodoret and Iva of Edessa.

The council was attended by 165 eastern and western bishops. The chairman was Eutychius, Patriarch of Constantinople, successor to Minna. Pope Vigilius, who was all the time in Constantinople, fearing the opposition of the Western bishops, refused to go to the council and promised to sign the council decisions after. The fathers of the cathedral at several meetings read heretical passages from the writings of Theodore of Mopsuet and everything that was written in his refutation, resolved the question of whether it is possible to condemn heretics after death, and, finally, came to the conclusion, in accordance with the imperial edicts, that Theodore of Mopsuet really the heretic is a Nestorian and must be condemned. The writings of Blessed were also read. Theodoret and Iva's letter. The Fathers found that the writings of Theodoret were also worthy of condemnation, although he himself, as having renounced Nestorius and therefore justified by the Council of Chalcedon, is not subject to condemnation. As for the letter of Iva of Edessa, the council also condemned it, without touching the very face of Iva, the council in this case condemned what was read by it in the meetings, that is, the letter of Iva distorted by the Nestorians. Thus, Theodore of Mopsuetsky and his writings, as well as the writings of Blessed. Theodoret in defense of Nestorius against St. Cyril and a letter from Willows of Edessa to Mary the Persian.

At the same time, the council approved the definitions of all previous ecumenical councils, including that of Chalcedon. Pope Vigilius, during the conciliar sessions, who sent the emperor his opinion against the condemnation of the above-named persons, nevertheless signed the conciliar determinations at the end of the council, and was released to Rome, after almost seven years in Constantinople. On the way, however, he died. His successor Pelagius (555) hosted the fifth Ecumenical Council, and therefore had to withstand the struggle against many Western churches that did not accept the council. The division in the Western churches over the Fifth Ecumenical Council continued until the very end of the 6th century, when, under Pope Gregory the Great, it was finally recognized by all.

The persistence of the Monophysites and their sects.

The efforts of Justinian to unite the Monophysites to the Orthodox Church (causing the Fifth Ecumenical Council) did not lead to the desired results. True, the moderate Monophysites joined the Church, but in one almost Constantinopolitan Patriarchate. The Monophysites of other patriarchates, especially the strict ones (Aphthartodokets), remained as before stubborn heretics. In the interests of the state, Justinian made an attempt to join them, by concession to them: in 564 he demanded that the Orthodox bishops accept them into communion. But the bishops refused to accept heretics into the church who did not accept Orthodox teaching. For this, Justinian began to depose them and exile them into prison. Such a fate befell, first of all, the Patriarch of Constantinople Eutyches. However, Justinian soon died (565) and the confusion in the Church ceased. The Monophysites, meanwhile, finally formed into societies separate from the Orthodox Church. In Alexandria in 536 a new Orthodox patriarch was installed; but it was recognized only by a small part of the Egyptians, mainly of Greek origin. The original inhabitants, the ancient Egyptians, known as the Copts, all Monophysites, chose their patriarch and formed their own Coptic monophysite church. They called themselves Coptic Christians, Orthodox Christians - Melchites (containing the imperial dogma). The number of Coptic Christians reached 5 million. Together with them, the Abyssinians veered into Monophysitism and also formed a heretical church in alliance with the Coptic. In Syria and Palestine, Monophysitism was at first not so firmly established as in Egypt; Justinian deposed all the bishops and presbyters of this doctrine, and exiled to imprisonment, as a result of which the Monophysites were left without teachers. But one Syrian monk, Jacob (Baradei), managed to unite all the Monophysites of Syria and Mesopotamia and arrange a society out of them. He was ordained a bishop by all the bishops deposed by Justinian, and for 30 years (541-578) he successfully acted in favor of Monophysitism. He went about the countries in the clothes of a beggar, ordained bishops and presbyters, and even set up a Monophysite patriarchate in Antioch. By his name, the Monophysites of Syria and Mesopotamia received the name Jacobites, which remains to this day. The Armenian Church also fell away from the Ecumenical, but not because of the assimilation of the Monophysite teaching, but because of misunderstandings, it did not accept the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon and the message of Pope Leo the Great. There were such misunderstandings: at the Council of Chalcedon (451) there were no representatives of the Armenian Church, why these decrees were not known exactly in it. Meanwhile, Monophysites came to Armenia and spread a false rumor that Nestorianism had been restored at the cathedral. When the decrees of the council appeared in the Armenian Church, due to ignorance of the exact meaning of the Greek word φυσισ, the Armenian teachers, when translating, took it in the meaning faces and therefore they affirmed that in Jesus Christ there is one φυσισ, meaning by this a single person; about those who said that there are two φυσισ in Jesus Christ, they thought that they divide Christ into two persons, i.e. introduce Nestorianism. Further, in the Greek Church until the second half of the 5th c. there were disputes about the importance of the Chalcedon Cathedral, and these disputes echoed in the Armenian church. At the Council of Etchmiadzin in 491, the Armenians adopted the Enotikon of Zeno and rejected the Council of Chalcedon. In the 30s of the 6th century, when many Monophysites fled from the persecution of Justinian to Armenia, and there was still a false rumor about the Chalcedon Cathedral, the Armenian Church spoke out against this council, which was condemned at the council in Tiva in 536. Since that time, the Armenian Church has fallen away from the union with the Ecumenical Church and has formed from itself a society not so much heretical as schismatic, because in the doctrine of the natures in Jesus Christ, she was in agreement with the teaching of the Church, and differed only in words. In the Armenian Church, in addition, some peculiarities in the church structure were formed, which exist to this day. Thus, the thrice-holy hymn is read and sung with the Monophysite addition: crucify for us; the Eucharist is celebrated (from the beginning of the 6th century) on unleavened bread, and the wine does not mix with water; The feast of the Nativity of Christ is celebrated together with Theophany, and the Advent fast continues until the day of Theophany, and so on. The Armenian Church is under the control of its patriarch - Catholicos.

Sixth Ecumenical Council.

The Monothelite heresy is a modification of the Monophysite heresy and emerged from the desire of the Byzantine government to unite the Monophysites to the Orthodox Church at all costs. Emperor Heraclius (611-641), one of the best sovereigns of the Byzantine Empire, well aware of the harm of religious division, undertook the task of destroying this division. In the twenties of the 7th century, Heraclius, during a campaign against the Persians, met with the bishops of the Monophysites, among other things, with Athanasius, the Patriarch of Syria and Cyrus, bishop in Colchis, and entered into discussions with them about the controversial issue of two natures in Jesus Christ. The Monophysites suggested that they might agree to join the Orthodox Church, if it recognizes that in Jesus Christ there is one action, or, what is the same, one manifestation of the will, one will. The question of one or two wills in Jesus Christ was not yet revealed by the Church. But, while recognizing two natures in the Lord, the Church at the same time recognized two wills, since two independent natures - Divine and human - must each have an independent action, i.e. in Him, in two natures, there must be two wills. The opposite thought, the recognition of one will in two natures, is in itself a contradiction: a separate and independent nature is inconceivable without a separate and independent will.

There must be one thing: either in Jesus Christ there is one nature and one will, or two natures and two wills. The Monophysites, who proposed the doctrine of a single will, only further developed their heretical doctrine; the Orthodox, if they had accepted this teaching, would have fallen into contradiction with themselves, recognizing the Monophysite teaching as correct. Emperor Heraclius had one goal - to join the Monophysites: therefore, not paying attention to the essence of the proposed doctrine, he ardently set about joining them with the help of this doctrine. On his advice, Cyrus, Bishop of Phasis, addressed the issue of a single will to Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Sergius answered evasively, saying that this question was not decided at the councils and that some of the fathers allowed a single life-giving action in Christ, the true God; however, if another teaching is found among other fathers, affirming two wills and two actions, then this should be agreed.

It is obvious, nevertheless, that Sergius' answer favored the doctrine of unity of will. Therefore, Heraclius went further. In 630, he recognized the monophysite Athanasius, who agreed to the union, as the legitimate patriarch of Antioch, and in the same year, when the see in Alexandria was free, he made Cyrus, bishop of Phasis, patriarch in it. Cyrus was instructed to enter into relations with the Alexandrian Monophysites regarding union with the Orthodox Church on the basis of the doctrine of unity of will. After some negotiations with the moderate Monophysites, Cyrus issued (633) nine conciliatory terms, of which one (7th) expressed the doctrine of a single godly action in Christ or one will. The moderate Monophysites recognized these members and entered into communion with Cyrus; the strict ones refused. At that time, in Alexandria there was one monk from Damascus, Sophronius, a favorite disciple of the famous Patriarch of Alexandria, John the Merciful. When the Monothelite heresy came out openly, Sophronius was the first to defend Orthodoxy. He clearly and distinctly proved to Cyrus that the doctrine of unity of will is, in essence, monothelitism. His ideas were not successful with Cyrus, as well as with Patriarch Sergius, who received 9 members.

In 634, Sophronius was appointed Patriarch of Jerusalem and defended Orthodoxy with even greater zeal. He convened a council in Jerusalem, at which he condemned monothelitism, and in letters to other patriarchs he outlined the foundations of the Orthodox doctrine of two wills in Christ. Although in 637 Jerusalem was conquered by the Muslim Arabians and the patriarch found himself cut off from general church life, his message made a great impression on the Orthodox empire. Meanwhile, Sergius of Constantinople wrote to Pope Honorius about the doctrine of unity of will, and Honorius also recognized this doctrine as Orthodox, but advised him to avoid useless verbiage. Still, controversy arose. Heraclius, wanting to put an end to them, in 638 published the so-called "statement of faith", in which, expounding the Orthodox doctrine of the two natures in Jesus Christ, he forbade talking about His wills, although he added that the Orthodox faith requires the recognition of one will. Sergius' successor, Pyrrhus, accepted and signed the ekfesis. But the successors of Pope Honorius met him unfavorably. At the same time, the monk of Constantinople acted as an ardent defender of Orthodoxy Maxim the Confessor, one of the thoughtful theologians of his time.

When Cyrus published his 9 members, Maximus was still in Alexandria and, together with Sophronius, rebelled against them. Subsequently, he moved to the North African church, and from here he wrote ardent messages to the East in defense of Orthodoxy. In the year 645, in the same place, in Africa, he had a dispute with the deposed patriarch Pyrrhus and persuaded him to renounce the single will. Under the influence of Maximus, a council was held in Africa (646), at which monothelitism was condemned. From Africa, Maximus, together with Pyrrhus, moved to Rome, where they successfully acted in favor of Orthodoxy. Pope Theodore excommunicated the new Patriarch of Constantinople Paul, who had accepted heresy, from church communion.

After Heraclius, Constans II (642-668) entered the imperial throne. The ecclesiastical division between Africa and Rome was too dangerous for the state, especially in connection with the fact that the Muslims, who had already conquered Egypt (640), were advancing more and more strongly on the empire. In 648 he published sample of faith, in which he forced everyone to believe in accordance with the former five Ecumenical Councils, forbade talking about either one or two wills. The Orthodox rightly saw in this tipos patronage of Monothelitism, since on the one hand this heresy was not condemned, and on the other, it was forbidden to teach about two wills in Jesus Christ. So they continued to fight. Pope Martin I (since 649) gathered a large council in Rome (649), at which he condemned monothelitism and all its defenders, as well as ekfesis and typos, and sent the acts of the council to the emperor demanding the restoration of Orthodoxy. Constance considered such an act an outrage and dealt with Martin too cruelly. He instructed the Exarch of Ravenna to deliver him to Constantinople. In 653, Martin was seized in the church and, after a long journey, during which he endured many embarrassments, they brought him to Constantinople. Together with Martin, they captured in Rome and brought Maximus the Confessor.

Here the pope was falsely accused of political crimes and exiled to Chersonese (654), where he starved to death (655). The fate of Maxim was sadder. He was forced by various tortures to renounce his writings and recognize the typos. Maxim remained steadfast. Finally, the emperor ordered that his tongue be cut off and his hand cut off. Maximus, mutilated in this way, was sent to the Caucasus into exile, to the land of the Lazes, where he died (662). After such atrocities, the Orthodox fell silent for a while. The eastern bishops were forced to accept the tipos, the western ones did not object.

Finally, Emperor Constantine Pagonatus (668-685), under whom the struggle of the Orthodox against the Monothelites began again, decided to give triumph to Orthodoxy. In 678, he deposed Patriarch Theodore of Constantinople, an obvious Monothelite, and in his place put Presbyter George, who leaned towards the Orthodox doctrine of two wills. Then the emperor in 680 gathered in Constantinople sixth ecumenical council, called Trulli (according to the meeting room with vaults). Pope Agathon sent his legates and a message in which, on the basis of the message of Leo the Great, the Orthodox teaching about the two wills in Jesus Christ was revealed. All the bishops at the council were 170. There were also patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The emperor was also present. There were 18 meetings of the council. Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, his most zealous defender, spoke out in defense of Monothelitism. The papal legates objected to him, arguing that, on the basis of the ancient fathers, it is necessary to recognize two wills in Jesus Christ. Patriarch George and other eastern bishops agreed with the legates. But Macarius did not want to give up heresy, so he was condemned by the council, deposed and expelled from Constantinople. Some of the monks who were at the council also did not agree to accept the two wills. At the 15th meeting, one of them, devoted to heresy to fanaticism, Polychronius, proposed to prove the truth of Monophysitism by a miracle: he volunteered to resurrect the deceased. The experiment was allowed, and of course, Polychronius did not resurrect the deceased. The council condemned Polychronius as a heretic and a rebel of the people.

In conclusion, the council defined the Orthodox doctrine of two wills in Jesus Christ: “we confess two natural wills or desires in Him and two natural actions, inseparably, unchangingly, inseparably, inseparably; but the two natures of desire - not contrary, - let it not be, as impious heretics preached, - but His human desire, not opposing or opposing, but subsequent, subject to His Divine and Almighty will. At the same time, forbidding preaching the doctrine of faith in any other way and compiling a different symbol, the council imposed an anathema on all Monothelites, among other things, on Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Theodore and Pope Honorius. The meetings of the council ended already in 681. At the so-called Fifth-Sixth Trull Council of 692, which supplemented the definitions of the 5th and 6th Council, the dogmatic definition of the latter about two wills in Jesus Christ was confirmed again.

After the conciliar definitions, monothelitism in the east fell. At the beginning of the 8th c. Emperor Philippic Vardan (711-713) restored this heresy in the empire, in connection with the assertion of himself on the throne with the help of the Monothelite party, but, with the overthrow of Phillipic, the heresy was also overthrown. Only in Syria did a small batch of Monothelites remain. Here at the end of the 7th c. Monothelites concentrated in Lebanon in the monastery and near the monastery of Abba Maron (who lived in the 6th century), chose a patriarch for themselves, who was also called Maron, and formed an independent heretical society, under the name Maronites. The Maronites still exist to this day.

Iconoclastic heresy and the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

Icon veneration in the 4th and 5th centuries. came into general use in the Christian Church. According to church teaching, the veneration of icons should consist in the veneration of the person depicted on them. This kind of veneration should be expressed by reverence, worship and prayer to the person depicted on the icon. But in the 8th c. non-Orthodox views on icon veneration began to be mixed with such church teaching, especially among the common people, who, due to the lack of religious education, for the most part attached the main importance to appearance and ritual in religion. Looking at the icons and praying in front of them, uneducated people forgot to ascend with their mind and heart from the visible to the invisible, and even gradually learned the conviction that the faces depicted on the icons are inseparable from the icons. From here, the worship of the icons proper, and not of the persons depicted, easily developed - a superstition bordering on idolatry developed. Naturally, there were aspirations to destroy such superstition. But, to the misfortune of the Church, the task of destroying superstition was assumed by the civil authorities, having removed the spiritual. Together with the superstitious veneration of icons, the civil authorities, also under the influence of political considerations, began to abolish icon veneration in general and thus produced an iconoclastic heresy.

The first persecutor of icon veneration was Emperor Leo the Isaurian (717 741), a good commander who issued laws on the reduction of slavery and on the freedom of the settlers, but was ignorant in church affairs. He decided that the destruction of the veneration of icons would return to the empire the areas it had lost and that Jews and Mohammedans would draw closer to Christianity. Bishop Konstantin of Nakolia taught him to regard icon veneration as idolatry. In the same thought, his Weser-Syrian, a former Mohammedan, now a court official, affirmed. The emperor began the destruction of icons in 726 by issuing an edict against worshiping them. He ordered them to be placed higher in the churches so that the people would not kiss them. Patriarch Herman of Constantinople rebelled against such an order. He was supported by the famous John of Damascus, later a monk of the monastery of St. Savvas in Palestine. Pope Gregory II approved and praised the patriarch for his firmness in upholding icon veneration. He wrote to the emperor that Rome would fall out of his power if he insisted on the destruction of icon veneration. In 730, the emperor ordered the soldiers to remove the especially revered icon of Christ the Enforcer, which stood above the gates of his palace. In vain the crowd of believing men and women begged not to touch the image. The official went up the stairs and began to beat the icon with a hammer. Then some of those present took away the ladder and put to death the fallen official. The army dispersed the people, beat some, and ten people, recognized as the main culprits, were executed after torture. Their memory is August 9th. The image of the Savior on the cross was destroyed and a simple cross was left, because the iconoclasts allowed the cross if there were no human images on it.

9 August muchch. Julianna, Marcion, John, James, Alexy, Demetrius, Photius, Peter, Leonty and Maria patricia, who suffered severely under the emperor Leo the Isaurian for throwing a warrior from the stairs, who, by order of the king, wanted to remove the image of the Savior, who was above the gates in Constantinople . Imprisoned in a dungeon, they were kept in it for about 8 months, beaten daily with 500 blows. After these heavy and prolonged torments, all the holy martyrs were beheaded in 730. Their bodies were buried in the Pelagievs (a locality in Tsargrad) and, after 139 years, were found incorrupt. Martyr Photius in some monuments is incorrectly called Phokoyu.

The Monk John of Damascus, having learned about the actions of King Leo, wrote for the citizens of Constantinople his first work in defense of icons, beginning like this: “Recognizing my unworthiness, I, of course, should have kept eternal silence and be content with confessing my sins before God. But, seeing that the Church, founded on stone, is overwhelmed by strong waves, I do not consider myself entitled to remain silent, because I fear God more than the emperor. On the contrary, this excites me: because the example of sovereigns can infect their subjects. There are few people who reject their unjust decrees and think that even the kings of the earth are under the authority of the King of heaven, whose laws must be obeyed. Then, saying that the church cannot sin and be suspected of idolatry, he discusses in detail about icons, expressing among other things: Testament, the meaning of the words “image” and “worship”, cites the places of the Holy Fathers (Dionysius, Gregory of Nyssago, Basil the Great, etc.), and in conclusion says that “only ecumenical councils, and not kings, can supply definitions about matters of faith” . This was written even before the deposition of Herman, and then two more essays were written on the same subject. To the objection that people idolize icons, John replies: “It is necessary to teach the illiterate people.”

A rebellion broke out in the Cycladic Islands, suppressed by Leo. For the refusal of the “ecumenical teacher” (a priest who oversaw the course of educational affairs in the empire, who had 12 or 16 assistants) to declare in writing, with his employees, icon veneration as idolatry, the emperor ordered them to be burned along with the building where the state library, founded by Emperor Constantine, was located. Great.

In 730, an edict followed, according to which all icons were ordered to be taken out of the temples. Patriarch Herman, who refused to comply with this order, was deposed by the emperor in 733, and Anastasius was put in his place, obeying the order of Leo. The icons were taken out; the bishops who opposed this were deposed.

But icons could only be removed from churches within the Byzantine Empire. In Syria, which was under the rule of the Arabians, and in Rome, which almost did not recognize the power of the Byzantine emperor over itself, Leo could not force his edict to be carried out. The Eastern churches, under the rule of the Arabians, cut off communion with the Greek Church, and John of Damascus wrote two more epistles against the iconoclasts. Likewise, Pope Gregory III (731-741), who, like his predecessor, stood on the side of the iconodules, rebelled against the imperial edict. In 732, he convened a council in Rome, where he cursed the iconoclasts. Leo wanted to punish the pope, he sent a fleet to Italy, but since the latter was defeated by a storm, he limited himself only to taking the Illyrian district from the pope, adding it to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. In 741, Leo the Isaurian died, having achieved only that the icons were withdrawn from church use; for all his harshness, he could not withdraw them from domestic use.

After the death of Leo, icon veneration was restored for some time. Leo's son-in-law, Artabasdes, with the help of iconodules, occupied the imperial throne, in addition to Leo's son and heir Constantine Copronymus (called Copronymus or Cavallinus for his love of horses). Icons reappeared in churches, and open icon veneration began again. But in 743, Constantine Copronymus overthrew Artabasdus from the throne, and, like his father, began to persecute icon veneration, only with even greater perseverance and cruelty. Copronymus wanted solemnly, with the observance of legality, to destroy icon veneration as a heresy, and for this, in 754, he convened a council in Constantinople, which he called ecumenical. There were 338 bishops at the council, but not a single patriarch. Here it was supposed that icon veneration is idolatry, that the only image of Christ the Savior is the Eucharist and the like. As evidence, the cathedral cited passages from St. The Scriptures, interpreting them one-sidedly and incorrectly, as well as from the ancient fathers, are either false, or distorted, or misinterpreted. In conclusion, the council anathematized all the defenders of icon veneration and icon worshipers, especially John of Damascus, and decided that whoever then preserves the icons and venerates them, he - if a clergyman - is subject to defrocking, if a layman or a monk - is excommunicated ecclesiastical and punished according to imperial laws. All the bishops agreed to the conciliar decisions - some out of conviction, others - and most - out of fear of the emperor. At the council, in place of the iconoclastic Patriarch Anassy, ​​who had died earlier, Bishop Constantinople of Phrygia was appointed Patriarch of Constantinople, declaring himself to be especially hostile to icon veneration. The decisions of the council were carried out with unusual rigidity. Persecution extended even to domestic icon veneration. Only in secret places inaccessible to the police, the Orthodox could keep the icons. Not dwelling on icon veneration, Copronym went further; he wanted to destroy the veneration of the saints and their relics, the monastic life, considering all this to be superstition. Therefore, at his command, the relics of the saints were either burned or thrown into the sea; monasteries were turned into barracks or stables, the monks were expelled, and some of them, who openly condemned the actions of the emperor and defended icon veneration, were put to a painful death. The will of the emperor was carried out everywhere except Rome. While Constantine Coprinimos condemned icon veneration at his ecumenical council, the pope was carrying out a plan regarding the separation of Rome from the Byzantine Empire. The Exarchate of Ravenna, which belonged to the Greek Empire, was taken over by the Lombards (752). Pope Stephen III invited the help of the Frankish king Pepin, who drove the Lombards away, and presented the lands taken from them to the apostolic throne, that is, to the pope (755). Greek power in Italy then ended. Stephen, having become independent, did not hesitate to reject all the decisions of the iconoclastic council of 754.

“Konstantin Copronymus died in 755. He was succeeded by his son Leo Khazar (775-780), brought up in an iconoclastic spirit. He, according to his father's will, had to act against icon veneration. But Leo was a man of weak character; his wife Irina, who secretly supported icon veneration, had a great influence on him. Under her patronage, exiled monks again began to appear in the cities and even in Constantipolis itself, episcopal chairs began to be replaced by secret adherents of icon veneration, and so on. Only in 780, in connection with the icons found in Irina's bedroom, did Leo begin to suppress the awakening icon veneration with drastic measures, but died in the same year. Due to the infancy of his son Constantine Porphyrogenic (780-802), Irina took control of the state. Now she resolutely declared herself the defender of icon veneration. The monks freely occupied their monasteries, appeared on the streets, and aroused in the people the faded love for icons. The relics of the martyr Euphemia, thrown into the sea under Constantine Copronymus, were taken out of the water, and they began to pay due veneration to them. Patriarch Paul of Constantinople, who was among the enemies of icon veneration, in this turn of affairs felt compelled to leave the cathedra and retire to a monastery. Instead of him, at the request of Irina, one secular person, Tarasius, an adherent of icon veneration, was appointed. Tarasius accepted the patriarchal throne in order to restore communion with the churches of Rome and the East, which had ceased during iconoclastic times, and so that a new ecumenical council was convened to establish icon veneration. Indeed, with the consent of Irina, he wrote to Pope Adrian I about the alleged restoration of icon veneration and invited him to participate in the ecumenical council. Invitations were also sent to the Eastern Patriarchs. In 786, finally, a cathedral was opened in Constantinople. The Pope sent legates; on behalf of the Eastern Patriarchs, two monks arrived as representatives. Many Greek bishops also gathered at the council. But the council did not take place this year. Most bishops were against icon veneration. They began to organize secret meetings and argue in the spirit of iconoclasm. In addition, the imperial bodyguards, which consisted of the old soldiers of Constantine Copronymus, did not want to allow the restoration of icon veneration. At one meeting of the cathedral, the iconoclastic bishops made a noise, while the bodyguards, meanwhile, went on a rampage in the courtyard of the building where the cathedral was held. Tarasy was forced to close the cathedral. In the next 787, when Irina dismissed the iconoclastic troops from service in advance, the cathedral was quietly opened in Nicaea. It was the second Nicaea, the seventh Ecumenical Council. There were 367 fathers. Although there were iconoclastic bishops, there were fewer Orthodox ones. There were eight meetings of the council. First of all, Tarasy, as chairman, delivered his speech in favor of icon veneration, then Irina read the same speech. Orthodox bishops agreed with both. Tarasius suggested to the iconoclastic bishops that if they repent and accept icon veneration, they will be left in the rank of bishop. As a result of such a proposal, the iconoclastic bishops also agreed to recognize iconoclasm and signed a renunciation of iconoclasm. Further, they read the message of Pope Adrian on icon veneration, cited evidence in favor of icon veneration from St. Scriptures, St. The traditions and writings of the Fathers of the Church analyzed the actions of the iconoclastic council of 754 and found it heretical. Finally, having anathematized all the iconoclasts, the fathers of the seventh Ecumenical Council drew up a definition of faith, which, among other things, says: life-giving cross, to place in the holy churches of God, on sacred vessels and clothes, on walls and boards, in houses and on paths, honest and holy icons of the Lord God and our Savior Jesus Christ and the Immaculate Mistress of our holy Mother of God, also honest Angels, and all saints and reverend men. For when, through the image on the icons, the faces of the Savior, the Mother of God, etc. are visible, then those who look at them are prompted to remember and love their archetypes, and honor them with kisses and reverent worship not of their own, according to our faith, worship of God, which befits the one Divine nature, but the veneration paid to the image of the honest and life-giving cross and the holy gospel and other shrines. In addition, the council decided that all works written by heretics against icon veneration should be presented to the Patriarch of Constantinople, and those who conceal such works were appointed - clergy - defrocking, laymen - excommunication from the Church. - The sessions of the council in Nicaea are over. The eighth and last meeting was in Constantinople, in the presence of Irina. Here the definitions of the cathedral were solemnly read and approved by the empress. According to the Council's definition, icon veneration was restored in all churches.

Continuation of the iconoclastic heresy.

The iconoclast party was strong even after the seventh ecumenical council. Some of the iconoclastic bishops, who recognized icon veneration at the council in order to preserve their chairs, secretly remained enemies of icon veneration. Since the time of Constantine Copronymus, the iconoclastic spirit also dominated the troops. It was necessary to expect a new persecution of icon veneration. Indeed, this is what happened when Leo the Armenian (813-820) from the iconoclastic Green Party ascended the imperial throne. Brought up on iconoclastic principles and surrounded by iconoclasts, Lev the Armenian inevitably had to become a persecutor of icon veneration. But first he tried to cover up his hatred of icons with a desire to reconcile the iconoclastic and Orthodox parties. Without announcing the destruction of icon veneration, he instructed the scholar John the Grammar to compile a note with testimonies from the ancient fathers against icon veneration in order to convince the Orthodox to abandon icon veneration. But the iconoclastic party insistently demanded decisive measures against icon veneration and even openly expressed its hatred of icons. So, once the iconoclastic soldiers began to throw stones at the famous icon of Christ the Surety, placed by Irina in its original place above the gates of the imperial palace. The emperor, under the pretext of stopping the unrest, ordered the removal of the icon. The Orthodox, led by the Patriarch of Constantinople Nicephorus and the famous abbot of the Studite monastery, Theodore the Studite, seeing that the persecution of icons was beginning, held a meeting and decided to firmly adhere to the decision of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Having learned about this, the emperor invited the patriarch to his place, still hoping to achieve the destruction of icon veneration through persuasion. Theodore the Studite and other Orthodox theologians came with the patriarch, and in response to the emperor's proposal for reconciliation with the iconoclastic party, they resolutely refused to make any concessions to the heretics. Not having reached the destruction of the icons by negotiating, Leo the Armenian took up violent measures; he issued a decree by which the monks were forbidden to preach about icon veneration. The decree was supposed to be signed by all the monks, but only a few signed it. Theodore the Studite wrote a roundabout letter to the monks, in which he urged to obey God more than people. The emperor went further in his persecution of icon veneration. In 815, Patriarch Nicephorus was deposed and exiled, and the iconoclast Theodore Cassitere was appointed in his place. The new patriarch convened a council, at which the seventh ecumenical council was rejected, and the iconoclastic council of Constantine Copronymus in 754 recognized as legal. However, the cathedral of Theodore Cassiter wanted to make a concession to the Orthodox, offering to leave it to the will of everyone to venerate icons or not, that is, to recognize icon veneration as optional. Only a few monks who came to the cathedral at the invitation agreed to this proposal, but even those, after the convictions of Theodore the Studite, refused. The majority, under the leadership of Theodore the Studite, did not want to know either the new patriarch, or the council, or his proposals. Theodore the Studite was not even afraid to openly protest against the iconoclastic orders. On Palm Sunday, he arranged a solemn procession through the streets of the city with icons, singing psalms and the like. The emperor was extremely dissatisfied with such opposition from the Orthodox and, like Constantine Copronymus, he began to openly persecute them, and above all the monks. The monasteries were destroyed, the monks were expelled or exiled into exile. Theodore the Studite was one of the first sufferers for the faith. They sent him to prison and tortured him with hunger, so that he would have died if the prison guard, a secret icon worshiper, had not shared his food with him. From captivity, Theodore sent letters to the Orthodox and supported in them a love for icon veneration. The persecution of icon worshipers continued until 820, when Leo the Armenian was deposed from the throne and Michael the tongue-tied (820-829) was erected in his place, who returned Patriarch Nikifor, although he did not return the throne to him, Theodore the Studite and others Orthodox. But, fearing a strong iconoclastic party, he did not want to restore icon veneration, although he allowed home veneration of icons. Michael's successor was his son Theophilus (829-842). This sovereign acted more decisively than his father in relation to icon veneration. Education under the guidance of the famous John the Grammar (the people called him Jannius (see 2 Tim. 3:8) or Lekanomancer (a fortune teller by water poured into a basin), who was even appointed patriarch, made him an enemy of icon veneration. Home icon veneration was forbidden. Monks again they began to exile and even torture. But, despite this, icon worshipers were found in Theophilus's family itself. These are his mother-in-law, Theoktista, and wife Theodora. Theophilus learned about this already before his death (842). After Theophilus, he ascended the throne his young son, Michael III. The state was ruled by Theodora, with the assistance of three guardians, her brothers, Varda and Manuel, and the brother of the deceased emperor, Theoctist. Theodora decided to restore icon veneration, and the guardians agreed with her, except for Manuel, who was afraid of opposition from the iconoclastic party . But Manuel agreed after he recovered from a serious illness, during which, according to the monks, he promised to restore icon veneration. The iconoclastic Patriarch John Grammaticus was deposed and replaced by St. Methodius, zealous icon worshiper. He assembled a cathedral, at which the holiness of the seventh Ecumenical Council was confirmed, and icon veneration was restored. Then, on February 19, 842, on Sunday in the first week of Great Lent, a solemn procession took place through the streets of the city with icons. This day has remained forever the day of the triumph of the Church over all heresies - the day of Orthodoxy. After that, the iconoclastic bishops were deposed and the Orthodox took their sees. Now the iconoclastic party has finally lost its strength.”

filioque.

The ancient Fathers of the Church, revealing the doctrine of the mutual relationship of the Persons of the Holy Trinity, asserted that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. In teaching about this personal property of the Holy Spirit, they strictly adhered to the saying of the Savior Himself: Who proceeds from the Father. This saying was included in the Creed at the Second Ecumenical Council. Then the second, third and fourth ecumenical councils forbade making any additions to the Nicene-Tsaregrad symbol. But, several centuries later, at the local council of a private Spanish church, namely Toledo (589), an addition was made to this symbol in the member of the Holy Spirit - between the words: from the Father and outgoing, the word was inserted: And the Son (filioque). The reason for this addition was the following circumstance. At the Council of Toledo, it was decided to join the Visigoths-Arians to the Orthodox Church. Since the main point of the Arian heresy was the doctrine of the inequality of the Son with the Father, then, insisting on their complete equality, the Spanish theologians at the Toledo Council decided to place the Son in the same relation to the Holy Spirit in which the Father was to Him, i.e. they said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and introduced the word filioque into the symbol. In the 7th and 8th centuries. this addition from the Spanish churches spread to the Frankish churches. Charlemagne himself and the Frankish bishops zealously defended the filioque when the Eastern Church spoke out against this addition. Charlemagne at the Council of Aachen (809) even confirmed the correctness and legitimacy of the addition of the word filioque in the symbol, despite the ideas of the Eastern Church, and sent the conclusions of the council to Pope Leo III for approval. But the pope resolutely refused to acknowledge the filioque. By his order, the Nicene-Tsaregrad symbol, without the word filioque, was written in Greek and Latin on two boards, and the boards were laid in the church of St. Peter to testify to the fidelity of the Roman church to the ancient symbol. Despite this, in the 9th and 10th centuries. the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son spread more and more in the Western churches, so that the Roman Church began to lean towards it. The Eastern Church in the second half of the 9th century, under Patriarch Photius, at the councils (867 and 879), denounced and condemned this innovation of the Western Church as contrary to the teachings of the Universal Church, but the Western Church did not take into account the voices of the Eastern Church, and Pope Benedict VIII in 1014 finally introduced filioque into the symbol. Since that time, the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit and from the Son has been established forever in the Roman and in all Western churches.”

Bishop Arseniy, in his Chronicle of Church Events, referring to the Toledo Cathedral, writes: “In the deeds of this council in the Creed we find an addition filioque, and in the third anathematization it says: “Who does not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son and is eternal Let them be anathema.” Meanwhile, in other places of deeds, it is commanded to read in the churches of Spain and Galicia (including Gaul of Narbonne, subject to the Visigoths) the Symbol of Faith, invariably in the image of the Eastern churches. Therefore, some consider the words "and the Son" a later addition; but others, not unreasonably, believe that this is what the Arian Goths really believed; and behind them gradually the then Spanish Romans. Cyriaqut Lampryloss, “La mistification on elucidation d"une page d"histoire ecclesiastique”, Athenes, 1883.

Euchites (Messalians).

In the second half of the 4th c. in some monastic societies of Syria and Asia Minor, strange views began to be revealed, which then turned into heresy. Being incessantly in prayer, some monastics reached such self-delusion that they placed their prayer above all else and the only means to salvation. Hence their name - Euhites or Messalians, which means, translated from Greek and Hebrew, praying. They taught that every person, by virtue of descent from Adam, brings with him into the world an evil demon, in whose power he is completely. Baptism does not free a person from it; earnest prayer alone can cast out the demon. When a demon is driven out by fervent prayer, the All-Holy Spirit takes its place and reveals its presence in a tangible and visible way, namely: it frees the body from the agitations of passions and completely distracts the soul from the inclination to evil, so that after this, neither external feats for curbing the body become unnecessary, nor the reading of St. Scripture, no sacraments, no law at all. To these errors, which undermine all church institutions, the Euchites added an error of a purely dogmatic nature: they denied the trinity of Persons in God, presenting Persons as forms of manifestation of one and the same Deity. Renouncing ascetic labors, the first condition of monastic life, the Euchyte monks spent their time in idleness, avoiding any kind of labor as degrading spiritual life, and ate only alms: but at the same time, feeling the imaginary presence of the Holy Spirit in themselves, they indulged in contemplation and in the heat of a frustrated imagination they dreamed that they contemplated the Divine with bodily eyes. According to this feature, the Euchites were also called enthusiasts, as well as corephes from the mystical dances to which they indulged, or, according to the names of their representatives, lampecians, adelphians, marcianists, and so on. The Evkhites, outwardly, belonged to the Church and tried to hide their opinions and teachings from the Orthodox. Only towards the end of the 4th c. Bishop Flavian of Antioch managed to denounce their head Adelphius, after which the spiritual and secular authorities began to persecute them. But the Euchytic views, nevertheless, were not destroyed.

In the 11th century in Thrace the Euchytic heresy becomes known again. Usually the Evkhites of the 11th century. are mentioned in connection with the Euchites of the 4th century, which, having not been destroyed after the church condemnation, continued to exist secretly in the Eastern monasteries in the 5th and subsequent centuries. Since the Evkhites of the 4th c. looked at everything material as evil, then it could easily happen that in subsequent centuries they adopted the dualistic views of the ancient Gnostics and Manichaeans into the circle of their worldview. From the eastern monasteries, the Euchites penetrated into the Thracian monasteries, and here in the 9th century. became known under the same ancient name of Euchites or enthusiasts, but with a modified teaching. The teachings of the Euchites, 9th c. appears in this form: God the Father had two sons: the eldest (Sataniel) and the youngest (Christ). The elder ruled over everything earthly, and the younger over everything heavenly. The Elder fell away from the Father and founded an independent kingdom on earth. The younger, who remained faithful to the Father, took the place of the elder; he destroyed the kingdom of Satanail and restored world order. - Evhity 11th century. just as the ancients gathered together, they put their prayer as the highest degree of moral perfection and the only guarantee of salvation, just as by various artificial means they reached an exalted state, during which, as they assured, they received revelations and were honored with visions of spirits. Magic and theurgy, with the addition of still living magnetism, were in use among the Euchites. The heresy of the Euchites, which was investigated by the Byzantine government in the 11th century, soon dissolved into the Bogomil heresy, which developed especially in the 12th century.

Paulician heresy.

The Paulician heresy appeared in the second half of the 7th century. Its founder was a certain Constantine, originally from Syria, brought up in the Gnostic-Manichaean views, the remnants of which found adherents in the far east even in the 7th century. One Syrian deacon, in gratitude for the hospitality shown, presented Constantine with a copy of St. Scriptures of the New Testament. Konstantin began to read it with zeal. Since Constantine shared the Gnostic-Manichaean views, which were found in St. Scripture, especially App. John and Paul, he understood the expressions about light and darkness, spirit and flesh, God and the world in a dualistic sense. In addition, in the epistles of St. Paul, he met with the teaching about Christianity as a predominantly spiritual religion, about the internal self-improvement of a person, about the secondary importance of rituals in Christianity, as opposed to Judaism, about serving God in the spirit, etc. And Constantine understood these points of the doctrine in a peculiar way, namely, that the Christian religion, as a spiritual one, is alien to any ritual and any appearance, and that a true Christian achieves moral perfection by himself, without the mediation of any church institutions. On such pseudo-apostolic principles, Constantine conceived to found his own religious community. According to him, the dominant Orthodox Church has departed from the apostolic teaching, allowing, like the Jewish Church, many rites and ceremonies that are not characteristic of Christianity as a spiritual religion. Assuming to organize his own community, Constantine dreamed of leading apostolic Christianity. The first such community was founded by him in the city of Kivoss, in Armenia, where he retired with his followers. Constantine called himself Silvanus, the name of a disciple of St. Paul, his followers - the Macedonians, and the community in Kivoss - Macedonia. The Orthodox of all the followers of Constantine, due to the fact that they dated the teaching and structure of their community to the Apostle. Paul, were called Paulicians.

The teachings of the Paulicians are a mixture of Gnostic-Manichaean views with the misunderstood teachings of St. Paul. They recognized the Good God or the Heavenly Father, who was revealed in Christianity, and the demiurge or the ruler of the world, the God of the Old Testament. The demiurge was credited with the creation of the visible world and at the same time of human bodies, revelation in the Old Testament and dominion over Jews and pagans, as well as dominion over the Christian Orthodox Church, which deviated from the true apostolic teaching. According to the teachings of the Paulicians, there is no definite information about the way of connecting the spiritual nature with the material. Concerning the fall of the first man, they taught that it was only disobedience to the demiurge, and therefore led to the deliverance from his power and the revelation of the Heavenly Father. The Paulicians accepted the Orthodox doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Only the incarnation of the Son of God was understood docetically, arguing that He passed through the Virgin Mary as through a channel. It was said of the Holy Spirit that He is invisibly communicated to true believers, that is, to the Paulicians, and especially to their teachers. Following the misunderstood teaching of St. Paul, heretics in the structure of their society rejected all appearances and rituals. Hierarchy was rejected; in the image of the apostolic church, they wanted only apostolic disciples, shepherds and teachers. The title of disciples of the apostles was given to the heads of their sect, who at the same time took the names of the apostolic disciples themselves, for example, Silvanus, Titus, Tychicus, and so on. The shepherds and teachers were the persons who were in charge of the individual Paulician communities; they were called satellites. All these persons did not have hierarchical authority in the Orthodox Christian sense; they existed only to maintain unity among the sectarians. The worship of the Paulicians consisted exclusively of teaching and prayer. They did not have temples, since, in their opinion, they belong to the carnal religion of the Jews, but there were only chapels; the veneration of icons and even the cross of the Lord is abolished as idolatry; the veneration of saints and their relics is rejected; the sacraments with all their rites are rejected. However, without rejecting the principle of baptism and the Eucharist, the Paulicians performed them in an immaterial way, in the spirit. They claimed that the word of Christ is living water and heavenly bread. Therefore, listening to the word of Christ, they are baptized and take communion. Fasting, asceticism, monasticism are all rejected as having no significance for salvation, but the Paulicians generally led a moderate life. Marriage was allowed and treated with respect. The Paulicians recognized only St. Scripture of the New Testament, except for the epistles of St. Peter. In general, the heresy of the Paulicians manifested reformist aspirations in the name of a misunderstood apostolic Christianity.

Constantine, who took the name Silvanus, successfully propagated the sect he had founded for twenty-seven years (657-684). Emperor Constantine Pagonat drew attention to the sectarians and sent his official Simeon to Kivossa to destroy their community. Constantine was captured and executed; many sectarians renounced their heresy. But after three years, Simeon himself, on whom the Paulician community made a strong impression, went to the Paulicians and even became the head of their sect with the name Titus. At the beginning of the 8th c. Paulician communities spread more and more to the east. In the middle of the 8th c. they established themselves even in Asia Minor, and the emperor Constantine Copronymus himself contributed to their spread in Europe, resettling (752) part of them in Thrace. Since the Paulicians were hostile not only to the Church, but also to the state, almost all Byzantine emperors of the 9th-11th centuries tried to humble them by force. Despite this, the Paulician communities in Thrace existed until the 12th century.”

The persecution of the Church ceased only at the beginning of the fourth century, when the Christian emperor Constantine the Great ascended the throne.

In the year 313, the emperor issued the famous Edict of Milan on complete religious tolerance. According to the edict, Christianity became the state religion.

Attacks on the Church by external enemies ceased, but they were replaced by an internal enemy, even more dangerous for the Church. This worst enemy was the heretical teaching of the Alexandrian presbyter Arius.

The Arian heresy concerned the fundamental principle of the Christian faith - the doctrine of the Divinity of the Son of God.

Arius rejected the divine dignity of Jesus Christ and His equality with God the Father. The heretic argued that "the Son of God was nothing more than the highest and most perfect creation of the Deity, through which the world was created." “If the second Person is called in the Holy Scriptures the Son of God,” argued Arius, “it is not at all by nature, but by adoption.”

Hearing about the new heresy, Bishop Alexander of Alexandria tried to reason with Arius, but the exhortations of the archpastor were in vain. The heretic was firm and adamant.

When heresy, like a plague, swept Alexandria and its environs, Bishop Alexander in the year 320 convened a Local Council, at which he condemned the false teaching of Arius.

But this did not stop the apostate: having written letters to many bishops complaining about the decision of the Local Council and having received their support, Arius began to spread his teaching throughout the East. Rumors of heretical unrest soon reached the Emperor Constantine himself. He entrusted the investigation of the turmoil to Bishop Hosea of ​​Kordub. Convinced that the false teaching of Arius was directed against the foundations of the Church of Christ, Constantine decided to convene an Ecumenical Council. In the year 325, at his invitation, three hundred and eighteen fathers arrived in Nicaea: bishops, presbyters, deacons and monks - representatives of all the Local Churches.

The great fathers of the Church also took part in the Council: St. Nicholas, Archbishop Mir of Lycia, St. Spyridon, Bishop of Trimifunts, and others. Bishop Alexander of Alexandria arrived with his deacon Athanasius, later the famous Saint Athanasius the Great, Patriarch of Alexandria. The emperor himself attended the meetings of the Council. He delivered a fiery speech. "God helped me overthrow the wicked power of the persecutors," said Constantine. "But it is incomparably more regrettable for me than any war, any bloody battle, and incomparably more pernicious is internal internecine strife in the Church of God."

During the conciliar debate, Arius and his supporters, among the seventeen bishops, held themselves proudly and adamantly.

For two months and twelve days, those gathered participated in the debate, clarifying theological formulations. Finally, decisions were adopted and announced, which have since become binding on the entire Christian world.

The council became the spokesman for the apostolic teaching about the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity: The Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God is the true God, born of God the Father before all ages, He is just as eternal as God the Father; He was born, not created, and consubstantial, that is, one in His nature with God the Father. So that all Orthodox Christians could clearly know the dogmas of their faith, they were briefly and accurately stated in the first seven parts of the Creed, which has since been called the Nicene.

The false teaching of Arius, as a delusion of a proud mind, was denounced and rejected, and the Council excommunicated the heretic himself from the Church.

After solving the main dogmatic issue, the Council established twenty canons, that is, 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.