|
SUCH admirable and wise counsel did the emperor's letter contain.
But the evil had become too strong both for the exhortations of the
emperor, and the authority of him who was the bearer of his letter:
for neither was Alexander nor Arius softened by this appeal; and
moreover there was incessant strife and tumult among the people.
Moreover another local pure namely in regard to the Passover, which
was carried on in the regions of the East only This arose from some
desiring to keep the Feast more in accordance with the custom of the
Jews; while others preferred its mode of celebration by Christians in
general throughout the world. This difference, however, did not
interfere with their communion, although their mutual joy was
necessarily hindered. When, convoked a General Council, summoning
all the bishops by letter to meet him at Nicaea in Bithynia.
Accordingly the bishops assembled out of the various provinces and
cities; respecting whom Eusebius Pamphilus thus writes, word for
word, in his third book of the life of Constantine:
' Wherefore the most eminent of the ministers of God in all the
churches which have filled Europe, Africa, and Asia, were
convened. And one sacred edifice, dilated as it were by God,
contained within it on the same occasion both Syrians and Cilicians,
Phoenicians, Arabs and Palestinians, and in addition to these,
Egyptians, Thebans, Libyans, and those who came from
Mesopotamia. At this synod a Persian bishop was also present,
neither was the Scythian absent from this assemblage. Pontus also and
Galatia, Pamphylia, Cappadocia, Asia and Phrygia, supplied
those who were most distinguished among them. Besides, there met
there Thracians and Macedonians, Achaians and Epirots, and even
those who dwelt still further away than these, and the most celebrated
of the Spaniards himself took his seat among the rest. The prelate of
the imperial city was absent on account of age; but some of his
presbyters were present and filled his place. Such a crown, composed
as a bond of peace, the emperor Constantine alone has ever dedicated
to Christ his Saviour, as a thank-offering worthy of God for
victory over his enemies, having appointed this convocation among us in
imitation of the Apostolic Assembly. For among them it is said were
convened "devout men of every nation under heaven; Parthains, Medes
and Elamites, and those who dwelt in Mesopotamia, Judaea and
Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and
the part of Libya which is toward Cyrene, strangers from Rome also,
both Jews and proselytes with Cretans and Arabs." That
congregation, however, was inferior in this respect, that all present
were not ministers of God: whereas in this assembly the number of
bishops exceeded three hundred; while the number of the presbyters,
deacons, and acolyths and others who attended them was almost
incalculable. Some of these ministers of God were secution], and
others united in themselves all these distinguished characteristics:
some were venerable from their advanced age, others were conspicuous
for their youth and vigor of mind, and others had but recently entered
on their ministerial career. For all these the emperor appointed an
abundant supply of daily food to be provided.'
Such is Eusebius' account of those who met on this occasion. The
emperor having completed the festal solemnization of the triumph ober
Licinius, came also in persone to Nice.
There were among the bishops two of extraordinary celebrity,
Paphnutius, bishop of Upper Thebes, and Spyridon, bishop of
Cyprus: why I have so particular referred to these two individuals,
I shall state hereafter. Many of the laity were also present, who
were practiced in the art of reasoning, and each eager to advocate the
cause of his own party. Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, as was
before said, supported the opinion of Arius, together with Theognis
and Maris; of these the former was bishop of Nicaea, and Maris of
Chalcedon in Bithynia. These were powerfully opposed by Athnasius,
a deacon of the Alexandrian church, who was highly esteemed by
Alexander his bishop, and on that account was much envied, as will be
seen hereafter. Now a short time previous to the general assembling of
the bishops, the disputants engaged in preparatory logical contests
before the multitudes; and when many were attracted by the interest of
their discourse, one of the laity, a confessor, who was a man of
unsophisticated understanding reproved these reasoners, telling them
that Christ and his apostles did not teach us dialectics, art, nor
vain subtilties, but simple-mindedness, which is preserved by faith
and good works. As he said this, all present admired the speaker and
assented to the justice of his remarks; and the disputants themselves,
after hearing his plain statement of the truth, exercised a greater
degree of moderation: thus then was the disturbance caused by these
logical debates suppressed at this time.
On the following day all the bishops were assembled together in one
place; the emperor arrived soon after and on his entrance stood in
their midst, and would not take his place, until the bishops by bowing
intimated their desire that he should be seated: such was the respect
and reverence which the emperor entertained for these men. When a
silence suitable to the occasion had been observed, the emperor from
his seat began to address them words of exhortation to harmony and
unity, and entreated each to lay aside all private pique. For several
of them had brought accusations against one another and many had even
presented petitions to the emperor the day before. But he, directing
their attention to the matter before them, and on account of which they
were assembled, ordered these petitions to be burnt; merely observing
that ' Christ enjoins him who is anxious to obtain forgiveness, to
forgive his brother.' When therefore he had strongly insisted on the
maintenance of harmony and peace, he sanctioned again their purpose of
more closely investigating the questions at issue. But it may be well
to hear what Eusenius says on this subject, in his third book of the
Life of Constantine. His words are these:
' A variety of topics having been introduced by each party and much
controversy being excited from the very commencement, the emperor
listened to all with patient attention, deliberately and impartially
considering whatever was advanced. He in par supported the statements
which were made on either side, and gradually softened the asperity of
those who contentiously opposed each other conciliating each by his
mildness and affability. And as he addressed them in the Greek
language, for he was not unacquainted with it, he was at once
interesting and persuasive, and wrought conviction on the minds of
some, and prevailed on others by entreaty, those who spoke well he
applauded. And inciting all to unanimity at length he succeeded in
bringing them into similarity of judgment, and conformity of opinion on
all the controverted points: so that there was not only unity in the
confession of faith, but also a general agreement as to the time for
the celebration of the feast of Salvation. Moreover the doctrines
which had thus the common consent, were confirmed by the signature of
each individual.'
Such in his own words is the testimony respecting these things which
Eusebius has left us in writing; and we not unfitly have used it, but
treating what he has said as an authority, have introduced it here for
the fidelity of this history. With this end also in view, that if any
one should condemn as erroneous the faith professed at this council of
Nicaea, we might be unaffected by it, and put no confidence in
Sabinus the Macedonian, who calls all those who were convened there
ignoramuses and simpletons. For this Sabinus, who was bishop of the
Macedonians at Heraclea in Thrace, having made a collection of the
decrees published by various Synods of bishops, has treated those who
composed the Nicene Council in particular with contempt and derision;
not perceiving that he thereby charges Eusebius himself with
ignorance, who made a like confession after the closest scrutiny. And
in fact some things he has willfully passed over, others he has
perverted, and on all he has put a construction favorable to his own
views. Yet he commends Eusebius Pamphilus as a trustworthy witness,
and praises the emperor as capable in stating Christian doctrines: but
he still brands the faith which was declared at Nicaea, as having been
set forth by ignorant persons, and such as had no intelligence in the
matter. And thus he voluntarily contemns the words of a man whom he
himself pronounces a wise and true witness: for Eusebius declares,
that of the ministers of God who were present at the Nicene Synod,
some were eminent for the word of wisdom, others for the strictness of
their life; and that the emperor himself being present, leading all
into unanimity, establshed unity of judgement, and agreement of
opinion among them. Of Sabinus, however, we shall make further
mention as occasion may require. But the agreement of faith, assented
to with loud acclamation at the great council of Nicaea is this:
'We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things
visible and invisible: and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of
God, the only begotten of the Father, that is of the substance of
the Father; God of God and Light of light; true God of true
God; begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father: by whom
all things were made, both which are in heaven and on earth: who for
the sake of us men, and on account of our salvation, descended became
incarnate, and was made man; suffered, arose again the third day,
and ascended into the heavens and will come again to judge the living
and the dead. [We] also [believe] in the Holy Spirit. But the
holy Catholic and Apostolic church anathematizes those who say
"There was a time when he was not," and "He was not before he was
begotten" and "He was made from that which did not exist," and
those who assert that he is of other substance or essence than the
Father, or that he was created, or is susceptible of change.'
This creed was recognized and acquiesced in by three hundred and
eighteen [bishops]; and being, as Eusebius says, unanimous is
expression and sentiment, they subscribed it. Five only would not
receive it, objecting to the term homoousios, 'of the same
essence,' or consubstantial: these were Eusebius bishop of
Nicomedia, Theognis of Nice, Maris of Chalcedon, Theonas of
Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais. 'For,' said they 'since
that is consubstantial which is from another either by partition,
derivation or germination; by germination, as a shoot from the roots;
by derivation as children from their parents; by division, as two or
three vessels of gold from a mass, and the Son is from the Father by
none of these modes: therefore they declared themselves unable to
assent to this creed.' Thus hating scoffed at the word
consubstantial, they would not subscribe to the deposition of Arius.
Upon this the Synod anathematized Arius, and all who adhered to his
opinions prohibiting him at the same time from entering into
Alexandria. At the same time an edict of the emperor sent Arius
himself into exile, together with Eusebius and Theognis and their
followers; Eusebius and Theognis, however, a short time after their
banishment, tendered a written declaration of their change of
sentiment, and concurrence in the faith of the consubstantiality of the
Son with the Father, as we shall show as we proceed. Eusebius,
surnamed Pamphilus, bihop of Caesarea in Palestine, who had held
aloof for a short time, after mature consideration whether he ought to
receive this definition of the faith, at length acquiesced in it, and
subscribed it with all the rest: he also sent to the people under his
charge a copy of the Creed, with an explanation of the word
homoousios, that no one might impugn his motives on account of his
previous hesitation. Now what was written by Eusebius was as follows
in his own words:
'You have probably had some intimation, beloved, of the transactions
of the great council convened at Nicaea, in relation to the faith of
the Church, inasmuch as rumor generally outruns true account of that
which has really taken might form an incorrect estimate of the matter,
we have deemed it necessary to submit to you, in the first place, an
exposition of the faith pro-with certain additions to its expression.
The declaration of faith set forth by us, which when read in the
presence of our most pious emperor, seemed to meet with universal
approbation, was thus expressed:
'" According as we received from the bishops who preceded us, both
in our instruction [in the knowledge of the truth], and when we were
baptized; as also we have ourselves learned from the sacred
Scriptures: and in accordance with what we have both believed and
taught while discharging the duties of presbyter and the episcopal
office itself, so now we believe and present to you the distinct avowal
of our faith. It is this:
'" We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all
things visible and invisible:--and begotten Son, born before all
creation, begotten of God the Father, before all ages, by whom also
all things were made; who on account of our salvation became
incarnate, and lived among men; and who suffered and rose again and
the dead. We believe also in one Holy Spirit. We believe in the
existence and subsistence of each of these [persons]: that the
Father is truly Father, the Son truly Son, and the Holy Gospel,
said, 'Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.' Concerning
these doctrines we steadfastly maintain their truth, and avow our full
confidence in them such also have been our sentiments hitherto, and
such we shall continue to hold until death and in an unshaken adherence
to this faith, we anathematize every impious heresy. In the presence
of God Almighty, and of our Lord Jesus Christ we testify, that
thus we have believed and thought from our heart and soul, since we
have possessed a right estimate of ourselves; and that we now think and
speak what is perfectly in accordance with the truth. We are moreover
prepared to prove to you by undeniable evidences, and to convince you
that in time past we have thus believed, and so preached."
' When these articles of faith were proposed, there seemed to be no
ground of opposition: nay, our most pious emperor himself was the
first to admit that they were perfectly correct, and that he himself
had entertained the sentiments contained in them; exhorting all present
to give them their assent, and subscribe to these very articles, thus
agreeing in a unanimous profession of them, with the insertion,
however, of that single word "homoousios" (consubstantial), an
expression which the emperor himself explained, as not indicating
corporeal affections or properties; and consequently that the Son did
not subsist from the Father either by division or abscission: for said
he, a nature which is immaterial and incorporeal cannot possibly be
subject to any corporeal affection; hence our conception of such things
can only be in divine and mysterious terms. Such was the philosophical
view of the subject taken by our most wise and pious sovereign; and the
bishops on account of the word homoousious, drew up this formula of
faith.
The Creed
'"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all
things visible and invisible:and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son
of God, the only-begotten of the Father, that is of the substance
of the Father; God of God, Light of light, true God of true
God; begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father; by whom all
things were made both which are in heaven and on earth; who for the
sake of us men, and on account of our salvation, descended, became
incarnate, was made man, suffered and rose again on the third day; he
ascended into the heavens, and will come to judge the living when he
was not,' or ' He did not exist before he was begotten,' or ' He
was made of nothing' or assert that 'He is of other substance or
essence than the Father,' or that the Son of God is created, or
mutable, or susceptible of change, the Catholic and apostolic Church
of God anathematizes."
'Now this declaration of faith being propounded by them, we did not
neglect to investigate the distinct sense of the expressions "of the
substance of the Father, and consubstantial with the Father"
Whereupon questions were put forth and answers, and the meaning of
these terms was dearly defined; when it was generally admitted that
ousias (of the essence or substance) simply implied that the Son is
of the Father indeed, but does not subsist as a part of the Father.
To this interpretation of the sacred doctrine which declares that the
Son is of the Father, but is not a part of his substance, it seemed
right to us to assent. We ourselves therefore concurred in this
exposition; nor do we cavil at the word "homoousios" hating regard to
peace, and fearing to lose a right understanding of the matter. On
the same grounds we admitted also the expression" begotten, not
made": "for made," said they, "is a term applicable in
consequently he is no creature like those which were made by him, but
is of a substance far excelling any creature; which substance the
Divine Oracles teach was begotten of the Father by such a mode of
generation as cannot be explained nor even conceived by any creature."
Thus also the declaration that "the Son is consubstantial with the
Father" having been discussed, it was agreed that this must not be
understood in a corporeal sense, or in any way analogous to mortal
creatures; inasmuch as it is neither by division of substance, nor by
abscission nor by any change of the Father's substance and power,
since the underived nature of the Father is inconsistent with all these
things. That he is consubstantial with the Father then simply Father
only who begat him; and that he is of no other substance or essence but
of the Father. To which doctrine, explained in this way, it
appeared right to assent, especially since we knew that some eminent
bishops and learned writers among the ancients have used the term
"homoousios"in their theological discourses concerning the nature of
the Father and the Son. Such is what I have to state to you in
reference to the articles of faith which have been promulgated; and in
which we have all concurred, not without due examination, but
according to the senses assigned, which were investigated in the
presence of our most highly favored emperor, and for the reasons
mentioned approved. We by them after the declaration of faith
inoffensive; because it prohibits the use of illegitimate terms, from
which almost all the distraction and commotion of the churches have
arisen. Accordingly, since no divinely inspired Scripture contains
the expressions, "of things which do not exist," and "there was a
time when he was not," and such other phrases as are therein
subjoined, it seemed unwarrantable to utter and teach them: and
moreover this decision received our sanction the rather from the
consideration that we have never heretofore been accustomed to employ
these terms. We deemed it incumbent on us, beloved, to acquaint you
with the caution which has characterized both our examination of and
concurrence in these things: and that on justifiable grounds we
resisted to the last moment the introduction of certain objectionable
expressions as long as these were not acceptable; and received them
without dispute, when on mature deliberation as we examined the sense
of the words, they appeared to agree with what we had originally
proposed as a sound confession of faith.'
Such was the letter addressed by Eusebius Pamphilus to the
Christians at Caesarea in Pales-time. At the same time the Synod
itself also, with one accord, wrote the following epistle to the
church of the Alexandrians, and to believers in Egypt, Libya, and
Pentapolis.
|
|