History of the First Council of Nice/Chapter 10

by Dean Dudley

CHAPTER X.

THE PASTORAL LETTER OF EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS,^[1] OF CÆSAREA, CONCERNING THE SAME THINGS, WITH OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES.

"It is likely that you have learnt, from other sources, what was decided respecting the faith of the church at the general Council of Nice; for the fame of great transactions generally precedes the accurate detail of them. But, lest rumors not strictly founded in truth should have reached you, I think it necessary to send to you, first, the formulary of faith originally proposed by us; and, secondly, the additions appended to it by the bishops when setting it forth. The following is our formulary, which was read in the presence of our most pious emperor, and which was fully approved by all:^[2]

" 'The faith which we hold is that which we have received from the bishops who were before us,^[3] and in the rudiments of which we were instructed when we were baptized. It is that which we learnt from the Holy Scriptures, and which, when among the presbytery as well as when we were placed in the episcopal office, we have believed and have taught; and which we now believe, for we still uphold our own faith. It is as follows:

" 'I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things, whether visible or invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, the only begotten Son, the First-born of all creatures, begotten of the Father before all ages; by whom all things were made; who, for our salvation, took upon him our nature, and dwelt with men. He suffered and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father; and he will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. We also believe in one Holy Ghost. We believe in the existence of each person; we believe that the Father is in truth the Father; that the Son is in truth the Son; that the Holy Ghost is in truth the Holy Ghost; for our Lord, when sending out his disciples to preach the gospel, said, 'Go forth and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. We positively affirm that we hold this faith, that we have always held it, and that we shall adhere to it even unto death, condemning all ungodly heresy. We testify, as before God the Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we have believed in these truths from the heart and from the soul, ever since we have been capable of reflection; and we have the means of showing, and, indeed, of convincing you, that we have always, during all periods, believed and preached them.'

"When this formulary was set forth by us, no one found occasion to gainsay^[4] it; but our beloved emperor was the first to testify that it was most orthodox, and that he coincided in opinion with it; and he exhorted the others to sign it, and to receive all the doctrine it contained, with the single addition of the word consubstantial. He said that this term 'consubstantial' implied no bodily affection, for that the Son did not derive his existence from the Father either by means of division or abscission. 'An immaterial, intellectual, and incorporeal nature,' said he, 'cannot be subjected to bodily operations. These things must be understood as bearing a divine and mysterious signification.' Thus reasoned our wisest and most religious emperor. The omission of the word consubstantial was adopted as the pretext for composing the following formulary:

THE ARTICLES OF FAITH MAINTAINED BY THE COUNCIL.^[5]

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things, visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father; he is begotten, that is to say, he is of the substance of God, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten and not made, being of one substance with^[6] the Father; by whom all things, both in heaven and on earth, were made. Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and took our nature, and became man; he suffered, and rose again the third day; he ascended into heaven, and will come to judge the living and the dead. And we believe in the Holy Ghost. The holy catholic and apostolical church condemns all those who say that there was a period in which the Son of God did not exist; that before he was begotten, he had no existence; that he was called out of nothing into being; that he is of a different nature and of a different substance from the Father; and that he is susceptible of variation or of change."^[7]

"When they had set forth this formulary, we did not fail to revert to that passage in which they assert that the Son is of the substance of the Father, and of one substance with the Father. Questions and arguments thence arose. By investigating the meaning of the term, they were led to confess that the word consubstantial signifies that the Son is of the Father, but not as being part of the Father's nature. We deemed it right to receive this opinion; for that is sound doctrine which teaches that the Son is of the Father, but not part of his substance. From the love of peace, and from the fear of deviating from the principles of truth, we accept this exposition without rejecting the term in question. For the same reason we admit the expression, begotten, but not made; for they say that the word made is applied to all things which were created by the Son, and which cannot be placed in comparison with him—none of the creatures that he has made being like him. He is by nature superior to all created objects, for he was begotten of the Father, as the Holy Scriptures teach, by a mode of generation which is incomprehensible and inexplicable to all created beings. The mode in which the Son is said to be of the substance of the Father, was declared to bear no relation to the body, nor to the laws of mortal life. It was also shown that it does not either imply division of substance, nor abscission, nor any change or diminution in the power of the Father.

"The nature of the unbegotten Father is not susceptible of these operations. It was concluded that the expression of the substance of the Father, implies only that the Son of God does not resemble, in any one respect, the creatures which he has made; but that to the Father, who begat him, he is in all points perfectly similar; for he is of the nature and of the substance of none save of the Father. This interpretation having been given of the doctrine, it appeared right to us to receive it, especially as some of the ancient and most celebrated bishops and writers have used the term consubstantial when reasoning on the Divinity of the Father and of the Son.

"These are the circumstances which I had to communicate respecting the formulary of the faith. To it we all agreed, not thoughtlessly, but after mature reflection; and after having subjected it to thorough examination, in the presence of our most beloved emperor, we all, for the above reasons, acquiesced in it. We also willingly submitted to the anathema appended by them to their formulary of faith, because it prohibits the use of words which are not scriptural,—for almost all the disorders and troubles of the church have arisen from the introduction of such words. As no one part of the inspired writings contains the assertion that the Son was called out of nothing into being, or that there was a period in which he had no existence, nor, indeed, any of the other phrases of similar import which have been introduced, it does not appear reasonable to assert or to teach such things. In this opinion, therefore, we judged it right to agree; and, indeed, we had never, at any former period, been accustomed to use such words.^[8] ……

" And here our most beloved emperor began to reason concerning the Son's divine origin, and his existence before all ages. 'He was power in the Father, even before he was begotten,—the Father having always been the Father, just as the Son has always been a King and Saviour; he has always possessed all power, and has likewise always remained in the same state.'

"We thought it requisite, beloved brethren, to transmit you an account of these circumstances, in order to show you what examination and investigation we bestowed on all the questions which we had to decide; and also to prove how firmly, even to the last hour, we persevered in refusing our assent to certain sentences, which, when merely committed to writing, offended us. But yet we subsequently, and without contention, received these very doctrines, because, after thorough investigation of their signification, they no longer appeared objectionable to us, but seemed conformable to the faith held by us and confessed in our formulary."

---

1. This letter I copy from Theodoret, who says, in introducing it: "The following letter was written by Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, to some of the Arians, who had accused him, it seems, of treachery. They had previously honored him, because ho had adopted their sentiments." But the fact is, he sent this letter to his own diocesans, as several cotemporary writers tell us.—See the statement of Athanasius.
2. In the copy of this letter given by Socrates, the words here used are, it "seemed to meet with universal approbation."
3. Origen says, in reference to those who declare Christ to be God, "Aiming to honor Christ, they teach what is untrue of him." He denies the doctrine of the Patripassians, who believed that the Logos (the Word) is the Eternal Father. He taught that the Son is, in God, what reason is in man, and that the Holy Spirit is nothing else but the divine energy or power of acting and working. In describing the nature of Christ, Origen and other early fathers quoted the prophets to prove what the connection was between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. They assumed that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah predicted, and wherever a passage of Scripture, or any old sacred book, seemed to refer to him, they felt sure it was good, sound evidence, fit to found their dogmas upon. Origen uses highly poetical language in describing Christ, such as he found in some of the prophets.—See Principiis, chap. 2. He taught that prayers should be addressed only to the Father, chap. 6, § 3. He said the love and wisdom of God in Christ was what made them one, chap. 6, § 4. Justin Martyr taught that the Logos emanated from God, being his self-manifestation, as a personality derived from God's essence, and ever intimately united with Him by this community of essence. Some of the learned bishops had probably deduced their theories from these great sources.

   Constantine believed that the generation of the Son was not material, but intellectual. Being the Word, that is, the wisdom, of God, he did not diminish the substance of the Father by his descent, any more than a word from our lips diminishes our wisdom.—See his "Oration to the Saints," chap. 3.

4. In Socrates, the words of this letter are, "When these articles of faith were proposed, they were received without opposition; nay, our most pious emperor himself was the first to admit that they were perfectly orthodox, and that he precisely concurred in the sentiments contained in them; exhorting all present to give them their assent, and subscribe to these very articles. It was suggested, however, that the word homoöusios (consubstantial) should be introduced, an expression which the emperor himself explained. … And the bishops, on account of the word homoousios, drew up the formula of faith which was finally adopted."
5. Dean Stanley says, "The Creed of the Council of Nice is the only one accepted throughout the Universal Church, and this Council alone, of all ever held, still retains a hold on the mass of Christendom."
6. Of one substance with, or "consubstantial." The Greek word used here was homoousios. Philostorgius, the Arian, says (book i. chap. 7), that before the Synod was held at Nice, Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, came to Nicomedia [where the emperor resided], and after a convention with Hosius, of Cordova, and the other bishops who were with him, prevailed upon the Synod to declare the Son "consubstantial with" the Father, and to expel Arius from the communion of the church. Dr. Neander remarks, that perhaps there may be some truth in this; but he declares further, that Athanasius was probably the soul of the Homoousian party. Gibbon calls Hosius, or "Osius," as he writes it, the father of the Nicene Creed. It is certain that Hosius was in great favor with the emperor, whom Eusebius represents as introducing, or first advocating, the Homoöusian, a word already familiar to the Platonists, according to Gibbon. But Athanasius denies that Constantine favored the Homoöusian.
7. There are many copies of this Nicene Creed extant among the writings of the early fathers, but they are nearly all of precisely the same purport as this.

   There are two prominent points in this creed: first, Christ's real divinity and equality with the Father; secondly, his personal distinction from the Father.

8. The statement that follows next is omitted by me, because its authenticity is very doubtful, it being omitted by Socrates and Epiphanius. The purport of it is, that, during the debate in the Council of Alexandria, A. D. 321, at which Arius was first anathematized, Alexander seemed to incline first to one party and then to the other; but finally declared himself in favor of the "consubstantial" and "co-eternal" dogma.