History of the First Council of Nice/Chapter 11

by Dean Dudley

CHAPTER XI.

ACCOUNTS FROM EUSTATHIUS CONCERNING THE SAME THINGS; ALSO FROM ATHANASIUS, OF ALEXANDRIA, AS QUOTED IN THEODORET'S HISTORY OF THE CHURCH.

Eustathius,^[1] bishop of Antioch, the Great, says: "When the bishops, assembled at Nice, began to inquire into the nature of the faith, the formulary of Eusebius was brought forward, which contained undisguised evidence of his blasphemy. The reading of it occasioned great grief to the audience, on account of the depravity of the doctrines; and the writer was covered with shame. After the guilt of the partisans of Eusebius had been clearly proved, and the impious writing torn up in sight of all,^[2] some amongst them, under the pretence of preserving peace, imposed silence on those who usually manifested superior powers of eloquence.

"The Arians, fearing lest they should be ejected from the church^[3] by so numerous a Council of bishops, proceeded at once to condemn the doctrines objected to, and unanimously signed the confession of faith. They contrived, however, to retain their principal dignities,^[4] although they ought rather to have experienced humiliation. Sometimes secretly, and sometimes openly, they continued to vindicate the condemned doctrines, and brought forth various arguments in proof of them. Wholly bent upon establishing these false opinions, they shrank from the scrutiny of learned men, and, indeed, of all who are capable of investigation; and they manifested great animosity against professors of religion. But we do not believe that these atheists can overcome God."

Thus far I quote from the great Eustathius.

Athanasius,^[5] who was equally zealous in the cause of religion, and who was the successor in the ministry of the celebrated Alexander, communicated the following intelligence in the letter addressed to the Africans:—

"The bishops,^[6] being convened to the Council, were desirous of refuting the impious assertions of the Arians, that the Son was created out of nothing; that he is a creature and created being; that there was a period in which he did not exist; and that ho is mutable by nature.

"They all agreed in propounding the following declarations, which are in accordance with the Holy Scriptures: namely, that the Son is by nature the only begotten Son of God, the Word, the Power, and the Wisdom of the Father; that he is, as John said, 'very God,' and, as Paul has written, 'the brightness of the glory, and the express image of the person of the Father.' (Heb. i. 3.)

"The followers of Eusebius, who were led by evil doctrines, then assembled for deliberation, and came to the following conclusions: We are also of God. 'There is but one God of whom are all things.' (1 Cor. vi. 8.) 'Old things are passed away; behold all things are become new, and all things are of God.' (2 Cor. v. 17, 18.) They also dwelt particularly upon the following doctrine, contained in the Book of the Pastor: 'Believe above all that there is one God, who created and restored all things, calling them from nothing into being.'

"But the bishops saw through their evil design and impious artifice, and gave a clearer elucidation of these words, by explaining them as referring to God, and wrote that the Son of God is of the substance of God; so that while the creatures, which do not in any way derive their existence of, or from, themselves, are said to be of God, the Son alone is said to be of the substance of the Father; this being peculiar to the only begotten Son—the true Word of the Father. This is the reason why the bishops were led to write, that he is of the substance of the Father.

"The Arians, who seemed few in number, were again interrogated as to whether they would admit the following points of doctrine: 'That the Son is not a creature, but the Power, and the Wisdom, and likewise the Image, of the Father; that he is eternal—in no respects differing from the Father, and that he is very God.' It was remarked, that the Eusebians signified to each other by signs, that these declarations were equally applicable to us; for it is said that we are the image and the glory of God. This is said of us because we arc living beings. There are (to pursue their train of argument) many powers; for it is written, 'All the powers of God went out of the land of Egypt,' (Exod. xii. 41.) The canker-worm and the locust are said to be great powers. (Joel ii. 25.) And elsewhere it is written, 'The God of powers is with us; the God of Jacob is our helper.' For we are not merely children of God, but the Son also calls us brethren. Their saying that Christ is God in truth, gives us no uneasiness; for he was true, and he is true.

"The Arians made false deductions; but the bishops, having detected their deceitfulness in this matter, collected from Scripture those passages which say of Christ that 'He is the glory, the fountain, the stream, and the figure, of the substance,' and they quoted the following words: ' In thy light we shall see light;' and likewise, 'I and the Father are one.' They then clearly and briefly confessed that the Father and the Son are of the same substance; for this, indeed, is the signification of the passages which have been mentioned. The complaint of the Arians, that these precise words are not to be found in the Scripture, is a vain argument; and it may besides be objected to them, that their impious assertions are not taken from Scripture; for it is not written that the Son was created, and that there was a period in which he did not exist. And also, that they themselves complain of having been condemned for using expressions, which, though certainly not scriptural, are yet, they say, consonant with religion. They drew words from the dunghill, and published them upon earth.

"The bishops, on the contrary, did not invent any expressions themselves; but, having received the testimony of the fathers, they wrote accordingly. Indeed, formerly, as far back as about one hundred and thirty years, the bishops of the great city of Rome, and of our city,^[7] disproved the assertion, that the Son is a creature, and that he is not of the substance of the Father. Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, is acquainted with these facts. He, at one time, favored the Arian heresy; but he afterwards signed the confession of faith of the Council of Nice. He wrote a letter to inform his diocesans,^[8] that the word 'consubstantial' is found in certain ancient documents, and is used, by illustrious bishops and learned writers, as a term for expressing the Divinity of the Father and of the Son.

"Some of the bishops, who had carefully concealed their obnoxious opinions, consented to coincide with the Council when they perceived that it was very strong in point of numbers.^[9] Theonas and Secundus, not choosing to dissimulate in the same way, were excommunicated, by one consent, as those who esteemed the Arian blasphemy above evangelical doctrines. The bishops then returned to the Council, and drew up twenty laws to regulate the discipline of the church."

---

1. Eustathius was a native of Side in Pamphylia. Being bishop of Beræa (now Aleppo) in Syria, be was promoted, by the Nicene Council, to the patriarchate of Antioch. He was banished, A.D. 330, on account of his opposition to Arianism, into Thrace, where he died about A.D. 360. He was highly esteemed by the Orthodox, and took a leading part in the Council of Nice—delivering either the first, or one of the first, addresses in praise of the emperor before this great Synod. He wrote eight books against the Arians, some of which still exist, and may be seen in Fabricii Biblioth. Græca, vol. viii.
2. See the pastoral letter of Eusebius, of Cæsarea, ante. His account of the reception of his proposed formulary is contrary to this statement of his warm opponent, Eustathius. The account of Eusebius is evidently most worthy of credit, from corroborating circumstances, and as appears by the statements of Athanasius. It was the tendency of the Eastern church, whoso bishops were there in great numbers, to favor the Eusebian theory, both then and subsequently. But there is some reason to doubt which Eusebius is referred to here by Eustathius. It is possible he refers to the bishop of Nicomedia; for the latter, according to Ambrose (book iii. chap. 7, De Fide), had endeavored to defend the Arian conception of the Son of God.—See the letter of Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia.
3. "Ostracized" is the literal meaning of this phrase.
4. Their bishoprics.
5. Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, dying on the sixth day of February, A. D. 326, only a few months after the Council of Nice, was succeeded by Athanasius, the Great.
   This last named intrepid supporter of the Nicene Creed was born at Alexandria, A. D. 296, and died the second day of May, A. D. 373. He ever took the lead in the Arian controversy, sometimes triumphing, and at others suffering from the accusations of his opponents. At the Council of Tyre, A. D. 325, he answered to the charges of murder, unchastity, necromancy, encouraging sedition, oppressive exactions of money, and misuse of church property. His works are chiefly controversial. In those directed against Arius and Arianism, I find some quotations from the book called "Thalia," which the Nicene Council condemned, as Athanasius and Socrates report. That work was probably written after A. D. 321, the date of the Synod of Alexandria, which first excommunicated Arius for heresy.

   Sentences from Thalia.

   Thalia means "The Banquet." Only fragments of this work are extant, and they are in the works of Athanasius. Thalia was partly in prose and partly in verse.

   Athanasius quotes passages, as follows: "God has not always been Father; later he became so. The Son is not from eternity; He came from nothing. When God wished to create us, He first created a being which He called the Logos, Sophia, and Son, who should create us as an instrument.

   "There are two Sophias: one is in God (i. e., endiathetos), by which even the Son was made. It is only by sharing the nature of this inner Sophia of God that the Son was also called Wisdom. So, also, besides the Son, there is another Logos—he who is God; as the Son participates in this Logos, He also is by grace called Logos and Son."

   "The Logos does not perfectly know the Father. He cannot entirely understand his own nature. The substance of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are entirely different, the one from the other.

   "These three persons are, in their essence, thoroughly and infinitely dissimilar.

   "God is ineffable, and nothing (therefore not even the Son) is equal to or like Him, or of the same glory.

   "This eternal God made the Son before all creatures, and adopted Him for His Son. The Son has nothing in his own nature akin to God, and is not like to Him in essence."—Clark's Hefele.

   Sentences from Athanasius.

   Athanasius, in different parts of his works, above mentioned, expresses the following ideas, which will show how he was accustomed to argue certain points of doctrine, etc. Speaking of Arius, he says,—"He vomits forth the poison of impiety." "The Nicene fathers, hearing his impiety, closed their ears." "He trusts in the violence and the menaces of Eusebius." "He puts forth the Thalia in imitation of the filthy Sotades." "He draws up a rescript of faith for Constantine, in which he conceals the venom of heresy, by usurping the naked words of Scripture." "He dies by a sudden, miraculous death, on the Sabbath day," and "His death is an argument against the Arian heresy." "Arius, the Sotadeän." "Arius, the Atheist." "Arius is like the serpent that deceived Eve." "The devil is the father of the Arian heresy." "The Thalia is of an effeminate style, being written in imitation of Sotades, an Egyptian poet." "Thalia is accustomed to be sung among tipplers."—See the complete extant works of St. Athanasius, Archhishop of Alexandria, edited by J. P. Migne, from which I translate.

6. Eusebius, it will be noticed, gives great prominence to the influence of the emperor in this discussion, representing everything us proceeding from him, while Athanasius does not even mention it. Each probably felt at liberty to recount those things most agreeable to his party interests; or, else, to suppress what seemed to him unimportant.
7. Dionysius, bishop of Rome, and Alexander, of Byzantium.
8. See this epistle in the narrative from Socrates. It is commonly called the "Pastoral Letter of Eusebius Pamphilus," being addressed to those whose pastor he was; i. e., the Cæsareans.
9. At first, seventeen bishops, who probably belonged to the strictly Arian party, declined to go with the majority; among them, Eusebius of Cæsarea, who, on the first day after they were presented, absolutely refused his assent to them, according to the account of Athanasius. It should be understood, as Rufinus says (i. 5), that all who refused their assent, were threatened with the loss of their places, and condemnation as refractory subjects. Besides, as Eusebius declares in his pastoral letter, Constantine explained the Homoousian, himself, and his interpretation of it was not against the theory of the subordination of Christ to the Father. Afterwards, the emperor, when he found the term generally interpreted differently, displayed his dislike of it. But what Constantine most desired, was conformity and union among the churches, that would add strength to his empire. Eusebius and the Arian bishops accepted the Homoousian ("of the same substance") as a designation of the likeness in respect to essence; that is, that Christ is like God in respect to essence, though subordinate to Him.—Neander Ch. Hist. ii. 377.