History of the First Council of Nice/Chapter 3
CHAPTER III.
THE CAUSES WHICH LED CONSTANTINE TO CONVOKE THE UNIVERSAL SYNOD, COMMONLY CALLED "THE GENERAL COUNCIL OF NICE."
After the death of the wicked tyrants, Maxentius, Maximin, and Licinius, says Theodoret,[1] the storm abated which their atrocity, like a furious whirlwind, had excited against the church. The hostile winds were hushed, and tranquillity ensued. This was effected by Constantine, a prince deserving of the highest praise; who, like the divine apostle, was not called by man, or through man, but by God. He enacted laws prohibiting sacrifices to idols, and commanding churches to be erected. He appointed believers to be the governors of the provinces, ordered that honor should be shown to the priests, and threatened with death those who dared to insult them.
The churches which had been destroyed were rebuilt; and others, still more spacious and magnificent than the former ones, were erected. Hence the concerns of the church were smiling and prosperous, while those of her opponents were involved in disgrace and ruin. The temples of the idols were closed; but frequent assemblies were held, and festivals celebrated, in the churches……
At this time Peter was bishop of Alexandria, a large and populous city, and considered the metropolis, not only of Egypt, but also of the adjacent countries, Thebes and Libya. After Peter, the illustrious champion of the faith, had, during the sway of wicked tyrants, obtained the crown of martyrdom, the Church of Alexandria was ruled, for a short time, by Achillas.[2] He was succeeded by Alexander [in 312], who was the foremost in defending the doctrines of the gospel. Arius,[3] whose name was then enrolled among the presbytery, and who was intrusted with the exposition of the Holy Scriptures, was induced to oppose Alexander's doctrines,—that the Son is equal with the Father, and of the same substance with God who begat him. Arius inveighed, in direct terms, against the truth, and affirmed that the Son of God is merely a creature, or created being, and that there was a time when he had no existence.
The other opinions which he advanced may be learned from his own writings.[4]
He taught these false doctrines, not only in the church, but also in general meetings and assemblies; and he even went from house to house, endeavoring to draw men over to his sentiments. Alexander, who was strongly attached to the doctrines of the Apostles, at first endeavored, by arguments and remonstrances, to convince him of his error; but when he found that he had had the madness to make a public declaration of his impiety, he ejected him from the order of the presbytery, according to the precept of the word of God,—"If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee."[5]
- ↑ This Christian historian, whose text I intend to quote, as well as his ideas, was born at Antioch, in Syria, about A. D. 387, and died about A. D. 458. He was bishop of Cyrus in his fatherland; although at one time a Nestorian, on account, probably, of his personal friendship for Nestorius, who rejected the title—"Mother of God"—as it was applied to the Virgin Mary. But he renounced that "heresy" in 435. Theodoret compiled a history of the church from A. D. 322 to A. D. 427.—See Edw. Walford's Translation.
- ↑ This bishop, who was supplanted by Alexander, is said to have been tinctured with the Meletian heresy.
- ↑ Arius (son of Ammonius), the celebrated originator of the Arian doctrines, was a presbyter of the Alexandrian Church, and presided over an independent parish of that city, by the name of Baucalis, where he had been placed a short time before Alexander became bishop. He was a rigid ascetic, and acquired great respect from all. Socrates thus describes the advent of Arianism:—"After Peter of Alexandria had suffered martyrdom [A. D. 311], Achillas was installed in the episcopal office, whom Alexander succeeded. The latter bishop, in the fearless exercise of his functions for the instruction and government of the Church, attempted one day, in the presence of the presbytery and the rest of his clergy, to explain, with perhaps too philosophical minuteness, that great theological mystery,—the Unity of the Holy Trinity. A certain one of the presbyters under his jurisdiction, whose name was Arius, possessed of no inconsiderable logical acumen, imagining that the bishop entertained the same view of this subject as Sabellius the Libyan [African, who taught, in the third century, that there was but one person in the divine essence], controverted his statement with excessive pertinacity; advancing another error, which was directly opposed, indeed, to that which he supposed himself called upon to refute. 'If,' said he, 'the Father begat the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence; and, from this, it is evident that there was a time when the Son was not in being. It, therefore, necessarily follows he had his existence from nothing.' Having drawn this inference from this novel train of reasoning, he excited many to a consideration of the question; and thus, from a little spark, a large fire was kindled."
Arius is thus described by the orthodox Epiphanius:—"He was exceedingly tall, with a clouded and serious brow, having the appearance of a man subdued by self-mortification. His dress corresponded with his looks; his tunic was without sleeves, and his vest but half the usual length. His address was agreeable, and adapted to engage and fascinate all who heard him." He was a man of acknowledged learning, but not of the deepest philosophy.
Arius died suddenly at Constantinople, perhaps by the poison of his enemies, A.D. 336, and his opponents rejoiced at his death.—See Dr. Murdock's note to Mosheim's Institutes, vol. i. p. 297, N. Y. edition, 1852.
According to some historians, the idea of the Triad and Trinity originated with Plato, and was discussed by the Platonists.—See Gibbon's Decline and Fall of Rome, chap. 21.
- ↑ The Orthodox and the Arians both believed Christ to be God, and so called him; but they differed on two points:—
1st, The Orthodox believed Christ's generation was from eternity, so that he was coeval with the Father; whereas the Arians believed he had a beginning.
2d, The Orthodox believed the Son to be derived of, and from, the Father, being of the same identical essence, and not merely of similar essence. But the Arians held that he was created by the power of God, out of nothing, although they allowed him to have been the first created being in the Universe.—See the Letters of Arius and Alexander of Alexandria, describing their own, and each other's, conflicting opinions.
- ↑ Socrates says that Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, deposed Arias from his office and excluded him from the communion of the church, first at an assembly of the clergy in Alexandria, and then at a more numerous synod of Egyptian and Libyan bishops A.D. 321, composed of a hundred members. At this synod, however, the victory in the contest was claimed by both parties. Alexander published an epistle to his fellow-ministers everywhere, notifying them of the excommunication of Arius, in which he makes use of the following language:—"Know, therefore, that there have recently arisen in our diocese, lawless and anti-Christian men, teaching apostacy such as one may justly consider and denominate the forerunner of Antichrist. …… I am constrained to warn yon to pay no attention to the communications of Eusebius [of Nicomedia], should he write to you. …… The dogmas they assert, in utter contrariety to the Scriptures, and wholly of their own devising, are these:—That 'God was not always a Father; that the Word of God was not from eternity, but was made out of nothing; for, that the ever-existing God (the I Am, the eternal One) made him, who did not previously exist, out of nothing.' "