History of the First Council of Nice/Chapter 5
CHAPTER V.
LETTER OF ARIUS TO HIS FRIEND, EUSEBIUS OF NICOMEDIA, DESCRIBING HIS DOCTRINES, WHICH OCCASION THE OPPOSITION AND SEVERITIES OF ALEXANDER; AND LETTER OF EUSEBIUS OF NICOMEDIA, TO PAULINUS OF TYRE, ON THE SAME SUBJECT, ETC.
LETTER OF ARIUS TO EUSEBIUS.
"Arius, unjustly persecuted by the Pope Alexander, on account of that all-conquering truth, which you also uphold, sendeth greeting in the Lord to his very dear lord, the man of God, the faithful and orthodox Eusebius.
"Ammonius, my father, being about to depart for Nicomedia, I consider myself bound to salute you by him, and withal to address myself to that natural affection which you bear towards the brethren, for the sake of God and of Christ; apprising you that the bishop oppresses and persecutes us most severely, and that he causes us much suffering. He has driven us out of the city as atheists, because we do not concur in what he publicly preaches; namely, that the Father has always been, and that the Son has always been. That as the Father, so is the Son; that the Son is unbegotten as the Father; that he is always being begotten, without having been begotten; that neither by thought, nor by any interval, does God precede the Son, God and the Son having always been; and that the Son proceeds from God.
"Eusebius, your brother bishop of Cæsarea, Theodotius, Paulinus, Athanasius [of Anazarbus], Gregory, Ætius, and all the bishops of the East, have been condemned because they say that God had an existence prior to that of the Son; except Philogonius, Hellanicus, and Macarius, who are unlearned men, and who have embraced heretical opinions. One of them says that the Son is an effusion, another that he is an emission, the other that he is also unbegotten. These are impieties to which we could not listen, even though the heretics should threaten us with a thousand deaths.[1] But we say and believe, and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way unbegotten, even in part; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter; but that, by his will and counsel, he has subsisted before time, and before ages, as perfect God; only begotten and unchangeable; and that he existed not before he was begotten, or created, or purposed, or established; for he was not begotten. We are persecuted because we say that the Son had a beginning, but that God was without beginning. This is really the cause of our persecution; and, likewise, because we say that he is from nothing [from not any thing]. And this we say, because he is neither part of God, nor of any subjacent matter. For this are we persecuted; the rest you know. Farewell."
Of those whose names are mentioned in this letter, Eusebius was bishop of Cæsarea, Theodotius was bishop of Laodicea, Paulinus of Tyre, Athanasius of Anazarbus, Gregory of Berea, and Ætius of Lydda, which is now called Diospolis. Philogonius was bishop of Antioch, Hellanicus of Tripolis, and Macarius of Jerusalem.
When Eusebius of Nicomedia received the epistle, he wrote as follows to Paulinus, bishop of Tyre.
LETTER OF EUSEBIUS TO PAULINUS.
"To my Lord Paulinus, Eusebius sendeth greeting in the Lord.
"The zeal of my Lord Paulinus, and likewise his silence concerning the truth, have not failed to reach our ears. If, on the one hand, we have rejoiced on account of the zeal of my lord, on the other, we have grieved, because the silence of such a man appears like the condemnation of our cause.
"Hence, as it behooves not a wise man to be of a different opinion from others, and yet to be silent concerning the truth, I exhort you to stir up within yourself the spirit of wisdom, that you may be able to write what may be profitable to yourself and to others; which will certainly be the case, if you will examine the Holy Scriptures, and follow them in your writings. We have never heard that there are two unbegotten beings, nor that one has been divided into two. We have neither been taught, my lord, nor do we believe that the Divinity has ever undergone any change of a temporal nature; but we affirm that there is one who is unbegotten, and that there also exists another who did in truth proceed from him, yet who was not made out of his substance, and who does not at all participate in the nature or substance of him who is unbegotten. We believe him to be entirely distinct in nature and in power, and yet to be a perfect likeness, in character and in power, of him from whom he originated.
"We believe that the mode of his beginning cannot be expressed by any words; and that it is incomprehensible, not only to man, but also to orders of beings superior to man. These opinions we advance, not as having derived them from our own imagination, but as having deduced them from Scripture; whence we learn that the Son was created, established, and begotten in the same substance, and in the same immutable and inexpressible nature as the Maker; and so the Lord says, 'God created me in the beginning of His way; I was set up from everlasting; before the hills was I brought forth;' (Prov. viii. 22–26.) If he had preceded from Him or of Him, as a portion of Him, or by an efflux of His substance, it could not be said that he was created or established; and of this you, my lord, are certainly not ignorant. For that which proceeds from Him who is unbegotten, cannot be said to have been created or founded, either by Him or by another, since He has been begotten from the beginning…
"There is, indeed, nothing which partakes of His substance; yet, every thing which exists, has been called into being by His will, for He verily is God. All things were made in his likeness, and in the future likeness of His Son, being created according to His will. All things were made by the Son, and through God. All things are of God.
"When you have received my letter, and have revised it according to the knowledge and grace given you by God, I beg you will write, as soon as possible, to my Lord Alexander. I feel confident that if you will write to him, you will succeed in bringing him over to your opinion."[2]
"When blasphemous doctrines," says Theodoret, "became disseminated in the churches of Egypt and of the East, disputes and contentions arose in every city, and in every village, concerning theological dogmas. The common people, being witnesses of these controversies, took part,—some with one party and some with the other. Those who had been most friendly hitherto, now fought against each other with their tongues instead of spears."[3]
- ↑ Arius intended, by no means, to lower the dignity of Christ by ascribing to him a beginning of existence. He would ascribe to him the greatest dignity which a being could have after God, without entirely ignoring the distinction between that being and God. Still he did not hesitate to ascribe to him the name of God. Probably he appealed to those passages of scripture where the name of God seems to be applied, in an improper sense, to created beings, and thence argued that it was also applied in an analogous manner, but in the highest sense, to the Logos.—Neander Ch. Hist., ii. 362–4.
Gibbon says the most implacable enemies of Arius have acknowleged the learning and blameless life of that eminent presbyter, who, in a former election, had perhaps declined the proffered episcopal throne in favor of Alexander of Alexandria, his subsequent first great opponent in Egypt. This last statement is on the authority of Philostorgius, the Arian.—See Decline and Fall, ii. chap. 21.
Philostorgius says [book i. chap 3] that "when the people, by their votes, were on the point of electing Arius, he declined the honor in favor of Alexander," who, soon after his election, got involved in doctrinal disputes with the same friend, and never rested till the former had been twice excommunicated, and, at last, banished by an imperial edict, and anathematized by the universal Synod of Nice. This Philostorgius, the heretic and apologist of Arius, was a native of Cappadocia, born A.D. 364, of humble parentage. Coming to Constantinople to complete his studies, he there remained, and became either a lawyer or an ecclesiastic. He wrote a history of the church, in twelve books, beginning with the schism of Arius, and extending to A.D. 425. The work, as he compiled it, is lost; but a brief epitome of it is preserved by the Orthodox Photius, a noted patriarch of Constantinople, A. D. 853. Of course the original text was Greek, like that of all the early ecclesiastical histories in that part of the Roman Empire.—See Bohn's edition, translated for the first time in English by Edw. Walford.
- ↑ Eusebius, of Cæsarea, wrote a letter to the bishop Alexander, in which he sought to convince him that he was doing Arius injustice; and that, if he would but rightly conceive him, he would find no difficulty in coming to an agreemcnt with him. A fragment of this letter has been preserved, and is to be found in the 6th act of the Second Nicene Council.—Neander's Hist. Ch. Relg. and Chch. ii. 369, Torrey's 3d American edition.
The second Council of Nice was held A.D. 787, in the time of Leo the Great, Pope of Rome. The most noted dogma estahlished at this second Synod of Nice, was that in favor of paying respect, and even adoration (which some call "worship"), to certain images and symbols of divine things.
- ↑ Coluthus, mentioned on page 38, ante, was one of the contentious presbyters in Egypt, who, teaching the heretical doctrine, that God was not the creator of the wicked nor of wickedness and evil in any sense, although a bitter opponent of Arius, was called to account by a Council held in Alexandria, A.D. 324. He had assumed the authority of a bishop. His heresy was condemned and himself deposed.