History of the First Council of Nice/Chapter 9
CHAPTER IX.
THE FINAL DELIBERATIONS AND DECISIONS OF THE COUNCIL UPON THE IMPORTANT QUESTIONS OF DOCTRINE.—CONSTANTINE PARTICIPATES IN THE DEBATES.—THE ARIAN CREED REJECTED.—THE HOMOOUSIAN ESTABLISHED FOREVER.—LETTERS OF THE COUNCIL AND CONSTANTINE, DESCRIBING THE UNANIMOUS DECISIONS RESPECTING THE "CONSUBSTANTIAL" CREED.—ARIUS ANATHEMATIZED AND HISTHALIA CONDEMNED; ALSO THE ARIANS BANISHED, AND THEIR WORKS PROSCRIBED BY THE EMPEROR.
Theodoret says, that the great Eustathius, in his panegyric upon the emperor, commended the diligent attention he had manifested in the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs. At the close of this speech, the excellent emperor exhorted them to unanimity and concord; he recalled to their remembrance the cruelty of the late tyrants, and reminded them of the honorable peace which God had, at this period and by his means, accorded them. And he remarked, how very grievous it was, that, at the very time when their enemies were destroyed, and when no one dared to molest them, that they should fall upon one another, and afford matter for diversion and ridicule to their adversaries, while they were debating about holy things, which ought to be determined by the written word, indited by the Holy Spirit, which they possessed. "For the gospel," continued he, "the apostolical writings and the ancient prophecies clearly teach us what we are to believe concerning the Divine nature. Let, then, all contentious disputation be set aside; and let us seek, in the divinely inspired word, the solution of all doubtful topics."
These and similar exhortations he, like an affectionate son, addressed to the bishops as to fathers, desiring their accordance in the apostolical doctrines. Most of those present were won over by his arguments, established concord among themselves, and embraced sound doctrine. There were, however, a few, of whom mention has been already made, who sided with Arius; and amongst them were Menophantus, bishop of Ephesus; Patrophilus, bishop of Scythopolis; Theognis, bishop of Nice; and Narcissus, bishop of Neronopolis, which is a town of the second Cilicia, and is now called Irenopolis; also Theonas, bishop of Marmarica, and Secundus, bishop of Ptolemais in Egypt. They drew up a declaration of their creed, and presented it to the Council. Instead of being recognized, it was torn to pieces, and was declared to be spurious and false. So great was the uproar raised against them, and so many were the reproaches cast on them for having betrayed religion, that they all, with the exception of Secundus and Theonas, stood up and excommunicated Arius.[1] This impious man, having thus been expelled from the church, a confession of faith, which is received to this day, was drawn up by unanimous consent; and, as soon as it was signed, the Council was dissolved. The bishops above mentioned, however, did not consent to it in sincerity, but only in appearance…… Eustathius, of Antioch, afterwards wrote against them, and confuted their blasphemies.
The remarks of Socrates on this head are, that "some of the bishops scoffed at the word Homoöusios (consubstantial), and would not subscribe to the condemnation of Arius. Upon which the Synod anathematized Arius and all who adhered to his opinions, at the same time prohibiting him from entering into Alexandria.[2] By an edict of the emperor, also, Arius, himself, was sent into exile, together with Eusebius [of Nicomedia] and Theognis;[3] but the two latter, a short time after their banishment, tendered a written declaration of their change of sentiment, and concurrence in the faith of the substantiality of the Son with the Father. The Synod, also, with one accord, wrote an epistle to the Church of the Alexandrians, and to the believers in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis."
In this letter are the following sentences: "It was unanimously decided by the bishops, assembled at Nice, that this impious opinion of Arius should be anathematized, with all the blasphemous expressions he has uttered, in affirming, that the Son of God sprang from nothing, and that there was a time when he was not; saying, moreover, that the Son of God was possessed of free-will, so as to be capable either of vice or virtue; and calling him a creature and a work. All these sentiments the holy Synod has anathematized. So contagious has his pestilential error proved, as to involve, in the same perdition, Theonas, bishop of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais; for they have suffered the same condemnation as himself."[4]
"It should be here observed," says Socrates, "that Arius had written a treatise on his own opinion, which he entitled 'Thalia;'[5] but the character of the book was loose and dissolute, its style and metres not being very unlike the songs of Sotadés, the obscene Maronite.[6] This production the Synod condemned at the same time.
"The emperor also wrote to the Church of the Alexandrians: 'The splendor of truth has dissipated, at the command of God, those dissensions, schisms, tumults, and, so to speak, deadly poisons of discord. I assembled, at the city of Nice, most of the bishops; with whom I, myself, also, who am but one of you, and who rejoice exceedingly in being your fellow-servant, undertook the investigation of the truth. Accordingly all points which seemed, in consequence of ambiguity, to furnish any pretext for dissension, have been discussed and accurately examined. Let us, therefore, embrace that doctrine which the Almighty has presented to us.'
"Constantine wrote another letter, addressed to the bishops and the people, in which he says: 'If any treatise composed by Arius should be discovered, let it be consigned to the flames, in order that not only his depraved doctrine may be suppressed, but, also, that no memorial of him may be, by any means, left. This, therefore, I decree, that, if any one shall be detected in concealing a book compiled by Arius, and shall not instantly bring it forward and burn it, the penalty for this offence shall be death. May God preserve you.' "
"The bishops, who were convened at the Council of Nice," continues Socrates, "after settling the Arian question, drew up and enrolled certain other ecclesiastical regulations, which they are accustomed to term canons,[7] and then departed to their respective cities."
An abstract of these canons will be given in a subsequent chapter.
- ↑ In the discussions of the Creed, there were curious scenes, according to some writers. One reports that St. Nicholas, the red-faced bishop of Myra, whom we sometimes call "Santa Claus," got so enraged at Arius, that he slapped him on the jaw. And when a song was repeated out of Thalia, the bishops kept their eyes fast shut and stopped their ears. When the Arian Creed, signed by 18 bishops was produced, the other 100 bishops tore it in pieces and ejected Arius from the Council. He disappeared before the close of the Council. His book, Thalia, was burnt on the spot, and so many copies were soon destroyed, that it became a very rare work. The whole Christian world has altered the Nicene Creed, in some respects, in order to make it conform to common sense, as Stanley thinks.
The statement of Athanasius is, that "Arius was anathematized, and his Thalia condemned." He was then banished into Illyricum, by the emperor, who sent edicts to all parts of his empire denouncing him and his doctrines, and even threatening those who should dare to speak well of the exiled bishops, or to adopt their sentiment. The concealment of any of his writings was made a capital crime, as Constantine's epistles will unmistakably prove.
But, in respect to the excommunication of Arius, Theodoret differs from other authorities, who are supported by many corroborating circumstances. In the words of another historian, "Although the two personal friends of Arius,—Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nice,—subscribed the creed, which they did alone for the sake of peace, as they declared, still they refused to subscribe, with the rest, the condemnatory clauses against the Arian doctrines, because they could not believe, they said, from his written and oral teachings, that he had taught the doctrines he was accused of having inculcated."
At the time, this was overlooked in them. But subsequently they were banished, as well as Arius, to whom they had proved faithful as far as they dared. They seem, like Eusebius of Cæsarea and others, to have adopted the Nicene Creed in a sense to suit their peculiar views. This was their plea in subsequent disputes upon the subject. But their opponents charged them with duplicity and deception in the course they pursued. Even the Arian Philostorgius confesses [book i. chap. 9], that all the bishops consented to the exposition of faith made at Nicæa, with the exception of Secundus and Theon. But the rest of the Arian bishops, with Eusebius of Nicomedia, whom he calls "the Great," Theognis and Tharis [Maris?] embraced the sentence of the Council with a fraudulent and treacherous purpose; for, under the term homoousios [of one substance with], they secretly introduced that of homoiousios [of like substance with]. But, Philostorgius adds, that Secundus charged Eusebius of Nicomedia with subscribing the creed to escape being sent into banishment, and predicted that, within a year, he would be banished too; which prediction proved true; for Eusebius was sent into exile in three months after the Council had adjourned, upon returning to his original Arianism.
As for Arius himself, the emperor soon recalled him from his exile in Illyricum, a country between the Adriatic and Parnonia, which is now called Dalmatia and Albania. The singular change in the emperor's disposition, and his leniency toward Arius, seem to have been effected by the influence of his sister Constantia, who was inclined to Arian principles. She was the widow of Licinius, but yet a favorite sister to Constantine; and, being removed, by death, soon after the Council of Nice, she is said to have left a strong impression on the emperor's mind, in favor of Arius, and against his banishment. Moreover, she left a friend in the imperial household, who, being a presbyter of Arian proclivities, exerted all his influence to effect the restoration of Arius, which was accomplished. The emperor's letter to Arius, was dated the 25th of November, and began as follows:—"It was intimated to your reverence, sometime since, that you might come to my court, in order to your being admitted to the enjoyment of our presence." And the letter ends thus: "May God protect you, beloved."
Arius and Euzoius came, and presented to the emperor their declaration of faith. It was as follows:—"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, and in the Lord Jesus Christ his Son, who was made of Him before all ages; God the Word, by whom all things were made, which are in the heavens and upon the earth; who descended, became incarnate, suffered, rose again, ascended into the heavens, and will again come to judge the living and the dead. We believe, also, in the Holy Spirit, in the resurrection of the flesh, in the life of the coming age, in the kingdom of the heavens, and in one Catholic Church of God extending over the whole earth."
"This confession of faith was," says Dr. Neander, "without doubt, similar to the former one of Arius," yet it was satisfactory to the emperor, and he granted him a full pardon at once. However, the Orthodox could not be induced to receive Arius again into their favor. Athanasius refused to admit him to communion at Alexandria, in spite of the commands of Constantine himself.
Arius regarded the Holy Spirit as being the first created nature, produced by the Son of God. He placed the same distance betwixt the Son and the Holy Spirit, which he had supposed between the Father and the Son.—See Athan. Orat. i. c. Arian. § 6.
- ↑ That is, from entering that city in an official capacity. The Homoousian dogma was firmly established, in spite of all the Arian influence, and Gibbon declares that "the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son was established by the Council of Nice, and has been unanimously received as a fundamental article of the Christian faith, by the consent of the Greek, the Latin, the Oriental, and the Protestant churches."—See Decline and Fall, ii. 21.
- ↑ Philostorgius says, in his history, that the emperor punished them because, while they subscribed to the Homoöusian faith, they entertained sentiments at variance with it; and that he recalled Secundus and his associates from banishment, and sent letters in every direction exploding the term Homoousios, and confirming the doctrine of a diversity of substance. This is doubtless exaggeration. However, Athanasius asserts, that Constantine opposed the Homoousian; although, at the Nicene Synod, he favored it, as Eusebius positively declares.
Eusebius, of Nicomedia, Maris and Theognis were banished, by an imperial decree, a short time after the Council, for some overt acts displaying Arian sentiments. But, according to Philostorgius, they were recalled, after a period of three years, by command of the emperor; and they immediately put forth a form of faith, and sent it in every direction, in order to counteract the Nicene Creed. Their written retraction, as quoted by Socrates, contains these words:—"If ye should now think fit to restore us to your presence, ye will have us on all points conformable, and acquiescent in your decrees. For, since it has seemed good to your piety to deal tenderly with, and recall, even him who was primarily accused; it would be absurd for us to be silent, and thus submit to presumptive evidence against ourselves, when the one, who was arraigned, has been permitted to clear himself from the charges brought against him."
- ↑ See the same letter as quoted by Theodoret, who renders it somewhat differently from Socrates, though not very essentially so.
- ↑ This work was written by Arius subsequently to his excommunication by the Alexandrian Synod of A. D. 321, according to some authorities. Philostorgius says, he wrote also a collection of songs for sailors, millers, and pilgrims,—an old expedient for spreading religious opinions among the common people, as Neander observes. Milman, in Gibbon's Rome, notes the fact thus: "Arius appears to have been the first, who availed himself of this means of impressing his doctrines on the popular ear, beguiling the ignorant, as Philostorgius terms it, by the sweetness of his music, into the impiety of his doctrines."
According to Sozomen, "Arian singers used to parade the streets of Constantinople by night, till Chrysostom arrayed against them a band of Orthodox choristers."—Soz. B., viii. chap. 8.
St. Ambrose composed hymns in Latin to the glory to the Trinity, for the people to sing in churches, A. D. 374.—See Bingham's Antiquities of the Christian Church.
An old rhetorican at Rome, named Fabius Marius Victorinus, composed hymns to advance the Orthodox Trinitarian cause.
The following lines are the beginning of one of old Victorinus' hymns, as I find them printed in Patrologiæ, viii. 1159:
Hymnus Primus.
Adesto, lumen verum, pater omnipotens, Deus.
Adesto, lumen luminis, mysterium et virtus Dei.
Adesto, sancte spiritus, patris, et filii copula.Tu cum quiescis pater es, cum procedis, filius.
In unum qui cuncta nectis, tu es spiritus sanctus,
Unum primum, unum a se ortum, unum ante unum Deus.Translation:
Hymn First.
Be present, true light, father almighty, God.
Be present, light of light, wonder and excellence of God.
Be present, holy spirit, bond of father and son,
You, when you rest, are the father, when you go forth, the son.
You, who are joined the whole in one, are the holy spirit,
The primal one, one from himself arisen, the one prior to one, God.This Victorinus, according to St. Jerome, was the "vice-consul of the African nation," and taught rhetoric, principally at Rome under Constantine. In his extreme old age, he received the faith of Christ, which was not long prior to A.D. 362. He wrote books against the doctrines of the Manichæans, and commentaries on the apostolical Scriptures. He held a controversy with the Arian, Candidus, on the divine generation of the Word; and his four books against the Arians, besides several epistles to Candidus, are preserved in Patrologiæ, vol. viii., together with the opposing arguments of Candidus. The following is the beginning of the latter's book on the divine generation, addressed to "Marius Victorinus, the rhetorician":—
"All generation, O my dear old Victorinus, is a change of some kind. But, as to divinity, God is evidently wholly immutable. However, God, as he is the first cause of all things, so he is the father in respect to all things. If, therefore, God is unchangeable and immutable, inasmuch as he is unchangeable and immutable, he is neither begotten nor made. So, therefore, it stands thus: God is unbegotten. For, indeed, generation is such in consequence of conversion and mutation. But no substance, nor ingredients of substance, nor existence, nor qualities of existence, nor existing things, nor attributes of existing things, nor power, could there have been prior to God. For what is superior to God? Whether a power or existence or substance or on?"
The reply of Victorinus, addressed to Candidus, the Arian, begins thus:—"Is it your great intelligence, O noble Candidus, which has so fascinated me? To say of God, that man is above him, would be audacious. But as, indeed, the nous ethikos (moral sense) was put into our soul, and the breath of life was sent, from above, unto the forms of intelligence inscribed from eternity upon our souls the elevation of our souls may re-mould the ineffable things even into investigable mysteries of God's volitions and operations. For he is willing to be seen, yea, even now, in respect to what kind of situation his person is in, which, of itself, is difficult to be comprehended; but, declare,—is it impossible?"
- ↑ Maronite, that is, a follower of John Maro, the monk.—See Decline and Fall, chap. 47, § 3.
"It was undoubtedly the same Sotadés, to whom Martial refers, in the following epigram upon a certain class of pretenders to the classical rank.—See Martial's Epigrams, book ii.
"As I ne'er boast the back-turned verse
Nor bawdy Sotadés rehearse,
Whom Greekish echo nowhere quotes
In all her loose, pedantic notes;
Nor have, from Attis, art so fine,
To frame the Choliambic line,
Thanks to the Galliambon sweet
For classic rank and measure meet,
Though, claiming not a perfect style,
I'm not a bard so very vile."This is my rendering from the Latin of Baronius. Sotadés was an Egyptian poet, who composed verses, which, when read backwards, had an obscene meaning. Athanasius seems to have been the first that called Arius a "Sotadeän" writer,—probably because there was a double meaning to some of his hymns, the second signification being more strongly Arian than the first appearance.
- ↑ See Hammond's Canons of the Church, p. 15, Oxford edition, 1843, and Beveridge's Pandecta Canonum, tom. i, 58; also Thoraas Attig's Historia Concilii Niceni, published at Leipsic, in 1712, 4to.