History of the First Council of Nice/Introduction
INTRODUCTION.
The words Council, Synod, and Convention are synonymous. There were many Councils held in Christendom before that of Nice; but they were not Œcumenical, that is, general or universal. At the first Councils the bishops probably represented only their several churches, but they gradually assumed more extensive powers, and claimed to represent larger districts.
In apostolic times the apostles chose the bishops; afterwards the disciples of the apostles chose them, subject to the approval of the community. After this age the bishops of a province mot together and appointed new bishops, which choice had to be ratified by the people. At the Council of Nice a new plan was adopted, as will be seen in the canons.
In this history of a single Council we shall obtain a glimpse of the condition of the Christian Church of that day, Constantine, the great emperor of Rome, being decidedly the most conspicuous figure in the picture. Therefore it seemed proper to add to this edition, his likeness, taken from a coin, and a sketch of his life. It is a pity that so splendid a man, both in form and courage, should have marred his record toward the end of life by inhuman acts of cruelty against his rivals and even his nearest relations. It don't seem possible that he could deem his baptism sufficient to wash out such stains and purify his soul. But he had heartless courtiers about him, who probably encouraged his pretensions to righteousness, and pandered to his vilest propensities.
He wished to convey the idea to his subjects that he felt sure of heaven; for he had a large gold coin struck, which represented, on one side, himself, partially concealed by a veil, and, on the other, his figure in a chariot, drawn by horses ascending to heaven, and a hand reaching down from the sky to receive him. I was somewhat amused to find, in an old Spanish work by Mexia, translated and published in London, A. D. 1604, the singular remarks of that author upon the last part of Constantine's life. He says that appearances are against the propriety of some of his acts, but then he found they must be all right, because St. Jerome and several other saints and popes had endorsed the great emperor as a good Christian and heir to eternal bliss. The modern Protestant writers are not so lenient towards him. How it happens that no Arian histories exist, I know not; unless it is because their enemies, the trinitarians, have destroyed them. It was the custom to punish heretics and burn their books in the very first days of Christian rule. Christianity, as an institution of the government, was little better than the old religion. It soon became transformed, so that Christ would have been ashamed of its name. As soon as there were fortunes to be made in the Church, it became the fruitful field of worldly ambition.
In regard to the Canons and Decrees: I think the best time for the Easter Festival would have been the ancient, honored day of the Jewish Passover. It was opposed merely by a whim of Constantine, because, as a Roman, he hated the nation which his country had long detested and persecuted, that is, the Jews, although he was forced to admit that God had ever preferred them before all other people. His change in the Day of Rest arose from the same unjust prejudice. The Sabbath was as good for Gentiles, as it had been for Israel; and, although Christ did not regard it as holy, he never appointed any other in its stead.
One of the canons forbids kneeling at prayers on Sundays. Dr. A. P. Stanley thinks this rule was adopted because the apostles used always to pray standing. But I suppose it was so ordered because Sunday was considered a day of triumph and rejoicing, not of humiliation. It was believed that on that day Christ rose from the dead, and conquered death and hell. Kneeling was a sign of submission to an enemy; therefore it was inappropriate for Sunday. It is strange no public prayers were offered at the Council. Another canon forbids the election of a eunuch to the office of bishop. To degrade manhood was deemed by some the best way to exalt their religion. Such folly needed to be discouraged by a stronger condemnation. Constantine showed the greatest respect to the confessors and ascetics. He put his lips to the scars received in persecution, and fancied he drew godliness from them.
Perhaps he did this to win the hearts of the good bishops. However, his superstition was equal to his cunning. He praised and patronized monks, nuns, hermits and devotees of every sort, who deprived themselves of the comforts of life, and despised nearly all social obligations. To live in rags and dirt, and eat herbs like some beasts was the holiest fashion in the estimation of the early Fathers. (They could not have deduced it from the life of Christ.) That kind of Christians, as well as martyrs, were often reputed to be workers of miracles.
No mention is made of the Bible being read publicly in the meetings of the "Great and Holy Synod," as it was called. St. Jerome said that he had heard from one of the fathers that the book of Judith was approved at Nicæa. But no other early writer mentions it. Historians often remark that the fathers had a way of interpreting Scripture different from ours, in these days. Constantine, in his "Oration to the Saints," speaks of the Garden of Eden as being located in some other world; and this was the belief of Tertullian and several other Christian writers, as Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Jerome, &c. We can't help mistrusting the sincerity of some of the early Greek converts, who, immediately upon espousing the new religion, began to write books and sign the names of celebrated apostles or martyrs to their devout productions. The Epistle to the Hebrews, ascribed to Paul, is one of these. But it was so well done that many were willing to accept it as inspired. All the best critics say it cannot be Paul's writing, although it seems to contain his ideas, expressed by some other author.
The Apocalypse is another doubtful book. Modern criticism even rejects portions of the four evangelists. It would be remarkable that an unlettered Galilean, should have introduced into his book the Platonic "Logos," that is, "Word," just as the great philosopher used it, and laid the very bottom foundation of the Nicene creed. Does any one nowadays undertake to prove that John, the disciple of Jesus, wrote that book, or even dictated it?
Then there was a work called the Shepherd of Hermas, that many early Christians took to be inspired; but they couldn't tell who was the author. It was made to sell to the faithful, simple souls, who looked only at the surface of such works. The story pleased them, being in saintly style, although a rather low style.
The Nicene fathers argued that the pagan religion was derived from the poets; and, therefore, was not of divine origin. But how could they deem that an objection, seeing that the prophets of the Old Testament were nearly all poets? And the most ancient religious books of various nations were sacred poems. It seems to me that faith and hope, which are considered the principal parts of religion, are peculiarly poetical themes. They are not scientific deductions, or historical facts. All men have capacity to enjoy them, whereas but few can comprehend or appreciate a logical argument, or oven understand what is sufficient evidence to establish great theological dogmas. Most people must, therefore, necessarily found their belief upon the statements and practice of others; and such theories will be chosen, as are pleasing and flattering, whether in works of poetry or prose, provided they have been approved by custom and beloved forefathers. This disposition in mankind accounts for the tenacity with which many absurd principles are retained in institutions that have come down to us from the dark ages. It is the duty of science to dispel and discourage such things. Hence we often find the great savans, like Huxley and Tyndall, boldly opposing time-honored fallacies and false doctrines of the religious sects. The Council of Nice set the example of trying to compel Christians to adopt its modes of faith. That plan was not so fair as those pursued by the great philosophers. I suppose the Nicene fathers considered faith in Christ and the resurrection from the dead, as the fundamental doctrines of their religion. But there had been, as great and good religious teachers as they, who inserted no idea of a future state in their creeds: for instance, Moses and Confucius.
The great Hebrew author of Job makes him say:—
"I have made my bed in the darkness,
And where is now my hope?
As the waters fail from the sea,
And the Hood decayeth and drieth up,
So man lieth down and riseth not."
Solomon, or another poet, in the name of that learned king, says:—
"For him that is joined to all the living there is hope,
For a living dog is better than a dead lion.
The living know that they shall die,
But the dead know not anything,
Neither have they any more a reward.
All things come alike to all,
This is an evil among all things
That are done under the sun,
That there is one event unto all.
There is one event to the righteous and to the wicked."
—Eccles.
The Israelities had no belief, at this time, in an incorporeal soul, any more than the Egyptians had in the time of Moses. They believed in ghosts.
But one of our English poets sings,—
"Religion! Providence! an after state!
Here is firm footing; here is solid rock!
His hand the good man fastens on the skies,
And bids Earth roll, nor feeds her idle whirl.
Poor mutilated wretch that disbelieves!
By dark distrust his being cut in two,
In both parts perishes; life void of joy,
Sad prelude of eternity in pain!"
—Young.
Whether Jesus taught the doctrine of an eternal hell for punishment in the after life, is a question among doctors of divinity. Origen denied it. The Roman Catholic Church has adopted purgatory in imitation of the sheol, hades or tartarus. That church has many doctrines, forms and rites similar to those of the older religions. Jesus seems to have considered doing good deeds and living a pure life, the true way to worship God.