Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| The Council of Nicæa. PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP
§3 (1) The
Council of Nicæa.
An ecumenical council was a new experiment. Local
councils had long since grown to be a recognised organ of the Church
both for legislation and for judicial proceedings. But no precedent as
yet prescribed, no ecclesiastical law or theological principle had as
yet enthroned, the ‘General Council’ as the supreme
expression of the Church’s mind. Constantine had already referred
the case of the Donatists first to a select council at Rome under
bishop Miltiades, then to what Augustine (Ep. 43) has been
understood to call a ‘plenarium ecclesiæ universæ
concilium’ at Arles in 314. This remedy for schism was now to be
tried on a grander scale. That the heads of all the Churches of
Christendom should meet in free and brotherly deliberation, and should
testify to all the world their agreement in the Faith handed down
independently but harmoniously from the earliest times in Churches
widely remote in situation, and separated by differences of language,
race, and civilisation, is a grand and impressive idea, an idea
approximately realised at Nicæa as in no other assembly that has
ever met. The testimony of such an assembly carries the strongest
evidential weight; and the almost unanimous horror of the Nicene
Bishops at the novelty and profaneness of Arianism condemns it
irrevocably as alien to the immemorial belief of the Churches. But it
was one thing to perceive this, another to formulate the positive
belief of the Church in such a way as to exclude the heresy; one thing
to agree in condemning Arian formulæ, another to agree upon an
adequate test of orthodoxy. This was the problem which lay before the
council, and with which only its more clearsighted members tenaciously
grappled: this is the explanation of the reaction which followed, and
which for more than a generation, for well nigh half a century after,
placed its results in jeopardy. The number of bishops who met at
Nicæa was over 2506
6 So Eus.
Vit. Const. iii. 8—over 270, Eustath. in Thdt. i.
8—in fact more than 300 (de Decr. 3), according to
Athanasius, who again, toward the end of his life (ad Afr. 2)
acquiesces in the precise figure 318 (Gen. xiv. 14; the Greek
numeral τιή
combines the Cross with the initial letters of the
Sacred Name) which a later generation adopted (it first occurs in the
alleged Coptic acts of the Council of Alexandria, 362, then in the
Letter of Liberius to the bishops of Asia in 365, infr.
§9), on grounds perhaps symbolical rather than
historical. | . They represented many
nationalities (Euseb. ubi supra.), but only a handful came from
the West, the chief being Hosius, Cæcilian of Carthage, and the
presbyters sent by Silvester of Rome, whose age prevented his presence
in person. The council lasted from the end of May till Aug. 25 (see
D.C.A., 1389). With the many picturesque stories told of its incidents
we have nothing to do (Stanley’s Eastern Church, Socr. i.
10–12, Soz. i. 17, 18, Rufin. H. E. i. 3–5); but it
may be well to note the division of parties. (1) Of thoroughgoing
partisans of Arius, Secundus7
7 The name of
Secundus appears among the subscriptions (cf. Soz. i. 21) but this is
contradicted by the primary evidence (Letter of the Council in Soc. i.
9, Thdt. i. 9); cf. Philost. i. 9, 10. But there is evidence that there
were two Secundi. | and Theonas alone scorned
all compromise. But Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis, Bishop of
Nicæa itself, and Maris of Chalcedon, also belonged to the inner
circle of Arians by conviction (Socr. i. 8; Soz. i. 21 makes up the
same number, but wrongly). The three last-named were pupils of Lucian
(Philost. ii. 15). Some twelve others (the chief names are Athanasius
of Anazarbus and Narcissus of Neronias, in Cilicia; Patrophilus of
Scythopolis, Aetius of Lydda, Paulinus of Tyre, Theodotus of Laodicea,
Gregory of Berytus, in Syria and Palestine; Menophantus of Ephesus; for
a fuller discussion see Gwatk. p. 31, n. 3) completed the strength of
the Arian party proper. (2) On the other hand a clearly formulated
doctrinal position in contrast to Arianism was taken up by a minority
only, although this minority carried the day. Alexander of Alexandria
of course was the rallying point of this wing, but the choice of the
formula proceeded from other minds. ‘γπόστασις and
οὑσία are one in the
Nicene formula: Alexander in 323 writes of τρεὶς
ὐποστάσεις.
The test formula of Nicæa was the work of
two concurrent influences, that of the anti-Origenists of the East,
especially Marcellus of Ancyra, Eustathius of Antioch, supported by
Macarius of ‘Ælia,’ Hellanicus of Tripolis, and
Asclepas of Gaza, and that of the Western bishops, especially Hosius of
Cordova. The latter fact explains the energetic intervention of Constantine at the critical moment on
behalf of the test (see below, and Ep. Eus. p. 75); the word was
commended to the Fathers by Constantine, but Constantine was
‘prompted’ by Hosius (Harnack, Dogmg. ii. 226);
οὗτος τὴν
ἐν Νικαί& 139·
πίοτιν
ἐξέθετο (infr. p.
285, §42). Alexander (the Origenist) had been prepared for this by
Hosius beforehand (Soc. iii. 7; Philost. i. 7; cf. Zahn Marcell.
p. 23, and Harnack’s important note, p. 229). Least of all was
Athanasius the author of the ὁμοούσιον; his
whole attitude toward the famous test (infr. p. 303) is that of
loyal acceptance and assimilation rather than of native inward
affinity. ‘He was moulded by the Nicene Creed, did not mould it
himself’ (Loofs, p. 134). The theological keynote of the council
was struck by a small minority; Eustathius, Marcellus, perhaps
Macarius, and the Westerns, above all Hosius; the numbers were
doubtless contributed by the Egyptian bishops who had condemned Arius
in 321. The signatures, which seem partly incorrect, preserve a list of
about 20. The party then which rallied round Alexander in formal
opposition to the Arians may be put down at over thirty. ‘The men
who best understood Arianism were most decided on the necessity of its
formal condemnation.’ (Gwatkin.) To this compact and determined
group the result of the council was due, and in their struggle they
owed much—how much it is hard to determine—to the energy
and eloquence of the deacon Athanasius, who had accompanied his bishop
to the council as an indispensable companion (infr. p. 103; Soz.
i. 17 fin.). (3) Between the convinced Arians and their reasoned
opponents lay the great mass of the bishops, 200 and more, nearly all
from Syria and Asia Minor, who wished for nothing more than that they
might hand on to those who came after them the faith they had received
at baptism, and had learned from their predecessors. These were the
‘conservatives8
8 A term
first brought into currency in this connection by Mr. Gwatkin (p. 38,
note), and since adopted by many writers including Harnack; in spite of
the obvious objection to the importations of political terms into the
grave questions of this period, the term is too useful to be
surrendered, and the ‘conservatives’ of the Post-Nicene
reaction were in fact too often political in their methods and spirit.
The truly conservative men, here as in other instances, failed
to enlist the sympathy of the conservative rank and file. | ,’ or middle party,
composed of all those who, for whatever reason, while untainted with
Arianism, yet either failed to feel its urgent danger to the Church, or
else to hold steadily in view the necessity of an adequate test if it
was to be banished. Simple shepherds like Spyridion of Cyprus; men of
the world who were more interested in their libelli than in the
magnitude of the doctrinal issue; theologians, a numerous class,
‘who on the basis of half-understood Origenist ideas were
prepared to recognise in Christ only the Mediator appointed (no doubt
before all ages) between God and the World’ (Zahn Marc. p.
30); men who in the best of faith yet failed from lack of intellectual
clearsightedness to grasp the question for themselves; a few, possibly,
who were inclined to think that Arius was hardly used and might be
right after all; such were the main elements which made up the mass of
the council, and upon whose indefiniteness, sympathy, or unwillingness
to impose any effective test, the Arian party based their hopes at any
rate of toleration. Spokesman and leader of the middle party was the
most learned Churchman of the age, Eusebius of Cæsarea. A devoted
admirer of Origen, but independent of the school of Lucian, he had,
during the early stages of the controversy, thrown his weight on the
side of toleration for Arius. He had himself used compromising
language, and in his letter to the Cæsarean Church (infra,
p. 76 sq.) does so again. But equally strong language can be
cited from him on the other side, and belonging as he does properly to
the pre-Nicene age, it is highly invidious to make the most of his
Arianising passages, and, ignoring or explaining away those on the
other side, and depreciating his splendid and lasting services to
Christian learning, to class him summarily with his namesake of
Nicomedia9
9 The
identity of name has certainly done Eusebius no good with posterity.
But no one with a spark of generosity can fail to be moved by the
appeal of Socrates (ii. 21) for common fairness toward the
dead. | . (See Prolegg. to vol. 1 of this series, and
above all the article in D.C.B.) The fact however remains, that
Eusebius gave something more than moral support to the Arians. He was
‘neither a great man nor a clear thinker’ (Gwatkin); his
own theology was hazy and involved; as an Origenist, his main dread was
of Monarchianism, and his policy in the council was to stave off at
least such a condemnation of Arianism as should open the door to
‘confounding the Persons.’ Eusebius apparently represents,
therefore, the ‘left wing,’ or the last mentioned, of the
‘conservative’ elements in the council (supra, and
Gwatkin, p. 38); but his learning, age, position, and the ascendency of
Origenist Theology in the East, marked him out as the leader of the
whole.
But the ‘conservatism’ of the great
mass of bishops rejected Arianism more promptly than had been expected
by its adherents or patrons.
The real work of the council did not begin at
once. The way was blocked by innumerable applications to the Christian
Emperor from bishops and clergy, mainly for the redress of personal
grievances. Commonplace men often fail to see the proportion of things,
and to rise to the magnitude of the events in which they play their
part. At last Constantine appointed
a day for the formal and final reception of all personal complaints,
and burnt the ‘libelli’ in the presence of the assembled
fathers. He then named a day by which the bishops were to be ready for
a formal decision of the matters in dispute. The way was now open for
the leaders to set to work. Quasi-formal meetings were held, Arius and
his supporters met the bishops, and the situation began to clear (Soz.
i. 17). To their dismay (de Decr. 3) the Arian leaders realised
that they could only count on some seventeen supporters out of the
entire body of bishops. They would seem to have seriously and honestly
underrated the novelty of their own teaching (cf. the letter of Arius
in Thdt. i. 5), and to have come to the council with the expectation of
victory over the party of Alexander. But they discovered their
mistake:—
‘Sectamur ultro, quos
opimus
Fallere et effugere est
triumphus.”
‘Fallere et effugere’ was in fact the
problem which now confronted them. It seems to have been agreed at an
early stage, perhaps it was understood from the first, that some
formula of the unanimous belief of the Church must be fixed upon to
make an end of controversy. The Alexandrians and
‘Conservatives’ confronted the Arians with the traditional
Scriptural phrases (pp. 163, 491) which appeared to leave no doubt as
to the eternal Godhead of the Son. But to their surprise they were met
with perfect acquiescence. Only as each test was propounded, it was
observed that the suspected party whispered and gesticulated to one
another, evidently hinting that each could be safely accepted, since it
admitted of evasion. If their assent was asked to the formula
‘like to the Father in all things,’ it was given with the
reservation that man as such is ‘the image and glory of
God.’ The ‘power of God’ elicited the whispered
explanation that the host of Israel was spoken of as δύναμις
κυρίου, and that even the locust
and caterpillar are called the ‘power of God.’ The
‘eternity’ of the Son was countered by the text, ‘We
that live are alway (2 Cor.
iv. 11)!’ The fathers
were baffled, and the test of ὁμοούσιον, with
which the minority had been ready from the first, was being forced (p.
172) upon the majority by the evasions of the Arians. When the day for
the decisive meeting arrived it was felt that the choice lay between
the adoption of the word, cost what it might, and the admission of
Arianism to a position of toleration and influence in the Church. But
then, was Arianism all that Alexander and Eustathius made it out to be?
was Arianism so very intolerable, that this novel test must be imposed
on the Church? The answer came (Newman Ar. 4 p. 252) from Eusebius of Nicomedia. Upon
the assembling of the bishops for their momentous debate (ὡς δὲ ἐζητεῖτο
τῆς πίστεως ὁ
τρόπος, Eustath.) he
presented them with a statement of his belief. The previous course of
events may have convinced him that half-measures would defeat their own
purpose, and that a challenge to the enemy, a forlorn hope, was the
only resort left to him10
10 Or
possibly Theodoret, &c., drew a wrong inference from the words of
Eustathius (in Thdt. i. 8), and the γράμμα was
not submitted by Eusebius, but produced as
evidence against him; in this case it must have been, as Fleury
observes, his letter to Paulinus of Tyre. | . At any rate the
statement was an unambiguous assertion of the Arian formulæ, and
it cleared the situation at once. An angry clamour silenced the
innovator, and his document was publicly torn to shreds (ὑπ᾽
ὄψει πάντων,
says an eye-witness in Thdt. i. 8). Even the majority of the Arians
were cowed, and the party were reduced to the inner circle of five
(supra). It was now agreed on all hands that a stringent formula
was needed. But Eusebius of Cæsarea came forward with a last
effort to stave off the inevitable. He produced a formula, not of his
own devising (Kölling, pp. 208 sqq.), but consisting of the
creed of his own Church with an addition intended to guard against
Sabellianism (Hort, Two Diss. pp. 56, sq. 138). The
formula was unassailable on the basis of Scripture and of tradition. No
one had a word to say against it, and the Emperor expressed his
personal anxiety that it should be adopted, with the single improvement
of the ὁμοούσιον. The
suggestion thus quietly made was momentous in its result. We cannot but
recognise the ‘prompter’ Hosius behind the Imperial
recommendation: the friends of Alexander had patiently waited their
time, and now their time was come: the two Eusebii had placed the
result in their hands. But how and where was the necessary word to be
inserted? and if some change must be made in the Cæsarean formula,
would it not be as well to set one or two other details right? At any
rate, the creed of Eusebius was carefully overhauled clause by clause,
and eventually took a form materially different from that in which it
was first presented11
11 , vol. 2, p. 227. The main alterations were (1) The
elimination of the word λόγος and
substitution of υἱ&
231·ς in the principal place. This
struck at the theology of Eusebius even more directly than at that of
Arius. (2) The addition not only of ὁμοούσιον τῷ
πατρί, but also
of τούτεστιν
ἐκ τῆς
οὐσίας τοῦ
πατρός between μονογενῆ and θεόν as a further
qualification of γεννηθέντα
(specially against Euseb. Nicom.: see his letter in
Thdt. i. 6). (3) Further explanation of γεννηθέντα
by γ.
οὐ
ποιηθέντα, a glance at a favourite argument of Arius, as well as at
Asterius. (4) ἐνανθρωπήσαντα
added to explain σαρκωθέντα, and so to exclude the Christology which characterised
Arianism from the first. (5) Addition of anathematisms directed against
all the leading Arian doctrines. | , and with affinities to
the creeds of Antioch and Jerusalem as well as Cæsarea.
All was now ready; the creed, the result of
minute and careful deliberations (we do not know their history, nor even how long they
occupied12
12 The
events have been related in what seems to be their most likely order,
but there is no real certainty in the matter. It is clear that there
were at least two public sittings (Soz. i. 17, the language of Eus.
V. C. iii. 10, is reconcileable with this) in the
emperor’s presence, at the first of which the libelli were
burned and the bishops requested to examine the question of faith. This
was probably on June 19. The tearing up of the creed of Eus. Nic. seems
from the account of Eustathius to have come immediately before the
final adoption of a creed. The creed of Eusebius of Cæsarea, which
was the basis of that finally adopted, must therefore have been
propounded after the failure of his namesake. (Montfaucon and others
are clearly wrong in supposing that this was the
‘blasphemy’ which was torn to pieces!) The difficulty is,
where to put the dramatic scene of whisperings, nods, winks, and
evasions which compelled the bishops to apply a drastic test. I think
(with Kölling, &c.) that it must have preceded the proposal of
Eusebius, upon which the ὁμοούσιον was quietly insisted on by Constantine; for the latter was
the only occasion (πρόφασις) of any modification in the Cæsarean Creed, which in
itself does not correspond to the tests described infr. p. 163.
But Montfaucon and others, followed by Gwatkin, place the scene in
question after the proposal of Eus. Cæs. and the resolution
to modify his creed by the insertion of a stringent test,—in fact
at the ‘pause’ of the council before its final resolution.
This conflicts with the clear statement of Eusebius that the
ὁμοούσιον was the ‘thin end of the wedge’ which led to the
entire recasting of his creed (see infr. p. 73. The idea of
Kölling, p. 208, that the creed of Eusebius was drawn up by him
for the occasion, and that the μάθημα of
the council was ready beforehand as an alternative document, is refuted
by the relation of the two documents; see Hort, pp. 138, 139). It
follows, therefore, from the combined accounts of Ath., Euseb. and
Eustathius (our only eye-witnesses) that (1) the fathers were
practically resolved upon the ὁμοούσιον before the final sitting. (2) That this resolve was clinched
by the creed of Eusebius of Nicomedia. (3) That Eusebius of
Cæsarea made his proposal when it was too late to think of
half-measures. (4) That the creed of Eusebius was modified at the
Emperor’s direction (which presupposes the willingness of the
Council). (5) That this revision was immediately followed by the
signatures and the close of the council. The work of revision, however,
shews such signs of attention to detail that we are almost compelled to
assume at least one adjournment of the final sitting. When the other
business of the council was transacted, including the settlement of the
Easter question, the Meletian schism, and the Canons, it is impossible
to say. Kölling suo jure puts them at the first public
session. The question must be left open, as must that of the presidency
of the council. The conduct of the proceedings was evidently in the
hands of Constantine, so that the question of presidency reduces itself
to that of identifying the bishop on Constantine’s right who
delivered the opening address to the Emperor: this was certainly not
Hosius (see Vit. C. iii. 11, and vol. 1 of this series, p. 19),
but may have been Eusebius of Cæsarea, who probably after a few
words from Eustathius (Thdt.) or Alexander (Theod. Mops. and Philost.)
was entrusted with so congenial a task. The name of Hosius stands first
on the extant list of signatures, and he may have signed first,
although the lists are bad witnesses. The words of Athanasius sometimes
quoted in this connection (p. 256), ‘over what synod did he not
preside?’ must be read in connection with the distinction made by
Theodoret in quoting the passage in question (H. E. ii. 15) that
Hosius ’was very prominent at the great synod of
Nicæa, and presided over those who assembled at Sardica.
This is the only evidence we possess to which any weight can be
attached. | ), lay before the council. We are told
‘the council paused.’ The evidence fails us; but it may
well have been so. All the bishops who were genuinely horrified at the
naked Arianism of Eusebius of Nicomedia were yet far from sharing the
clearsighted definiteness of the few: they knew that the test proposed
was not in Scripture, that it had a suspicious history in the Church.
The history of the subsequent generation shews that the mind of Eastern
Christendom was not wholly ripe for its adoption. But the fathers were
reminded of the previous discussions, of the futility of the Scriptural
tests, of the locust and the caterpillar, of the whisperings, the nods,
winks, and evasions. With a great revulsion of feeling the council
closed its ranks and marched triumphantly to its conclusion. All
signed,—all but two, Secundus and Theonas. Maris signed and
Theognis, Menophantus and Patrophilus, and all the rest. Eusebius of
Nicomedia signed; signed everything, even the condemnation of his own
convictions and of his ‘genuine fellow-Lucianist’ Arius;
not the last time that an Arian leader was found to turn against a
friend in the hour of trial. Eusebius justified his signature by a
‘mental reservation;’ but we can sympathise with the bitter
scorn of Secundus, who as he departed to his exile warned Eusebius that
he would not long escape the same fate (Philost. i. 9).
The council broke up after being entertained by
the Emperor at a sumptuous banquet in honour of his Vicennalia. The
recalcitrant bishops with Arius and some others were sent into exile
(an unhappy and fateful precedent), a fate which soon after overtook
Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis (see the discussion in D.C.B. ii.
364 sq.). But in 329 ‘we find Eusebius once more in high
favour with Constantine, discharging his episcopal functions,
persuading Constantine that he and Arius held substantially the Creed
of Nicæa.’
The council also dealt with the Paschal question
(see Vit. Const. iii. 18; so far as the question bears on
Athanasius see below, p. 500), and with the Meletian schism in Egypt.
The latter was the main subject of a letter (Soc. i. 9; Thdt. i. 9) to
the Alexandrian Church. Meletius himself was to retain the honorary
title of bishop, to remain strictly at home, and to be in lay communion
for the rest of his life. The bishops and clergy of his party were to
receive a μυστικωτέρα
χειροτονία
(see Bright, Notes on Canons, pp. 25 sqq.; Gore, The
Church and the Ministry, ed. 1, p. 192 note), and to be allowed to
discharge their office, but in the strictest subordination to the
Catholic Clergy of Alexander. But on vacancies occurring, the Meletian
incumbents were to succeed subject to (1) their fitness, (2) the wishes
of the people, (3) the approval of the Bishop of Alexandria. The terms
were mild, and even the gentle nature of Alexander seems to have feared
that immediate peace might have been purchased at the expense of future
trouble (his successor openly blames the compromise, p. 131, and more
strongly p. 137); accordingly, before carrying out the settlement he
required Meletius to draw up an exact list of his clergy at the time of
the council, so as to bar an indefinite multiplication of claims.
Meletius, who must have been even less pleased with the settlement than
his metropolitan, seems to have taken his time. At last nothing would
satisfy both parties but the personal presentation of the Meletian
bishops from all Egypt, and of their clergy from Alexandria itself, to Alexander (p. 137,
τούτους
καὶ παρόντας
παρέδωκεν τῷ
᾽Αλεξάνδρῳ),
who was thus enabled to check the Brevium or schedule handed in
by their chief13
13 It is
worth noting that the Nicene arrangement was successful in some few
cases. See Index to this vol. s.v. Theon (of Nilopolis),
&c. | . All this must have taken a long time
after Alexander’s return, and the peace was soon broken by his
death.
Five months after the conclusion of the
negotiations, Alexander having now died, the flame of schism broke out
afresh (infr. p. 131. Montfaucon, in Migne xxv. p. lvii., shews
conclusively that the above is the meaning of the μῆνας
πέντε.) On his death-bed, Alexander
called for Athanasius. He was away from Alexandria, but the other
deacon of that name (see signatures p. 71), stepped forward in answer
to the call. But without noticing him, the Bishop repeated the name,
adding, ‘You think to escape, but it cannot be.’ (Sozom.
ii. 17.) Alexander had already written his Easter Letter for the year
328 (it was apparently still extant at the end of the century, p. 503).
He died on April 17 of that year (Pharmuthi 22), and on the eighth of
June Athanasius was chosen bishop in his stead. E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|