_THE COUNCIL OF NICÆA._
[Sidenote: State of the Empire.]
For nearly twenty years after the middle of the third century, the Roman
Empire seemed given over to destruction. It is hard to say whether the
provinces suffered more from the inroads of barbarians who ravaged them
almost at their will, or from the exactions of a mutinous soldiery who
set up an emperor for almost every army; yet both calamities were
surpassed by the horrors of a pestilence which swept away the larger
part of mankind. There was little hope in an effete polytheism, still
less in a corrupt and desponding society. The emperors could not even
make head against their foreign enemies. Decius was killed in battle
with the Goths, Valerian captured by the Persians. But the Teuton was
not yet ready to be the heir of the world. Valerian left behind a school
of generals who were able, even in those evil days, to restore the
Empire to something like its former splendour. Claudius began by
breaking the power of the Goths at Naissus in 269. Aurelian (270-275)
made a firm peace with the Goths, and also recovered the provinces.
Tetricus and Zenobia, the Gaulish Cæsar and the Syrian queen, adorned
the triumph of their conqueror. The next step was for Diocletian
(284-305) to reform the civil power and reduce the army to obedience.
Unfortunately his division of the Empire into more manageable parts led
to a series of civil wars, which lasted till its reunion by Constantine
in 323. His religious policy was a still worse failure. Instead of
seeing in Christianity the one remaining hope of mankind, he set himself
at the end of his reign to stamp it out, and left his successors to
finish the hopeless task. Here again Constantine repaired Diocletian's
error. The edict of Milan in 312 put an end to the great persecution,
and a policy of increasing favour soon removed all danger of Christian
disaffection.
[Sidenote: Constantine.]
When Constantine stood out before the world as the patron of the gospel,
he felt bound to settle the question of Arianism. In some ways he was
well qualified for the task. There can be no doubt of his ability and
earnestness, or of his genuine interest in Christianity. In political
skill he was an overmatch for Diocletian, and his military successes
were unequalled since the triumph of Aurelian. The heathens saw in him
the restorer of the Empire, the Christians their deliverer from
persecution. Even the feeling of a divine mission, which laid him so
open to flattery, gave him also a keen desire to remedy the social
misery around him; and in this he looked for help to Christianity.
Amidst the horrors of Diocletian's persecution a conviction grew upon
him that the power which fought the Empire with success must somehow
come from the Supreme. Thus he slowly learned to recognise the God of
the Christians in his father's God, and in the Sun-god's cross of light
to see the cross of Christ. But in Christianity itself he found little
more than a confirmation of natural religion. Therefore, with all his
interest in the churches, he could not reach the secret of their inner
life. Their imposing monotheism he fully appreciated, but the person of
the Lord was surely a minor question. Constantine shared the heathen
feelings of his time, so that the gospel to him was only a monotheistic
heathenism. Thus Arianism came up to his idea of it, and the whole
controversy seemed a mere affair of words.
[Sidenote: His view of the controversy.]
But if he had no theological interest in the question, he could not
overlook its political importance. Egypt was always a difficult province
to manage; and if these Arian songs caused a bloody tumult in
Alexandria, he could not let the Christians fight out their quarrels in
the streets, as the Jews were used to do. The Donatists had given him
trouble enough over a disputed election in Africa, and he did not want a
worse than Donatist quarrel in Egypt. Nor was the danger confined to
Egypt; it had already spread through the East. The unity of Christendom
was at peril, and with it the support which the shattered Empire looked
for from an undivided church. The state could treat with a definite
organisation of churches, but not with miscellaneous gatherings of
sectaries. The question must therefore be settled one way or the other,
and settled at once. Which way it was decided mattered little, so that
an end was made of the disturbance.
[Sidenote: His first attempt to settle it.]
In this temper Constantine approached the difficulty. His first step was
to send Hosius of Cordova to Alexandria with a letter to Alexander and
Arius representing the question as a battle of words about mysteries
beyond our reach. In the words of a modern writer, 'It was the excess of
dogmatism founded upon the most abstract words in the most abstract
region of human thought.' It had all arisen out of an over-curious
question asked by Alexander, and a rash answer given by Arius. It was a
childish quarrel and unworthy of sensible men like them, besides being
very distressing to himself. Had the dispute been really trifling, such
a letter might have had a chance of quieting it. Instead of this, the
excitement grew worse.
[Sidenote: Summons of the council.]
Constantine enlarged his plans. If Arian doctrine disturbed Alexandria,
Meletius of Lycopolis was giving quite as much trouble about discipline
farther up the Nile, and the old disputes about the time of Easter had
never been effectually settled. There were also minor questions about
the validity of baptism administered by the followers of Novatian and
Paul of Samosata, and about the treatment of those who had denied the
faith during the persecution of Licinius. Constantine, therefore,
invited all Christian bishops inside and outside the Empire to meet him
at Nicæa in Bithynia during the summer of 325, in order to make a final
end of all the disputes which endangered the unity of Christendom. The
'city of victory' bore an auspicious name, and the restoration of peace
was a holy service, and would be a noble preparation for the solemnities
of the great Emperor's twentieth year upon the throne.
[Sidenote: The first oecumenical council.]
The idea of a general or oecumenical council (the words mean the same
thing) may well have been Constantine's own. It bears the mark of a
statesman's mind, and is of a piece with the rest of his life.
Constantine was not thinking only of the questions to be debated.
However these might be settled, the meeting could not fail to draw
nearer to the state and to each other the churches of that great
confederation which later ages have so often mistaken for the church of
Christ. As regards Arianism, smaller councils had been a frequent means
of settling smaller questions. Though Constantine had not been able to
quiet the Donatists by means of the Council of Arles, he might fairly
hope that the authority of such a gathering as this would bear down all
resistance. If he could only bring the bishops to some decision, the
churches might be trusted to follow it.
[Sidenote: Its members.]
An imposing list of bishops answered Constantine's call. The signatures
are 223, but they are not complete. The Emperor speaks of 300, and
tradition gives 318, like the number of Abraham's servants, or like the
mystic number[5] which stands for the cross of Christ. From the far west
came his chief adviser for the Latin churches, the patriarch of
councils, the old confessor Hosius of Cordova. Africa was represented by
Cæcilian of Carthage, round whose election the whole Donatist
controversy had arisen, and a couple of presbyters answered for the
apostolic and imperial see of Rome. Of the thirteen great provinces of
the Empire none was missing except distant Britain; but the Western
bishops were almost lost in the crowd of Easterns. From Egypt came
Alexander of Alexandria with his young deacon Athanasius, and the Coptic
confessors Paphnutius and Potammon, each with an eye seared out, came
from cities farther up the Nile. All these were resolute enemies of
Arianism; its only Egyptian supporters were two bishops from the edge of
the western desert. Syria was less unequally divided. If Eustathius of
Antioch and Macarius of Ælia (we know that city better as Jerusalem)
were on Alexander's side, the bishops of Tyre and Laodicea with the
learned Eusebius of Cæsarea leaned the other way or took a middle
course. Altogether there were about a dozen more or less decided
Arianizers thinly scattered over the country from the slopes of Taurus
to the Jordan valley. Of the Pontic bishops we need notice only
Marcellus of Ancyra and the confessor Paul of Neocæsarea. Arianism had
no friends in Pontus to our knowledge, and Marcellus was the busiest of
its enemies. Among the Asiatics, however, there was a small but
influential group of Arianizers, disciples of Lucian like Arius himself.
Chief of these was Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was rather a court
politician than a student like his namesake of Cæsarea, and might be
expected to influence the Emperor as much as any one. With him went the
bishops of Ephesus and Nicæa itself, and Maris of Chalcedon. The Greeks
of Europe were few and unimportant, but on the outskirts of the Empire
we find some names of great interest. James of Nisibis represented the
old Syrian churches which spoke the Lord's own native language. Restaces
the Armenian could remind the bishops that Armenia was in Christ before
Rome, and had fought the persecutors in their cause. Theophilus the Goth
might tell them the modest beginnings of Teutonic Christianity among his
countrymen of the Crimean undercliff. John the Persian, who came from
one or another of the many distant regions which bore the name of India,
may dimly remind ourselves of the great Nestorian missions which one day
were to make the Christian name a power in Northern China. Little as
Eusebius of Cæsarea liked some issues of the council, he is full of
genuine enthusiasm over his majestic roll of churches far and near, from
the extremity of Europe to the farthest ends of Asia. Not without the
Holy Spirit's guidance did that august assembly meet. Nor was its
meeting a day of hope for the churches only, but also for the weary
Empire. In that great crisis the deep despair of ages was forgotten. It
might be that the power which had overcome the world could also cure its
ancient sickness. Little as men could see into the issues of the future,
the meaning of the present was beyond mistake. The new world faced the
old, and all was ready for the league which joined the names of Rome and
Christendom, and made the sway of Christ and Cæsar one.
[Footnote 5: 318; in Greek [Greek: tiê].]
[Sidenote: The idea of a test creed.]
It seems to have been understood that the council was to settle the
question by drawing up a creed as a test for bishops. Here was a twofold
novelty. In the first place, Christendom as a whole had as yet no
written creed at all. The so-called Apostles' Creed may be older than
340, but then it first appears, and only as a personal confession of the
heretic Marcellus. Every church taught its catechumens the historic
outlines of the faith, and referred to Scripture as the storehouse and
final test of doctrine. But that doctrine was not embodied in forms of
more than local currency. Thus different churches had varying creeds to
form the basis of the catechumen's teaching, and placed varying
professions in his mouth at baptism. Some of these were ancient, and
some of widespread use, and all were much alike, for all were couched in
Scripture language, variously modelled on the Lord's baptismal formula
(Matt. xxviii. 19). At Jerusalem, for example, the candidate declared
his faith:
in the Father;
in the Son;
in the Holy Spirit;
and in one Baptism of Repentance.
The Roman form, as approximately given by Novatian
in the middle of the third century, was,
I believe in God the Father,
the Lord Almighty;
in Christ Jesus his Son,
the Lord our God;
and in the Holy Spirit.
Though these local usages were not disturbed, it was none the less a
momentous step to draw up a document for all the churches. Its use as a
test for bishops was a further innovation. Purity of doctrine was for a
long time guarded by Christian public opinion. If a bishop taught
novelties, the neighbouring churches (not the clergy only) met in
conference on them, and refused his communion if they proved unsound. Of
late years these conferences had been growing into formal councils of
bishops, and the legal recognition of the churches by Gallienus
[Sidenote: c. 261.] had enabled them to take the further step of
deposing false teachers. Aurelian had sanctioned this in the case of
Paul of Samosata by requiring communion with the bishops of Rome and
Italy as the legal test of Christian orthodoxy. [Sidenote: 272.] But
there were practical difficulties in this plan of government by
councils. A strong party might dispute the sentence, or even get up
rival councils to reverse it. The African Donatists had given
Constantine trouble enough of this sort some years before; and now that
the Arians were following their example, it was evident that every local
quarrel would have an excellent chance of becoming a general
controversy. In the interest, therefore, of peace and unity, it seemed
better to adopt a written test. If a bishop was willing to sign it when
asked, his subscription should be taken as a full reply to every charge
of heresy which might be made against him. On this plan, whatever was
left out of the creed would be deliberately left an open question in the
churches. Whatever a bishop might choose to teach (Arianism, for
example), he would have full protection, unless some clause of the new
creed expressly shut it out. This is a point which must be kept in view
when we come to estimate the conduct of Athanasius. Thus however
Constantine hoped to make the bishops keep the peace over such trumpery
questions as this of Arianism seemed to him. Had it been a trumpery
question, his policy might have had some chance of lasting success. For
the moment, at any rate, all parties accepted it, so that the council
had only to settle the wording of the new creed.
[Sidenote: Arianism condemned.]
The Arians must have come full of hope to the council. So far theirs was
the winning side. They had a powerful friend at court in the Emperor's
sister, Constantia, and an influential connection in the learned
Lucianic circle. Reckoning also on the natural conservatism of Christian
bishops, on the timidity of some, and on the simplicity or ignorance of
others, they might fairly expect that if their doctrine was not accepted
by the council, it would at least escape formal condemnation. They
hoped, however, to carry all before them. An Arianizing creed was
therefore presented by a score or so of bishops, headed by the courtier
Eusebius of Nicomedia. They soon found their mistake. The Lord's
divinity was not an open question in the churches. The bishops raised an
angry clamour and tore the offensive creed in pieces. Arius was at once
abandoned by nearly all his friends.
[Sidenote: Eusebius proposes the creed of Cæsarea.]
This was decisive. Arianism was condemned almost unanimously, and
nothing remained but to put on record the decision. But here began the
difficulty. Marcellus and Athanasius wanted it put into the creed, but
the bishops in general saw no need of this. A heresy so easily overcome
could not be very dangerous. There were only half a dozen Arians left in
the council, and too precise a definition might lead to dangers on the
Sabellian side. At this point the historian Eusebius came forward.
Though neither a great man nor a clear thinker, he was the most learned
student of the East. He had been a confessor in the persecution, and now
occupied an important see, and stood high in the Emperor's favour. With
regard to doctrine, he held a sort of intermediate position, regarding
the Lord not indeed as a creature, but as a secondary God derived from
the will of the Father. This, as we have seen, was the idea then current
in the East, that it is possible to find some middle term between the
creature and the highest deity. To a man of this sort it seemed natural
to fall back on the authority of some older creed, such as all could
sign. He therefore laid before the council that of his own church of
Cæsarea, as follows:--
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
maker of all things, both visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Word of God,
God from God,
light from light,
life from life,
the only-begotten Son,
the first-born of all creation,
begotten of the Father before all ages,--
by whom also all things were made;
who for our salvation was made flesh,
and lived among men,
and suffered,
and rose again the third day,
and ascended to the Father,
and shall come again in glory, to judge quick
and dead;
And in the Holy Spirit.
Had the council been drawing up a creed for popular use, a short and
simple document of this kind would have been suitable enough. The
undecided bishops received it with delight. It contained none of the
vexatious technical terms which had done all the mischief--nothing but
familiar Scripture, which the least learned of them could understand. So
far as Arianism might mean to deny the Lord's divinity, it was clearly
condemned already, and the whole question might now be safely left at
rest behind the ambiguities of the Cæsarean creed. So it was accepted at
once. Marcellus himself could find no fault with its doctrine, and the
Arians were glad now to escape a direct condemnation. But unanimity of
this sort, which really decided nothing, was not what Athanasius and
Marcellus wanted. They had not come to the council to haggle over
compromises, but to cast out the blasphemer, and they were resolved to
do it effectually.
[Sidenote: Persistence of Athanasius.]
Hardly a more momentous resolution can be found in history. The whole
future of Christianity was determined by it; and we must fairly face the
question whether Athanasius was right or not. Would it not have been
every way better to rest satisfied with the great moral victory already
gained? When heathens were pressing into the church in crowds, was that
a suitable time to offend them with a solemn proclamation of the very
doctrine which chiefly kept them back? It was, moreover, a dangerous
policy to insist on measures for which even Christian opinion was not
ripe, and it led directly to the gravest troubles in the
churches--troubles of which no man then living was to see the end. The
first half century of prelude was a war of giants; but the main contest
opened at Nicæa is not ended yet, or like to end before the Lord himself
shall come to end it. It was the decision of Athanasius which made half
the bitterness between the Roman and the Teuton, between Christianity
and Islam to this day. Even now it is the worst stumbling-block of
Western unbelief. Many of our most earnest enemies would gladly forget
their enmity if we would only drop our mysticism and admire with them a
human Christ who never rose with power from the dead. But we may not do
this thing. Christianity cannot make its peace with this world by
dropping that message from the other which is its only reason for
existence. Athanasius was clearly right. When Constantine had fairly put
the question, they could not refuse to answer. Let the danger be what it
might, they could not deliberately leave it open for Christian bishops
(the creed was not for others) to dispute whether our Lord is truly God
or not. Those may smile to whom all revelation is a vain thing; but it
is our life, and we believe it is their own life too. If there is truth
or even meaning in the gospel, this question of all others is most
surely vital. Nor has history failed to justify Athanasius. That heathen
age was no time to trifle with heathenism in the very citadel of
Christian life. Fresh from the fiery trial of the last great
persecution, whose scarred and mutilated veterans were sprinkled through
the council-hall, the church of God was entering on a still mightier
conflict with the spirit of the world. If their fathers had been
faithful unto death or saved a people from the world, their sons would
have to save the world itself and tame its Northern conquerors. Was that
a time to say of Christ, 'But as for this man, we know not whence he
is'?
[Sidenote: Revision of the Cæsarean creed.]
Athanasius and his friends made a virtue of necessity, and disconcerted
the plans of Eusebius by promptly accepting his creed. They were now
able to propose a few amendments in it, and in this way they meant to
fight out the controversy. It was soon found impossible to avoid a
searching revision. Ill-compacted clauses invited rearrangement, and
older churches, like Jerusalem or Antioch, might claim to share with
Cæsarea the honour of giving a creed to the whole of Christendom.
Moreover, several of the Cæsarean phrases seemed to favour the opinions
which the bishops had agreed to condemn. 'First-born of all creation'
does not necessarily mean more than that he existed before other things
were made. 'Begotten before all worlds' is just as ambiguous, or rather
worse, for the Arians understood 'begotten' to mean 'created.' Again,
'was made flesh' left it unsettled whether the Lord took anything more
than a human body. These were serious defects, and the bishops could not
refuse to amend them. After much careful work, the following was the
form adopted:--
[Sidenote: The Nicene Creed.]
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
maker of all things, both visible and invisible;
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
begotten of the Father, an only-begotten--
that is, from the essence (_ousia_) of the Father
God from God,
light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
being of one essence (_homoousion_) with the Father,
by whom all things were made,
both things in heaven and things on earth:
who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh,
was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day,
ascended into heaven,
cometh to judge quick and dead;
And in the Holy Spirit.
But those who say that
'there was once when he was not,' and
'before he was begotten he was not,' and
'he was made of things that were not,'
or maintain that the Son of God is of a different essence
(_hypostasis or ousia_[6])
or created or subject to moral change or alteration--
these doth the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematize.
[Footnote 6: The two words are used as synonyms.]
[Sidenote: Its doctrine.]
It will be seen that the genuine Nicene Creed here given differs in
almost every clause from the so-called Nicene Creed of our Communion
Service. Leaving, however, the spurious Nicene Creed till we come to it,
let us see how the genuine Nicene Creed dealt with Arianism. Its central
phrases are the two which refer to essence. Now the _essence_ of a thing
is that by which it is what we suppose it to be. We look at it from
various points of view, and ascribe to it first one quality and then
another. Its _essence_ from any one of these successive points of view
is that by which it possesses the corresponding quality. About this
unknown something we make no assertion, so that we are committed to no
theory whatever. Thus the _essence_ of the Father _as God_ (for this was
the point of view) is that unknown and incommunicable something by which
He is God. If therefore we explain St. John's 'an only-begotten who is
God'[7] inserting 'that is, from the _essence_ of the Father,' we
declare that the Divine Sonship is no accident of will, but belongs to
the divine nature. It is not an outside matter of creation or adoption,
but (so to speak) an organic relation inside that nature. The Father is
no more God without the Son than the Son is God without the Father.
Again, if we confess him to be _of one essence_ with the Father, we
declare him the common possessor with the Father of the one essence
which no creature can share, and thus ascribe to him the highest deity
in words which allow no evasion or reserve. The two phrases, however,
are complementary. _From the essence_ makes a clear distinction: _of one
essence_ lays stress on the unity. The word had a Sabellian history, and
was used by Marcellus in a Sabellian sense, so that it was justly
discredited as Sabellian. Had it stood alone, the creed would have been
Sabellian; but at Nicæa it was checked by _from the essence_. When the
later Nicenes, under Semiarian influence, came to give the word another
meaning, the check was wisely removed.
[Footnote 7: John i. 18 (the best reading, and certainly familiar in the
Nicene age).]
[Sidenote: Its caution.]
Upon the whole, the creed is a cautious document. Though Arianism is
attacked again in the clause _was made man_, which states that the Lord
took something more than a human body, there is no attempt to forestall
later controversies by a further definition of the meaning of the
incarnation. The abrupt pause after the mention of the Holy Spirit is
equally significant, for the nature of his divinity was still an open
question. Even the heretics are not cursed, for anathema in the Nicene
age was no more than the penalty which to a layman was equivalent to the
deposition of a cleric. It meant more when it was launched against the
dead two hundred years later.
[Sidenote: Arian objections.]
Our accounts of the debate are very fragmentary. Eusebius passes over an
unpleasant subject, and Athanasius up and down his writings only tells
us what he wants for his immediate purpose. Thus we cannot trace many of
the Arian objections to the creed. Knowing, however, as we do that they
were carefully discussed, we may presume that they were the standing
difficulties of the next generation. These were four in number:--
(1.) 'From the essence' and 'of one essence' are materialist
expressions, implying either that the Son is a separate part of the
essence of the Father, or that there is some third essence prior to
both. This objection was a difficulty in the East, and still more in the
West, where 'essence' was represented by the materializing word
_substantia_, from which we get our unfortunate translation 'of one
substance.'
(2.) 'Of one essence' is Sabellian. This was true; and the defenders of
the word did not seem to care if it was true. Marcellus almost certainly
used incautious language, and it was many years before even Athanasius
was fully awake to the danger from the Sabellian side.
(3.) The words 'essence' and 'of one essence' are not found in
Scripture. This is what seems to have influenced the bishops most of
all.
(4.) 'Of one essence' is contrary to church authority. This also was
true, for the word had been rejected as materializing by a large council
held at Antioch in 269 against Paul of Samosata. The point, however, at
present raised was not that it had been rejected for a good reason, but
simply that it had been rejected; and this is an appeal to church
authority in the style of later times. The question was one of Scripture
against church authority. Both parties indeed accepted Scripture as
supreme, but when they differed in its interpretation, the Arians
pleaded that a word not sanctioned by church authority could not be made
a test of orthodoxy. If tradition gave them a foothold (and none could
deny it), they thought themselves entitled to stay; if Scripture
condemned them (and there could be no doubt of that), Athanasius thought
himself bound to turn them out. It was on the ground of Scripture that
the fathers of Nicæa took their stand, and the works of Athanasius, from
first to last, are one continuous appeal to Scripture. In this case he
argues that if the disputed word is not itself Scripture, its meaning
is. This was quite enough; but if the Arians chose to drag in
antiquarian questions, they might easily be met on that ground also, for
the word had been used or recognised by Origen and others at Alexandria.
With regard to its rejection by the Syrian churches, he refuses all
mechanical comparisons of date or numbers between the councils of
Antioch and Nicæa, and endeavours to show that while Paul of Samosata
had used the word in one sense, Arius denied it in another.
[Sidenote: Hesitation of the council.]
The council paused. The confessors in particular were an immense
conservative force. If Hosius and Eustathius had been forward in
attacking Arianism, few of them can have greatly wished to re-state the
faith which had sustained them in their trial. Now the creed involved
something like a revolution. The idea of a universal test was in itself
a great change, best softened as much as might be. The insertion of a
direct condemnation of Arianism was a still more serious step, and
though the bishops had consented to it, they had not consented without
misgiving. But when it was proposed to use a word of doubtful tendency,
neither found in Scripture nor sanctioned by church authority, it would
have been strange if they had not looked round for some escape.
[Sidenote: Arian evasions.]
Yet what escape was possible? Scripture can be used as a test if its
authority is called in question, but not when its meaning is disputed.
If the Arians were to be excluded, it was useless to put into the creed
the very words whose plain meaning they were charged with evading.
Athanasius gives an interesting account of this stage of the debate. It
appears that when the bishops collected phrases from Scripture and set
down that the Son is 'of God,' those wicked Arians said to each other,
'We can sign that, for we ourselves also are of God. Is it not written,
All things are of God?'[8] So when the bishops saw their impious
ingenuity, they put it more clearly, that the Son is not only of God
like the creatures, but of the essence of God. And this was the reason
why the word 'essence' was put into the creed. Again, the Arians were
asked if they would confess that the Son is not a creature, but the
power and eternal image of the Father and true God. Instead of giving a
straightforward answer, they were caught whispering to each other. 'This
is true of ourselves, for we men are called the image and glory of
God.[9] We too are eternal, for we who live are always.[10] And powers
of God are many. Is He not the Lord of powers (hosts)? The locust and
the caterpillar are actually "my great power which I sent among
you."[11] He is true God also, for he became true God as soon as he was
created.' These were the evasions which compelled the bishops to sum up
the sense of Scripture in the statement that the Son is of one essence
with the Father.
[Footnote 8: 1 Cor. viii. 6.]
[Footnote 9: 1 Cor. xi. 7.]
[Footnote 10: 2 Cor. iv. 11; the impudence of the quotation is worth
notice.]
[Footnote 11: Joel ii. 25 (army).]
[Sidenote: Acceptance of the creed.]
So far Athanasius. The longer the debate went on, the clearer it became
that the meaning of Scripture could not be defined without going outside
Scripture for words to define it. In the end, they all signed except a
few. Many, however, signed with misgivings, and some almost avowedly as
a formality to please the Emperor. 'The soul is none the worse for a
little ink.' It is not a pleasant scene for the historian.
[Sidenote: The letter of Eusebius.]
Eusebius of Cæsarea was sorely disappointed. Instead of giving a creed
to Christendom, he received back his confession in a form which at first
he could not sign at all. There was some ground for his complaint that,
under pretence of inserting the single word of _one essence_, which our
wise and godly Emperor so admirably explained, the bishops had in effect
drawn up a composition of their own. It was a venerable document of
stainless orthodoxy, and they had laid rude hands on almost every clause
of it. Instead of a confession which secured the assent of all parties
by deciding nothing, they forced on him a stringent condemnation, not
indeed of his own belief, but of opinions held by many of his friends,
and separated by no clear logical distinction from his own. But now was
he to sign or not? Eusebius was not one of the hypocrites, and would not
sign till his scruples were satisfied. He tells us them in a letter to
the people of his diocese, which he wrote under the evident feeling that
his signature needed some apology. First he gives their own Cæsarean
creed, and protests his unchanged adherence to it. Then he relates its
unanimous acceptance, subject to the insertion of the single word _of
one essence_, which Constantine explained to be directed against
materializing and unspiritual views of the divine generation. But it
emerged from the debates in so altered a form that he could not sign it
without careful examination. His first scruple was at _of the essence of
the Father_, which was explained as not meant to imply any materializing
separation. So, for the sake of peace, he was willing to accept it, as
well as _of one essence_, now that he could do it with a good
conscience. Similarly, _begotten, not made_, was explained to mean that
the Son has nothing in common with the creatures made by him, but is of
a higher essence, ineffably begotten of the Father. So also, on careful
consideration, _of one essence with the Father_ implies no more than the
uniqueness of the Son's generation, and his distinctness from the
creatures. Other expressions prove equally innocent.
[Sidenote: Constantine's interference.]
Now that a general agreement had been reached, it was time for
Constantine to interpose. He had summoned the council as a means of
union, and enforced his exhortation to harmony by burning the letters of
recrimination which the bishops had presented to him. To that text he
still adhered. He knew too little of the controversy to have any very
strong personal opinion, and the influences which might have guided him
were divided. If Hosius of Cordova leaned to the Athanasian side,
Eusebius of Nicomedia was almost Arian. If Constantine had any feeling
in the matter--dislike, for example, of the popularity of Arius--he was
shrewd enough not to declare it too hastily. If he tried to force a view
of his own on the undecided bishops, he might offend half Christendom;
but if he waited for the strongest force inside the council to assert
itself, he might safely step in at the end to coerce the recusants.
Therefore whatever pleased the council pleased the Emperor too. When
they tore up the Arian creed, he approved. When they accepted the
Cæsarean, he approved again. When the morally strong Athanasian minority
urged the council to put in the disputed clauses, Constantine did his
best to smooth the course of the debate. At last, always in the interest
of unity, he proceeded to put pressure on the few who still held out.
Satisfactory explanations were given to Eusebius of Cæsarea, and in the
end they all signed but the two Egyptian Arians, Secundus of Ptolemais
and Theonas of Marmarica. These were sent into exile, as well as Arius
himself; and a qualified subscription from Eusebius of Nicomedia only
saved him for the moment. An imperial rescript also branded the
heretic's followers with the name of Porphyrians, and ordered his
writings to be burnt. The concealment of a copy was to be a capital
offence.
[Sidenote: Close of the council.]
Other subjects decided by the council will not detain us long, though
some of its members may have thought one or two of them quite as
important as Arianism. The old Easter question was settled in favour of
the Roman custom of observing, not the day of the Jewish passover in
memory of the crucifixion, but a later Sunday in memory of the
resurrection. For how, explains Constantine--how could we who are
Christians possibly keep the same day as those wicked Jews? The council,
however, was right on the main point, that the feasts of Christian
worship are not to be tied to those of Judaism. The third great subject
for discussion was the Meletian schism in Egypt, and this was settled by
a liberal compromise. The Meletian presbyter might act alone if there
was no orthodox presbyter in the place, otherwise he was to be a
coadjutor with a claim to succeed if found worthy. Athanasius (at least
in later times) would have preferred severer measures, and more than
once refers to these with unconcealed disgust. The rest of the business
disposed of, Constantine dismissed the bishops with a splendid feast,
which Eusebius enthusiastically likens to the kingdom of heaven.
[Sidenote: Results of the council.]
Let us now sum up the results of the council, so far as they concern
Arianism. In one sense they were decisive. Arianism was so sharply
condemned by the all but unanimous voice of Christendom, that nearly
thirty years had to pass before it was openly avowed again. Conservative
feeling in the West was engaged in steady defence of the great council;
and even in the East its doctrine could be made to wear a conservative
aspect as the actual faith of Christendom. On the other hand, were
serious drawbacks. The triumph was rather a surprise than a solid
victory. As it was a revolution which a minority had forced through by
sheer strength of clearer thought, a reaction was inevitable when the
half-convinced majority returned home. In other words, Athanasius had
pushed the Easterns farther than they wished to go, and his victory
recoiled on himself. But he could not retreat when once he had put the
disputed words into the creed. Come what might, those words were
irreversible. And if it was a dangerous policy which won the victory,
the use made of it was deplorable. Though the exile of Arius and his
friends was Constantine's work, much of the discredit must fall on the
Athanasian leaders, for we cannot find that they objected to it either
at the time or afterwards. It seriously embittered the controversy. If
the Nicenes set the example of persecution, the other side improved on
it till the whole contest threatened to degenerate into a series of
personal quarrels and retaliations. The process was only checked by the
common hatred of all parties to Julian, and by the growth of a better
spirit among the Nicenes, as shown in the later writings of Athanasius.