Page images
PDF
EPUB

from the sacred writings, where the Son is called splendor, fountain, river, and figure of the substance; and quoted the words "in thy light shall we see light," and "I and my Father are one." Finally, they explained themselves with more clearness and brevity, in declaring that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, making use of the Greek word quoouros, which this dispute has since rendered so celebrated, as expressive of the meaning of the terms and passages which have been cited. It was understood to signify that the Son is not only like the Father, but so similar that he may be called with propriety the same; and implies that the resemblance and immutability of the Son is different from that which is affirmed of us, and which we acquire by the practice of virtue, and the observation of the divine commands. Besides, bodies which have a resemblance only, may be separate and distant; as a father and a son, however great may be the likeness between them. But the Son of God was considered not only similar to the substance of the Father, but inseparable from it, the Word being always in the Father, and the Father in the Word.

The Arians rejected with murmurings and contempt the term consubstantial, complaining that it was not to be found in the Scriptures, and might be taken in a very exceptionable sense. For, they remarked, that which is of the same substance with another is derived from it in one of these three modes; by production, as a plant from its root; by fluxion, as children from their fathers; or by division, as in abstracting three or four pieces from a mass, for instance, of gold.* The Catholics explained so happily the term consubstantial, that the emperor himself, little as we may suppose him to have been familiar, from his education and military habits of life, with theological inquiries, perceived that it did not include any corporeal idea, no division being signified of the substance of the Father, which is altogether immaterial and divine, and must therefore be understood only in a divine and ineffable manner. They demonstrated the

Basil, Epist. 300.

injustice of their opponents, in objecting to this word, on the pretence that it is not to be found in Scripture, when they themselves scrupled not to employ expressions, which are not in the sacred writings, such as, that the Son of God was made from nothing, and had not always existed. They added, that the term consubstantial was not a new one, and that it had been used by illustrious bishops of Rome and Alexandria in opposing those who represented that the Son was a work, or creation. Eusebius of Cesarea himself acknowledges this.* It was insisted by some, that the word consubstantial had been objected to, as improper, in the council of Antioch, which was held against Paul of Samosata. But this, it was asserted, was because it had been taken in a gross manner, as implying division, as when it is said that several pieces of money are of the same metal. But the only question in reference to Paul, was to show that the Son was before all things, and that, being the Word, he was made flesh; whereas the Arians admit that he was before all time, maintaining, however, that he was made, and that he was one of the creatures. They declared that his resemblance to, and union with, the Father, was not with regard to his substance or nature, but in a conformity of will and counsel.†

After the word consubstantial, and others the best adapted to express the catholic faith, were agreed on, Hosius, according to Athanasius, drew up the form, as recorded in the letter of Eusebius. All the bishops approved of this symbol and subscribed it, with the exception of a small number of Arians. At first, there were seventeen who refused to subscribe, but the number was afterwards reduced to five, viz. Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nice, Maris of Calcedon, Theonas and Secundus of Lybia. Eusebius of Cesarea agreed to the word consubstantial,

* Documents, E.

+ By comparing the above sketch of the debate on this subject, derived from Athanasius and others, with the account of it given in the letter of Eusebius of Cesarea, (Doc. E.) which is somewhat different, if not in certain particulars contradictory, the intelligent reader may be the better enabled to elicit the truth. * Socrates, I. 8.

Three of the five

after having opposed it the preceding day. who have been named conceded the point at last, from the fear of deposition. Theonas and Secundus only, continued obsti nately attached to Arius, and the Synod anathematized them with him. The writings of Arius were condemned at the same time with himself, and particularly his Thalia. †

The question relating to the observance of Easter, which was agitated in the time of Anicetus and Polycarp, and afterwards in that of Victor, was still undecided. It was one of the principal reasons for convoking the council of Nice, being the most important subject to be considered after the Arian controversy. It appears that the churches of Syria and Mesopotamia continued to follow the custom of the Jews, and celebrated Easter on the fourteenth day of the moon, whether falling on Sunday or not. All the other churches observed that solemnity on Sunday only, viz. those of Rome, Italy, Africa, Lybia, Egypt, Spain, Gaul and Britain; and all Greece, Asia, and Pontus. It was considered indecorous, and as affording occasion of scandal to unbelievers, that while some were engaged in fasting and penitence, others should be indulging in festivity and relaxation.

This subject having been discussed, it was decreed to celebrate Easter on the same day, and the oriental prelates promis

Philostorgius, an Arian historian, of whose work an epitome is extant by Photius, acknowledges that all the bishops agreed to the Nicene Creed, with the exception of Secundus and Theonas. But the Arian prelates who embraced the decision of the council, artfully concealed under the word ouoovoιor the term quotovator, the former signifying of the same substance, and differing in orthogra phy only by a letter from the latter, which means like, or similar. The course they adopted (in assenting to the decrees of the council,) was by the suggestion of Constantia, sister of the emperor. Phil. L. I. 8.

+ It was a chant set to the same measure and music as the infamous songs formerly composed for convivial occasions by Sotades, a Greek poet, proverbial for his flagrant immoralities. This was sufficient to render it odious, to say nothing of the erroneous opinions which it contained, for Arius had incorporated into it the substance of his doctrines. He composed several other airs, to insinuate his opin. ions more agreeably into vulgar and uncultivated minds. Some of them were intended for travellers, sailors, and millers. See Phil. L. I. 2.

ed to conform to the practice of Rome, of Egypt, and of all the West. St. Athanasius remarks a difference of language, in pronouncing on this subject, from that which was used in reference to the faith. With respect to the latter it is said, "this is the catholic faith, we believe," &c., in order to show that it was no new determination, but an apostolic tradition. Accordingly, no date is given to this decision, neither the day nor the year being mentioned. But with regard to Easter, it is said, “we have resolved as follows," in order to show that all were expected to obey.* Easter day was fixed on the Sunday immediately following the new moon which was nearest after the vernal equinox, because it is certain that our Saviour rose from the dead on the Sunday which next succeeded the passover of the Jews. In order to find more readily the first day of the moon, and consequently the fourteenth, the council ordained that the cycle of nineteen years should be made use of, because at the end of this period, the new moons return very nearly to the same days of the solar year. This cycle, which is denominated, in Greek, Εννεακαιδεκαετήςις, had been discovered about seven hundred and fifty years before, by Meto, a mathematician of Athens, and it has since been termed the golden number, because it was customary to mark in the calendar, with letters of gold, the days of the new moon. It has been thought that the synod assigned the task of this calculation to Eusebius of Cesarea. It is certain, however, that he had composed a paschal canon of nineteen years, and that he had explained the nature and origin of this question in a treatise dedicated to the emperor Constantine, who gave him thanks for it in a letter. But notwithstanding the decision of the council there were some quartodecimans, as they were termed, who remained pertinaciously attached to the celebration of Easter on the fourteenth of the moon, and among others the Audeans, schismatics of Mesopotamia. They found fault with the council, reproachfully remarking, that this was

*Synod. Arim. et Seleuc. Epist. p. 873.

the first time that the ancient tradition, through complaisance for Constantine, had been departed from.

The Synod was also desirous of applying a remedy to the schism of the Meletians, who had occasioned a division in Egypt for twenty-four years, and who encouraged the Arians by their union with the party. Meletius was treated with considerable lenity—more, it was thought, than he deserved. He was permitted to continue in Lycopolis, the city of his residence, but was deprived of his ecclesiastical powers and authority, being merely permitted to retain the title of bishop. But the reader is referred to the synodical epistle* for the particulars in relation to Meletius, and those who had received ordination at his hands.

Another part of the business of the council was the framing of several canons, or general laws of discipline, not, it is understood, to establish a new code of regulations, but chiefly to preserve the ancient rules of conduct imposed on the clergy, which had been too much relaxed or neglected. These canonst are twenty in number, ‡ and have been acknowledged as genuine by all antiquity. The bishops were inclined to pass an ecclesiastical law in addition to the others, requiring, according to Socrates, that those who had been admitted to holy orders, the bishops, priests and deacons, and, according to Sozomen, the subdeacons also, should abstain from cohabitation with the wives whom they had married while they were laymen. When this topic was proposed for debate, and the opinions of the synod were called for, Paphnutius, rising from his seat in the midst of the bishops, and raising his voice, protested against the imposition of so heavy a yoke on the clergy, remarking, in the words of St. Paul, that marriage was honorable and the nuptial bed undefiled, and that such an excess of rigor might rather be injurious than beneficial to the Church; that every one was not capable of so entire a continence, and that the repudiated wives + Documents, I.

* F.

+ Some of the Eastern Christians mention a much greater number. See J. S. Asseman. Bibloth. Orient. Clement. Vatic. tom. I. p. 22, 195. and Cave, Hist. Lit. p. 224.

« PreviousContinue »