all the asperities of controversy may be smoothed by the dictates of peace. By pursuing this course, you will not only do that, which is pleasing to God, who is exalted above all, but will confer an important benefit on myself, your fellow servant." The emperor also remarked,* that the power of the enemy being destroyed, and no one remaining to make any resistance, it would be deplorable indeed, if they should now molest one another, and give occasion to those, who regarded them with no friendly aspect, to turn their quarrels into ridicule. Their business, he said, was with matters of theology, the decision of which depended on the instructions which the Holy Spirit had left them. The gospel, the letters of the apostles, and the works of the ancient prophets, teach us, with sufficient clearness, what we are obliged to believe concerning the divine nature. Let us then renounce all angry contentions, and seek in the books which the Holy Ghost has dictated, the solution of our doubts.

The oration of Constantine was pronounced in Latin, which was his vernacular tongue. Another person translated it into Greek, which was better understood by most of the fathers, as it was generally diffused in all parts of the East. The emperor then gave those who presided in the council an opportunity of speaking, and permitted the members to examine matters of doctrine and religious differences.

occasions.

The opinions of Arius were first examined in the presence of the emperor. He repeated what he had said on former The Eusebians, anxious to defend him, entered into the dispute. The other bishops, who were beyond comparison the greater number, mildly required them to give an account of their doctrine, and to support it by suitable proofs. But no sooner had they begun to speak, than they seemed to be at variance with themselves; they remained confounded, and seeing the absurdity of their heresy, confessed their shame by their silence. The bishops having refuted their allegations, * Theodoret, I. 7.

+ Athan. de decretis, p. 251.

explained the holy doctrine of the Church. The emperor patiently listened to these disputes, which were agitated at first with considerable warmth. He gave great attention, says Eusebius, to what was advanced on either side; and sometimes reproving, sometimes encouraging the speakers, he moderated by degrees the violence of the contending parties. He spake kindly to every one in the Greek language, with which he was not unacquainted, gaining over some of them to his opinion by the strength of his arguments, and softening others by his entreaties. He commended those who spake judiciously, persuaded them all to concord, and reduced them at last to an agreement on the contested points.*

A letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia was read in the council, which evidently contained the heretical opinion, and discovered the management of the party. It excited so much indignation that it was rent in pieces, and Eusebius was overwhelmed with confusion. He says, among other things, that if the Son of God was acknowledged to be uncreated, it would be necessary to admit, that he was consubstantial with the Father. It has been thought that this was the letter to Paulinus of Tyre, in which the same idea is expressed in other words. The Arians also presented to the council a confession of faith, which was torn on being read, and pronounced to be spurious and false. A great outcry was raised against them, and they were generally accused of having betrayed the truth. The council wishing to set aside the terms employed by the Arians, and to use words au

*Eus. III. 13.

+ Eustath. as quoted by Theodoret. I. 8.

According to Ambrose, occasion was taken from this expression of Eusebius, which discovered so great a dread of the word consubstantial, to adopt that formidable term against the Arians. "Hoc verbum posuerunt patres, quòd viderunt adversariis esse formidini; ut tanquam evaginato ab ipsis gladio, ipsum nefando caput herœseos amputarent." de fide L. III. c. 7.

§ Documents, D.

Theodoret, I. 7.

thorized by scripture, said that our Lord was by nature the only Son of God, the alone Word, power and wisdom of the Father, true God, according to St. John; the splendor of the glory, and the image of the substance of the Father, as St. Paul writes. The partisans of Eusebius said among themselves,* let us consent to this, for we also are of God, since it is written, "there is one God, from whom all things proceed." And in another place, "old things have passed away, and all things are new, but all things are of God." The bishops, however, who comprehended their design, explained more clearly the words "of God," by saying that the Son was of the substance of God. It is true, they remarked, that creatures are said to be from God, because they exist not of themselves, nor without a cause; but the Son alone is properly of the substance of the Father. For this is peculiar to the only begotten and true Word of the Father, and therefore the expression" of the substance of the Father" has been employed.

The prelates having again asked the Arians, who seemed to be few in number, if they allowed that the Son was not a creature, but the alone power, wisdom and image of the Father, and in no respect whatever different from him, and that he is true God, it was observed, that Eusebius and his adherents made signs to one another that all these particulars might agree to men, for we too, said they, are called the image and glory of God. There are many powers, for it is written, "all the powers of God went out of Egypt." The caterpillars and locusts too are called the great power. "The God of powers is with us, the God of Jacob, our protector." We are not merely the children of God, since the Son of God himself calls us his brethren. And as to their denominating the Son true God, that occasions us, they said, no embarrassment, for he is so truly, because he has been made so. But the bishops perceiving their sophistry and dissimulation, produced a collection of passages

* Athan. de decret. p. 367, et epist. ad Africanos, as reported by Theodoret. I. 8.

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 ouooudios, 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.