We believe in one G.o.d, Father Almighty, the maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Logos of G.o.d, G.o.d of G.o.d, Light of Light, Life of Life, only begotten Son, the first-born of all creation, begotten of His Father before all ages, by whom, also, all things were made, who for our salvation became flesh, who lived among men, and suffered and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in one Holy Spirit. We believe that each of these [_i.e._, three] is and subsists;(103) the Father truly Father, the Son truly Son; the Holy Spirit truly Holy Spirit; as our Lord also said, when He sent His disciples to preach: Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit [Matt. 28:19].

(_g_) Council of Nica A. D. 325, _Creed_, in Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, I, 8.

(MSG, 67:68.) _Cf._ Hahn, 142.

The creed of Nica is to be carefully distinguished from what is commonly called the Nicene creed. The actual creed put forth at the council is as follows. The discussion by Loofs, _Dogmengeschichte_, 32, is brief but especially important, as he shows that the creed was drawn up under the influence of the Western formul.

We believe in one G.o.d, Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of G.o.d, begotten of His Father, only begotten, that is of the _ousia_ of the Father, G.o.d of G.o.d, Light of Light, true G.o.d of true G.o.d; begotten, not made, of one substance(104) with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth, who for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven and was made [became] flesh and was made [became] man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended into the heavens and comes to judge living and dead. And in the Holy Ghost.

But those who say there was when He was not, and before being begotten He was not, and He was made out of things that were not(105) or those who say that the Son of G.o.d was from a different substance [hypostasis] or being [_ousia_] or a creature, or capable of change or alteration, these the Catholic Church anathematizes.

64. The Beginnings of the Eusebian Reaction under Constantine

Shortly after the Council of Nica, Constantine seems to have become aware of the fact that the decision at that council was not acceptable in the East as a whole, representing, as it did, what was generally felt to be an extreme position. In coming to this opinion he was much influenced by Eusebius of Nicomedia who, by powerful court interest, was soon recalled from exile and even became the leading ecclesiastical adviser of Constantine. The policy of this bishop was to prepare the way for the revocation of the decree of Nica by a preliminary rehabilitation of Arius (_a_), and by attacking the leaders of the opposite party (_b_).

Constantine, however, never consented to the abrogation of the creed of Nica.

Additional source material: Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, I, 8 (letter of Eusebius to his diocese), 14, 28 ff. _Eusebius, Vita Constantini_, III, 23; Athanasius, _Historia Arianorum_, 4-7.

(_a_) Arius, _Confession of Faith_, in Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, I, 26. (MSG, 67:149.)

As a part of the process whereby Arius should be rehabilitated by being received back into the Church he was invited by Constantine to appear at the court. He was there presented to the Emperor and produced a confession of faith purposely vague and general in statement, but intended to give the impression that he held the essentials of the received orthodoxy. The text is that given by Hahn, 187.

Arius and Euzoius to our most religious and pious Lord, the Emperor Constantine.

In accordance with the command of your devout piety, sovereign lord, we declare our faith, and before G.o.d we profess in writing that we and our adherents believe as follows:

We believe in one G.o.d, the Father Almighty; and in the Lord Jesus Christ His Son, who was made by Him before all ages, G.o.d the Word, through whom all things were made, both those which are in heaven and those upon earth; who descended, and became incarnate, and suffered, and rose again, ascended into the heavens, and will again come to judge the living and the dead. Also in the Holy Spirit, and in the resurrection of the flesh, and in the life of the coming age, and in the kingdom of the heavens, and in one Catholic Church of G.o.d, extending from one end of the earth to the other.

This faith we have received from the holy gospels, the Lord therein saying to His disciples: Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. If we do not so believe and truly receive the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as the whole Catholic Church and the Holy Scriptures teach (in which we believe in every respect) G.o.d is our judge both now and in the coming judgment. Wherefore we beseech your piety, most devout Emperor, that we who are persons consecrated to the ministry, and holding the faith and sentiments of the Church and of the Holy Scriptures, may by your pacific and devoted piety be reunited to our mother, the Church, all superfluous questions and disputings being avoided; that so both we and the whole Church may be at peace and in common offer our accustomed prayers for your tranquil reign and on behalf of your whole family.

(_b_) Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, I, 23. (MSG, 67:140.)

The attack of the Arians upon Athanasius and his party.

The partisans of Eusebius and Theognis having returned from their exile, they received again their churches, having expelled, as we observed, those who had been ordained in their stead. Moreover they came into great consideration with the Emperor, who honored them exceedingly, as those who had returned from error to the orthodox faith. They, however, abused the license granted them by exciting commotions in the world greater than before; being instigated to this by two causeson the one hand, the Arian heresy with which they had been previously infected, and on the other hand, by animosity against Athanasius because in the synod he had so vigorously withstood them in the discussion of the articles of the faith.

And in the first place they objected to the ordination of Athanasius, not only as of one unworthy of the episcopate, but also as of one not elected by qualified persons. But when he had shown himself superior to this calumny (for having a.s.sumed direction of the Church of the Alexandrians, he ardently contended for the Nicene creed), then the adherents of Eusebius exerted themselves to cause the removal of Athanasius and to bring Arius back to Alexandria; for thus only did they think they should be able to cast out the doctrine of consubstantiality and introduce Arianism. Eusebius therefore wrote to Athanasius to receive Arius and his adherents; and when he wrote he not only entreated him, but he openly threatened him. When Athanasius would by no means accede to this he endeavored to persuade the Emperor to receive Arius in audience and then permit him to return to Alexandria; and how he accomplished these things I shall tell in its proper place.

Meanwhile, before this, another commotion was raised in the Church. In fact those of the household of the Church again disturbed her peace.

Eusebius Pamphilius says that immediately after the synod Egypt became agitated by intestine divisions; but he does not give the reason for this.

From this he has gained the reputation of being disingenuous and of avoiding the specification of the causes of these dissensions from a determination on his part not to give his sanction to the proceedings at Nica. Yet as we ourselves have discovered from various letters which the bishops wrote to one another after the synod, the term h.o.m.oousios troubled some of them. So that while they occupied themselves about it, investigating it very minutely, they roused the strife against each other.

It seemed not unlike a contest in the dark; for neither party appeared to understand distinctly the grounds on which they calumniated one another.

Those who objected to the word h.o.m.oousios conceived that those who approved it favored the opinion of Sabellius and Monta.n.u.s; they therefore called them blasphemers, as subverting the existence of the Son of G.o.d.

And again those who defended the term, charging their opponents with polytheism, inveighed against them as introducers of heathen superst.i.tions. Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, accuses Eusebius Pamphilius of perverting the Nicene creed; Eusebius again denies that he violates that exposition of the faith, and accuses Eustathius of introducing the opinion of Sabellius. Therefore each of them wrote as if contending against adversaries; but both sides admitted that the Son of G.o.d has a distinct person and existence, confessing that there is one G.o.d in three persons (hypostases) yet they were unable to agree, for what cause I do not know, and could in no way be at peace.

65. The Victory of the Anti-Nicene Party in the East

When Constantine died in 337 the party of Eusebius of Nicomedia was completely in the ascendant in the East. A council at Antioch, 339, deposed Athanasius, and he was expelled from Alexandria, and Gregory of Cappadocia was consecrated in his place. Athanasius, with Marcellus of Ancyra and other supporters of the Nicene faith, repaired to Rome where they were supported by Julius, bishop of Rome, at a well-attended local council in 340 (_a__, __b_). In the East numerous attempts were made to formulate a confession of faith which might take the place of the Nicene creed and prove acceptable to all parties. The most important of these were produced at the Council of Antioch, 341, at which no less than four creeds were formulated (_c__, __d_).

Additional source material: Percival, _The Seven Ec.u.menical Councils_ (PNF, ser. II, vol. XIV); Socrates, _Hist. Ec._ (PNF, ser. II, vol. II), II, 19 (Formula Macrostichos); Athanasius, _De Synodis_ (PNF, ser. II, vol. IV).

(_a_) Athanasius, _Apologia contra Arianos_, 20. (MSG, 25:280.)

Athanasius and his allies in exile in the West are exonerated at Rome.

The Eusebians wrote also to Julius, thinking to frighten me, requesting him to call a council, and Julius himself to be the judge if he pleased.

When, therefore, I went up to Rome, Julius wrote to the Eusebians, as was suitable, and sent moreover two of his presbyters, Elpidius and Philoxenus. But when they heard of me they became confused, because they did not expect that we would come up; and they declined, alleging absurd reasons for so doing, but in truth fearing lest the things should be proved against them which Valens and Ursacius afterward confessed.

However, more than fifty bishops a.s.sembled in the place where the presbyter Vito held his congregation, and they acknowledged my defence and gave me the confirmation both of their communion and their love. On the other hand, they expressed great indignation against the Eusebians and requested that Julius write to the following effect to them who had written to him. And he wrote and sent it by Count Gabienus.

(_b_) Julius of Rome, _Epistula_, in Athanasius. _Apologia contra Arianos_, 26 _ff._ (MSG, 25:292.)

Julius to his dearly beloved brethren, Danius, Flacillus, Narcissus, Eusebius, and Matis, Macedonius, Theodorus, and their friends, who have written him from Antioch, sends health in the Lord.

26. It is necessary for me to inform you that although I alone wrote, yet it was not my opinion only, but of all the bishops throughout Italy and in these parts. I, indeed, was unwilling to cause them all to write, lest they might have weight by mere numbers. The bishops, however, a.s.sembled on the appointed day, and agreed in these opinions, which I again write to signify to you; so that, dearly beloved, although I alone address you, yet you may know it is the opinion of all.

27. That we have not admitted to our communion our fellow-bishops Athanasius and Marcellus either hastily or unjustly, although sufficiently shown above, it is but fair to set briefly before you. The Eusebians first wrote against Athanasius and his fellows, and you have also written now; but many bishops out of Egypt and other provinces wrote in his favor. Now in the first place, your letters against him contradict each other, and the second have no sort of agreement with the first, but in many instances the former are refuted by the latter, and the latter are impeached by the former.

29. Now when these things were thus represented, and so many witnesses appeared in his behalf, and so much advanced by him in his own justification, what did it become us to do? Or what did the rule of the Church require except that we should not condemn the man, but rather receive him and hold him as a bishop as we have done.

32. With respect to Marcellus, forasmuch as you have written concerning him also as impious in respect to Christ, I am anxious to inform you that, when he was here, he positively declared that what you had written concerning him was not true; but, being nevertheless requested by us to give an account of his faith, he answered in his own person with the utmost boldness, so that we recognize that he maintains nothing outside of the truth. He confessed that he piously held the same doctrine concerning our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ as the Catholic Church holds; and he affirmed that he had held these opinions not merely now but for a very long time since; as indeed our presbyters, who were at a former time at the Council of Nica, testified to his orthodoxy, for he maintained both then and now his opposition to the heresy of Arius; on which point it is right to admonish you, that none of you admit such heresy, but instead abominate it as alien from the wholesome doctrine. Since he professed orthodox opinions and offered testimony to his orthodoxy, what again ought we in his case to have done except to treat him as a bishop, as we did, and not reject him from our communion?

33. For not only the bishops Athanasius and Marcellus and their fellows came here and complained of the injustice that had been done them, but many other bishops, also, from Thrace, from Cle-Syria, from Phnicia, and Palestine; and presbyters, not a few, and others from Alexandria and from other parts were present at the council here and, in addition to their own statements, lamented bitterly before all the a.s.sembled bishops the violence and injustice which the churches had suffered; and they affirmed that outrages similar to those which had been committed in Alexandria had occurred not in word only but in deed in their own churches and in others also.

(_c_) _Second Creed of Antioch_, A. D. 341, in Athanasius, _De Synodis Arimini et Seleuci_, ch. 23. (MSG, 26:721.) Also in Socrates, _Hist.

Ec._, II, 10. (MSG, 67:201.) _Cf._ Hahn, 154.

The Council of Antioch in 341 was gathered ostensibly to dedicate the great church of that city, in reality to act against the Nicene party. It was attended by ninety or more bishops of whom thirty-six were Arians. The others seem to have been chiefly members of the middle party. The dogmatic definitions of this council have never been accepted by the Church; on the other hand, the canons on discipline have always enjoyed a very high place in the esteem of later generations. The following creed, the second of the Antiochian creeds, is traditionally regarded as having been composed originally by Lucian of Antioch, the master of Arius.