russ@dadlab.UUCP (05/28/84)
This epilog has been a long time in coming. But there was not much interest expressed in my previous entries on the background and result of the Council at Nicea. However, since I will be leaving the net in the near future, I thought I should at least finish my series by supplying the epilog which I had promised. As was shown by my previous series, Constantine controlled the council and determined the outcome of the conference although he was not a Christian. Some may claim that nevertheless he did adhere to Christian principles. However his following actions after the Council at Nicea would seem to question that hope. Constantine's wife, Fausta, was jealous of Crispus, a son of a former marriage. Constantine began to question his son as a possible rival and had him arrested and sent to prison without a trial, where he died. Constantine's mother, Helena, returned from the orient and was indignant over the loss of her grandson, Crispus. Constantine's eyes were opened and he vented his anger on those who had deceived him. As a result he killed his advisors, and then had his wife plunged into a hot bath where she died of suffocation. Now that the council of Nicea had defined the Nicean Creed, Constantine did not seem constrained to enforce it. Within three years, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicea, and Arius had all been pardoned. Eusebius of Nicomedia replaced Hosius of Cordova as an advisor to Constantine and his moderate Arian views were an influence until Constantine died. Athanasius who had led the battle to establish the Nicene Creed became bishop of Alexandria in 328, and was "no less than on five different occasions exiled." He spent his long life defending the Creed of Nicea. [1] If it had not been for the earlier death of Arius, the Nicene Creed might have been overturned. The circumstances might even suggest fowl play. "On the same day which had been fixed for the triumph of Arius (Constantine's command to admit him to the communion in the cathedral of Constantinople was absolute), he expired -- and the strange and horrid circumstances of his death might excite a suspicion that the orthodox (Athanasian) saints had contributed, more efficaciously than by their prayers, to deliver the Church from the most formidable of her enemies."[2] This completes my analysis of the development of the doctrine of the Trinity. As I have shown, it had its basic roots in Greek philosophy, decided by majority vote in a council ruled over by a pagan emperor, whose only concern was lack of conflict and not doctrinal truth. Also, depending on the emphasis, a persons position could be declared heretical depending on which contradictoy aspects the Nicene Creed were emphasized. If the "one-substance" belief was emphasized, it was easy to suspect him who did so of Sebellianism (belief that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost were only names for different manifestations of the one God); if the belief in three Persons was emphasized, it was easy to suspect that he who did so was a believer in one God only, making of the Son and the Holy Ghost only "creatures," or, if he made all of them Gods, then he was guilty of polytheism, condemned alike by Jews and pagans [but the only consistent approach, although ignored]. [3] Russell Anderson tektronix!dadlab!russ ********************************************** [1] Foakes Jackson, History of the Christian Church to 461, p. 387 [2] Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ch. XXI [3] James L. Barker, The Divine Church, part 2, p. 70.