russ@dadla-a.UUCP (01/16/84)
In my previous discussion about the development of the trinity doctrine, I
showed that one of the theories which was developed to explain the difference
between the Father and Jesus Christ was developed by Arius. He believed
that "there was a time when the Son of God was not; he was created out of
nothing, he is a creature, a being subject to change."[1] p. 128
This caused a split within the church. Bishop Alexander of Alexandria and
his deacon Athanasius were opposed to these views of Arius. "The situation
became grave. On one principal point the high clergy of Alexandria were
divided; some with Alexander taught the absolute divinity of Christ; others
with Arius, recognized only a relative and secondary divinity."[2] p. 131
The pagan public even became interested in the conflict and "The quarrels of
Arius and of Alexander echoed even in the theatres."[1] p. 138
Toward 312 AD, when bishop Alexander of Alexandria hear Arius teach that the
Son was not co-eternal with the Father, and subordinate to the Father, he
forbade him to preach the doctrine. But Arius ignored the bishop. "To put
an end to the discussion, Alexander convoked about a hundred bishops from
Egypt and Lybia to council in Alexandria, 321. The council condemned the
teachings of Arius as heretical, and excommunicated him and his followers.
He was obliged to give up his church."[3] p. 38
At this time Arius left Alexandria for Palestine. He was well received
by Eusebius of Caesaria who agreed with his ideas. Eusebius of Nicomedia,
the other Eusebius, also agreed with Arius and sought to influence others
by writing many letters. Alexander became alarmed at this and also sent
letters to various bishops. "My intention was to say nothing about it, . . .
But as Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, believes himself entrusted with all
ecclesiastical matters since having abandoned Beryta he had coveted and
occupied the church of Nicomedia without anyone daring to protest; as this
Eusebius has made himself the patron of apostates and has undertaken to
write letters in his (Arius') support and to attract to the heresy, which
attacks Christ, men only slightly acquainted with the question, it
appeared urgent for me, who am not ignorant of that which is written in the
Law, to keep silence no longer, and to warn all of you, in order that you
may be acquainted with both those who have become apostates and with their
pernicious expressions of heresy, in order that, if Eusebius writes to you,
you may pay no attention to him."[4] Arius returned to Egypt and the
quarrel continued. He composed a work of prose and verse, "The Banquet"
in his defense, but only fragments remain.
It is interesting to note here how they tried to resolve the conflict.
Apparently there was not a recognized central authority to which the problem
could be referred. In the New Testament when a problem arose about observance
of the Mosaic Law, it was decided that Paul and Barnabus and some others
should go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders. And there they reached
a decision which "seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us"(Acts 15:1-29)
Such was the condition of the church when Constantine, by his victory over
Licinius (324), became master of the Empire, of the Orient as well as of the
West. He sought for a method to unify the Empire. "It appeared to him that
unity of religion was necessary in order to assure political unity, and that
only Christianity was (sufficiently) strong for that because it was the religion
of the future."[5]
Constantine sent his religious advisor, Hosius, bishop of Cordova, with a letter
to Alexander and Arius for them to put aside their dispute. When this effort
failed he decided to call a general (ecumenical) council of the church. By the
way "ecumenical" is precisely equivalent to imperial; for the technical
meaning of e oikoumene (literally, "the inhabited world") was the Roman Empire,
as in Luke 2:1 (Smith, Student's Ecclesiastical History, vol 1. p. 254 note).
Considering the Catholic church's claim that the authority for the leadership of
the church went from Peter to the Bishop of Rome, the following quote is
interesting.
"Most Catholic writers, looking back upon this event (the Council of Nicea),
have felt positive that no such assembly could have taken place without the
instigation or cooperation of Sylvester (bishop of Rome). Yet all such
contemporary evidence as we have concurs in making Constantine alone the
author and promoter of the huge enterprise, even as he had been of the Council
or Arles [called to settled the Donatist dispute, discussed in my last article].
Eusebius gives him the sole credit, as do the letters issued by the Council
itself, and he himself, both then and afterwards, spoke of it as the council
which he had summoned."[6]
So here we have Constantine who is not a Christian organizing councils and as we
shall see, deciding there outcome.
---------------------------------------------
[1] Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de l'Eglise, vol. 2
[2] Duchesne, Ancient History of the Church
[3] James L. Barker, The Divine Church, vol. 2
[4] Migne, P. G. t. XVIII, c. 572, cited by Jacquin, Histoire de l'Eglise,
vol 1, p. 310
[5] Boulenger de la Fuente, Historia de la Iglesia, p. 127
[6] Shotwell and Loomis, The See of Peter, p. 470