CHAP. LXXI. THE COUNCIL OF NICE. I. The occasion of the Council. II. Convened by Constantine. III. The number of the bishops present. IV. Were chiefly of the Eastern part of the Roman Empire. V. Who presided in the Council, and the place of meeting. VI. Its time and duration. VII. Whether the Bible was placed before them? VIII. The points debated by them, with their Creed, Epistle, and Canons. IX. All the bishops signed the Creed, except a very few. X. The sentence passed upon Arius. XI. The judgments of ancients and moderns upon this Council. XII. The determination of the Council concerning Meletius. XIII. Concerning the time of keeping Easter, with remarks. XIV. Concerning the Arian controversy, with remarks. I. WHEN Constantine became master of the East, in 323, or 324, after the final defeat of Licinius, a warm controversy was on foot in Egypt and the neighbouring countries, which gave the emperor a great deal of uneasiness. In order to put an end to it, and to restore peace to the churches, he sent as Eusebius says, a bishop of great note, (Hosius bishop of Corduba, as Socrates informs us,) with a letter addressed to the bishop Alexander, and the presbyter Arius, the two principal contending parties. But notwithstanding the arguments and intreaties of the emperor's letter, and the utmost endeavours of the good man who carried it, the contention, as Eusebius assures us, grew still warmer, and spread wider: or, as Socrates says, neither Alexander nor Arius were softened thereby, and among the people disturbances increased. с d II. Whereupon some time in the year 324, Constantine sent letters into the several provinces of the empire, inviting the bishops to come and assemble themselves at Nice in Bithynia: at the same time giving orders also for furnishing them with beasts, or carriages, and for bearing the expences of their journey. And according to what Eusebius writes, there came thither bishops from Syria, Cilicia, Phoenicia, Arabia, Palestine, Egypt, Thebais, Libya, Mesopotamią. There was also at the synod a bishop from Persia. Nor were there wanting some from Scythia. And the most eminent of their bishops came also from Pontus, Galatia, Pamphylia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Phrygia. Likewise from Thrace, Macedonia, Achaia, Epirus. From Spain a bishop ' of great note. The bishop of Rome did not come, because of his great age: but there presbyters deputed by him.' Their names, in Sozomen, are Vito and Vincentius. i h were III. The bishops who met in this council, as Eusebius says, were more than 250, beside presbyters, and deacons, acolythists, and others, whose number could not be easily counted. Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, as cited by Theodoret, says, there were about 270 bishops. Athanasius reckons the numbers differently. In one place, he says, they were * 318, in another' about 300, in other places 300. Sozomen computes the number at about 320. Socrates, transcribing the passage of Eusebius, before referred to, puts down above 300. And afterwards he says they were 318. Constantine, in his letter to the people of Alexandria, as exhibited by Socrates, speaks of the synod's consisting of more than 300. Afterwards of 300. Theodoret, who cites the passage of Eustathius above referred to, does himself count them 318. This is the number which has been generally followed. And divers ancient writers have observed a S * Ad Afr. Episc. c. 2. p. 892. A: Tpianorios Woveλarlov. Hist. Arian. ad Monach. c. 66. p. 383. D. m Oi TWY Tριaxoσiwv. x. λ. Apol. contr. Arian, n. 23. p. 143. D. Των τριακοσίων την ψήφον. Ib. n. 25. p. 144. F. Vid. & de Synodis, num. 43. p. 757. "Soz. 1. i. c. 17. p. 430. B. • Socr. 1. i. c. 8. p. 19. D. 3 Ib. p. 23. A. Ib. p. 31. A. 9 Socr. l. i. c. 9. p. 30. D, L. i. c. 7. p. 24. B. mystery in it, that the synod should consist exactly of the same number of men, with which Abraham overcame his enemies. Epiphanius says, the number was 318, as appeared from the subscriptions then in being. And yet Eustathius, in Theodoret, does most expressly say, that he did not exactly know the number : which is somewhat strange, if there be any truth in what Epiphanius says. с The late Mr. Beausobre, who did not implicitly embrace the prevailing opinions of the times in which he lived, and allowed himself to consider impartially what he met with in antiquity, has some thoughts upon this point, which may be placed here. Eusebius, who made a great figure in the council of Nice, makes it not to consist of more than two hundred and fifty bishops. • Eustathius of Antioch, who complimented Constantine in an oration, counts them about two • hundred and seventy... Athanasius, who in two places says, they were three hundred more or 'less, and elsewhere three hundred, in his letter to the African bishops says at length, they were three hundred and eighteen. I suspect, or rather I make no doubt, but this last place has ⚫ been altered. It is not likely that Athanasius, who several times expresseth himself loosely, should in one place be so precise.'. So that acute author. He afterwards observes several other alterations of numbers in ancient authors, concerning this very matter; and then concludes: If the fact were capable of proof, I could venture to be positive, that the number of bishops 'present in the council of Nice was not fixed at three hundred and eighteen, till after the mys tery of it had been found out.' IV. I hope I may be excused for not giving a particular account of the names and charac ters of the bishops, known to have been present at the council: whether Homousians, or favourers of Arius. For this I would refer to the ancient ecclesiastical historians and their commentators. I would nevertheless observe, that the council consisted chiefly of bishops from the several parts of the East. It does not appear that there were many out of Europe: or that there were from Africa, exclusive of Egypt and parts adjacent, except Cæcilian bishop of Carthage. h any V. I forbear to enquire who presided in the council; whether the legates of the bishop of Rome, or Eustathius of Antioch, or some other: and who complimented the emperor in a short oration upon his coming into the assembly; whether Eustathius before named, or Eusebius of Cæsarea as also where the council was held; whether in a church, or in the emperor's palace. They who have a curiosity to be satisfied upon those heads, may consult the authors referred to in a note at the beginning of this chapter. i VI. The council was assembled at Nice in Bithynia in the year of Christ 325. How long it sat is not absolutely certain. Some have made it last two or three years; but learned moderns generally contract it within a small space. Basnage thinks it did not continue longer than six weeks, beginning the 19th of June, and ending the 25th of July. But for the most part learned men are of opinion, that it sat somewhat above two months, beginning the 19th of June, and rising the 25th of August. So Cave, and others, following Pagi; with whom Beveridge" likewise agrees. m VII. Some have supposed, that the Bible, or the New Testament at least, was placed upon a table in the midst of the council, to imitate what was the rule by which they ought to decide. James Basnage, in his History of the Church, expressly says so which I wonder he should do, without referring to some authority. The passage of Theodoret, alledged by me elsewhere, is no direct P *Et ita quidem post menses duos, & sex dies, die nempe Augusti xxv. celeberrimæ huic synodo finis imponitur. Cav. H. L. T. i. p. 352. Vit. Ittig. Hist. Conc. Nic. n. 10. m Vid. A. 325. n. 6. 7. n Bever. Annot. in Can. Conc. Nic. P. 42. f. Did not Constantine the emperor, at the opening of the 'first general council, lay the bible before them, as the only 'rule, according to which they were to proceed, and this with 'the approbation of all those holy fathers that were assembled in that council?' Tillotson's Serm. viii. Vol. 2. p. 64. folio. Enfin la décision...étoit claire, & conforme à l'Evangile qu' on avoit placé au milieu du concile, afin d'être la régle de la foi. Hist. de l'Eglise, T. i. p. 494, n. 2. 1 See p. 347. or full proof. The gospels were so placed in the council of Chalcedon; which may have been the case likewise in this council; but I do not know of any clear evidence of it. VIII. The three points debated and determined there, as appears from all the ecclesiastical historians, and from the synodical epistle of the council itself, were the Arian cóntroversy before mentioned, the time of keeping Easter, and the affair of Meletius in Egypt. с b с There is nothing remaining of this council, but the creed, the synodical epistle, and d twenty canons: in which last there is no catalogue of the books of scripture. But if the story of Paphnutius, related by Socrates, and Sozomen, be true, it may be thence argued, that this council received the epistle to the Hebrews. i -h IX. All the bishops present at the council did at last sign the creed, except Secundus bishop of Ptolemais, and Theonas of Marmarica, both in Egypt. Sozomen's account is, that at length they all in general decreed, that the Son was consubstantial to the Father. It was said, that there were seventeen who at the first favoured the doctrines of Arius: but at length most of these came over to the common opinion.' Socrates seems to say, that there were five who stood out to the last, and would not receive the consubstantial doctrine: namely, the two Egyptian bishops above named, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nice, and Maris of Chalcedon. But the truth is, that though these three last hesitated for a time, all subscribed in the end, except Secundus and Theonas. So Philostorgius says * expressly; and to the like purpose Theodoret and it is manifest from the words of the council itself, in their synodical epistle, to be quoted presently. m X. The synod excommunicated Arius, and those who agreed with him, and forbade his going to Alexandria, as "Sozomen writes. He adds, The emperor banished Arius, and also published an edict, that Arius and his followers should be esteemed impious: that wherever any of his writings were found, they should be burned; and that if after this any were detected concealing his books, they should be liable to death.' Socrates speaking of the same edict says, one part of it was, that Arius and his followers should be called Porphyrians, as having deserved the same brand of infamy, that had been affixed on Porphyry for writing against the Christian religion. This whole sentence therefore all the adherents of Arius were involved in, equally with himself, except what relates to his writings. And every part of this sentence, I think, had been decreed before the council broke up, and is included in these modest, or artful expressions of the synodical epistle. And the things that have been decreed concerning him either you have already heard, or will hear; that we may not seem to insult a man, who has received the just reward of his iniquity. And so far as his impiety prevailed, as to draw into the like perdition Theonas of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais. For the same sentence has been passed upon them and him.' t XI. This council has received great commendations from many, both ancients and moderns. Athanasius, agreeably to the sense of many others in his own time, says, that one council was sufficient without any other. These Epiphanius reckoned to be the two great benefits, which the church received from Divine Providence by means of Constantine: that by calling the council of Nice, he procured a determination of faith against Arians, and a certain rule for keeping Easter. By moderns this " is said to be not only the first œcumenical council, but also the most cele προκείμενα εν τῷ μέσῳ το αξιωΐαλε και αχρανία ευαγ Jaλ8. Labb. Conc. T. 4. p. 93. C. b Vid. Socrat. 1. i. c. 8. p. 22, & 25. Ap. Socr. 1. i. c. 9. Thdrt. 1. i. c. 9. d Thdrt. 1. i. c. 8. f. Soz. l. i. c. 23. in. Epiph. H. 69. n. 11. p. 735. A. • That it made no catalogue of sacred books, see Du Pin. Diss. Prelim. sect. v. p. 12. Tillem. Concil. de Nicée, art. xvi. fin. Basnage Hist. de l' Eglise, 1. viii. ch. 8. n. 1. 1 Socr. 1. i. c. 11. g Soz. 1. i. c. 23. n Soz. 1. i. c. 21. p. 435. C. D. & 436. A. B. R Socr. 1. i. c. 9. p. 32. A. B. * Τοσβίον δε ισχυσεν αυτε ή ασέβεια... των γαρ αυτών και KEIVOI TEUXYXAσy. Ap. Socr. p. 28. B. 5 Τις ἡ χρεια των συνόδων, αρκεσής της εν Νικαια γενομένης προς τε την Αρειανήν και τας άλλας αιρεσεις ; de Synod. n. 6. P. 720. Α. . . . Αλλα μόνον κρατεί ο εν υμιν ή εν Νικαια πάρα πατερων ὁμολοΓηθεισα πισις. . . . Αύτη γαρ ή εν Νικαια συνοδός αληθως σηλογραφια καλα πασης αἱρέσεως εσιν. Ad African. n. 10. & 11. p. 889. D. t H. 70. n. ix. p. 821. B. C. "Ecumenicarum prima, omnium post apostolicas celebratissima synodus. Beverig. Annot. p. 42. brated council, since the time of the apostles. It is the most famous, and the most venerable of all councils: than which the church has nothing more illustrious. It has also been censured by some of former, as well as later ages. Sabinus, bishop of Heraclea in Thrace, one of those Arians, which were called Macedonians, who wrote a history of councils, and is often cited by Socrates, called the bishops of the council of Nice weak and illiterate men. Among moderns some have not scrupled to say, that in this, as well as in most other councils, party, passion, and intrigue, bore a great sway. I put down at large in the margin one censure of this kind. d XII. Let us in the next place observe the several points brought before this council. с One was the Meletian controversy, or schism. Of which I intend not to give any farther account than was done formerly. I only add, it seems to me, that there could be no occasion to call a general council for the sake of it. It might have been determined by the Egyptian bishops, and their neighbours. f XIII. Another point brought before them, and one occasion of their meeting, was the disagreement of the churches in several parts of the world about the time of keeping Easter: which the council now determined should be observed by all on the Sunday, which followed immediately after the 14th of the moon, that happened next after the vernal equinox: which (equinox) happened that year on the 21st day of March. Upon this we may make several remarks. 1. There was no great harm in appointing Easter to be kept by Christians in general at one and the same time, provided this rule was not too rigorously enforced. But generally, when once determinations are made concerning the most indifferent matters by a respected authority, the consequence is, that in a short time they are imposed with great rigour and severity. Proofs of it in this very case may be seen in Bingham. 2. There was no necessity of a determination for fixing the time of keeping Easter. Christians might have been every where left at liberty to take the time they liked best, or not to keep it at all. For, as Socrates says, it was not the design of the apostles to deliver laws about festi vals, but to teach men virtue and piety. And some learned and acute men of late times have been of opinion, that' so trifling a thing did not deserve all the pains that was taken about it: and that the ancients were more solicitous to procure an agreement than they should have been. 3. Notwithstanding all the care to bring men to uniformity in this practice, it was not obtained. Even they who were willing to keep Easter according to the order of the council, differed in their computations. Bingham says, it sometimes happened, that the churches of one country still kept it a week, or a month, sooner than others: of which he gives several instances. a Basnag. Hist. de l'Eglise, liv. x. ch. 2. n. ii. b hunc Nicænum patrum consessum, quo nihil deinde unquam illustrius habuit ecclesia. Balduin. De Leg. Const. M. 1. i. p 55. • Τις μεν εν Νικαια, ως αφελείς και ιδιωίας διέσυρε. Socr. 1, i. c. 8 p. 22. Α. Αλλ' ιδιωίας, και μη εχειν γνωσιν, τις εχει συνελθονίας φησιν. c. 9. p. 31. D. d Quod ad cætera post [apostolicum] consecuta symbola, quæ in conciliis œcumenicis, ut vocantur, cusa fuerunt, ea, quia recentiora sunt, cum his comparari non merentur. Et, si quod res est dicendum est, ea ab episcopis inter se magnâ cum æmulatione jurgantibus & contendentibus, ex fervore, si non furore, partiumque studio insano ac male feriato, præcipitata potius videri debent, quam a compositis animis profecta. Vide P. Martyrem in Comm. in 1 lib. Reg. cap. xii., Unde & eadem veluti poma Eridos fuerunt in Ecclesia, et non litium tantum & rixarum, sed tristissimarum divisionum, seditionum, factionum & persecutionum seminaria fuerunt. Exinde quis sine lacrymis legere potest, quot contentiones inter Orientales & Occidentales ecclesias, post conditum symbolum Nicænum de voce duosos viguerint... Videatur Sozom. 1. ii. cap. 8. Socr. 1. ii. cap. 37. Thdret. 1. ii. c. 18, 19, 21. Episc. Inst. Theol. 1. iv. c. 34. p. 340. See p. 129-131. f Vid. Euseb. V. C. 1. iii. cap. v. Having spoken of this controversy, as it had been managed in the time of Pope Victor, he adds: But when the k 'great council of Nice had once undertaken to determine this matter, such a deference was thought proper to be paid to her decree,... that from this time, the opposers of the ⚫ decree are commonly censured either as heretics or schisma'tics. The Audians railed at the council of Nice for intro'ducing a new custom... and made a separation in the church.... upon which Constantine banished Audius their "leader into Scythia.... And for this reason the imperial laws 'were often very severe upon the Quartodecimans. Theodo'sius the Great, in one of his laws, ranks them with the 'Manichees, forbidding their conventicles, confiscating their goods, rendering them intestate, and liable also to capitak punishment.' Bingham's Antiq. B. xx. Ch. v. vol. x. p. 102, 103. h Σκοπός μεν εν γείονε τοις αποτόλοις 8 περι ημερων εορτασ Τικων νομοθείειν, αλλα βιον ορθόν και την θεοσεβείαν ειση ήσαστ a. Socr. 1. v. c. 22. p. 283. D. i De die Paschæ quæstio res levior videri poterat.... Su-perstitiosior fortassis fuit posteritas in hoc genere, quam opus erat. Atque ut eam puniret Deus, passus est, sensim vitiata anni mensiumque supputandorum verâ ratione, & æquinoctiorum diligenti consideratione neglectâ, eo rem recidere, ut integro.prope mense imprudentes plerumque dissideamus ab eo, quem Nicæni Patres præfixerant, die Pascha. Balduin. de Leg. Const, M. l. i. p. 62, 63. Bing. Antiq. B. xx. Ch. v. Vol. 9. p. 107. &c. Conf. Ittig. Hist. Conc. Nic. p. 60, 61, 104. 4. Once more, the council's determination concerning this point has not been approved by all moderns, any more than by all of that time. I place some proofs of this at the bottom of the page. C b XIV. But the principal determination of the council of Nice relates to the Arian controversy. 1. And the first remark to be made here is, that their decision had not the intended effect; peace and unity were not thereby restored to the churches. Of this we have full assurance from the two ecclesiastical historians, Socrates and Sozomen.. The first of which writes to this purpose: Eusebius Pamphilus says, that soon after the synod, the Egyptians quarrelled among themselves; though he does not say why.-But as we have perceived by several letters, which the bishops wrote to one another after the council, the word consubstantial was disagreeable to some. And whilst they indulged too curious inquiries about that expression, they raised an intestine war among themselves, which may be said to have been not unlike fighting in the dark: for neither side seemed to know why they reproached each other. But they who disliked the word consubstantial, supposed that they who approved of it, intended to ⚫ advance the sentiment of Sabellius, or Montanus: and therefore charged them with blasphemy, "as denying the existence of the Son of God. On the other hand, they who were for maintaining the term consubstantial, supposing their adversaries to introduce polytheism, charged ⚫ them with a design to revive heathenism. Eustathius bishop of Antioch reproached Eusebius ' with corrupting the Nicene faith. Eusebius answers, that he does not at all depart from that faith, and accuseth Eustathius with introducing Sabellianism. By this means they were induced to write against one another, as enemies. And though both sides maintained, that the Son of God was a distinct person, and had a proper existence, and owned one God in three persons, they made a shift, one knows not well how, to differ with each other; nor could they live in peace and quietness.' And to the like purpose & Sozomen. The history of the church in the fourth century, fully justifies the observation of those writers. In short, notwithstanding the professions made by many, of a high veneration for councils, men do not value them any farther, than they countenance their own particular opinions; and if they are under no restraints of external force,. they contradict their decisions without scruple. 2. No man, or number of men, separate, or united in council, since the times of Christ and kis apostles, have any right to decide in matters of faith. It is inconsistent with the respect due to Jesus Christ, to attempt it: unless they can shew themselves to be inspired, and work miracles, to manifest evidently a divine commission. And if any such case as that should happen (which is very unlikely,) I think that what even such persons should propose, must be tried and examined by the doctrine of the gospel, delivered in the New Testament. This is agreeable to many things said by our Lord,. particularly Matt. xxiii. 9, 10; " And call no man your father upon the earth; for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters; for one your master, even Christ." Compare 1 Cor. iii. 11-23. is 8. The introducing force and authority in matters of a speculative nature, is subversive of true religion and virtue. For what avail human decisions, when they are not satisfying? If you can bring reason or scripture for any doctrine, men will assent: but to say, that the bishops Rectius facturos fuisse theologos Nicænos, si Pascha, æque ac Christi festum natale, jussissent eo die celebrari, quo resurrexisse credimus Christum, in quemcunque diem hebdomadis hoc festum incideret, censet Lutherus noster in libro de Conciliis in T. vii. Witteb. Germ. f. 478. Nunc tamen morem tot seculis usitatum migrandum esse, negat. Recte etiam summus ille mathematicus, Jo. Bernullius, in suo ad senatum Basileensem responso, de dic, quo celebrandum Pascha, censet, negligi debuisse tam canones Nicænos, quam operosam supputationem astronomicam plenilunii Paschalis. Ejusdem hæc sunt: Melius fuisset, si Protestantes non essent secuti statuta concilii Nicæni, sed quemdam solis diem in principium veris incidentem: e. g. primum post æquinoctium vernum, determinâssent, ac decrevissent, ut eo die annuatim festum Paschatis celebretur. Hac methodo omnes lites tolli possent, quæ superfluis subtilitatibus ortum suum debent. Heumann. Diss. de Vero Paschate. p. 13. not. m. symbolum, quo filius Dei genitus,' non factus' Patrique 'consubstantialis,' affirmabatur. Verum, neque hac definitione, neque illorum exiliis, qui subscribere renuerunt, finis malo allatus est. Quippe Ariani, tum ultimis Constantini annis, tum in primis sub Constantio, Ariano ipso, vires resumsere, nec uno in concilio prævaluere. Turret. Compend. H. E. p. 33, 34. Socr. I. i. c. 23. p. 58. A. B. C. D. d Vid. de Vit. Constantin. 1. iii. c. 23. • Ως αναιρωνίας την ύπαρξιν το Υίε τε Θες. ib. C. Αμφοτεροι τε λείονίες ενυποςαῖον τε και ενυπαρχονία του Υιον είναι το Θε8, ένα τε Θεον εν τρισιν ύποςασεσιν είναι όμολο Γωνίες. κ. λ. p. 58. D. 8 L. ii. c. 18. p. 468. C. D. h Conciliis non majorem, quam Aristoteli, tribuit auctoritatem Danhauerus in Hodosophiâ, p. 129. Utrisque enim ideo fidem habendam, quod, quae statuerunt, recte statuerunt, & vel Scripturæ sacræ vel rationi convenienter. Heumann. Diss. b.... quo Arianorum contentio damnata est, cusumque de vero Pasch. p. 13. not, m |