Though the exact course of events is uncertain, it seems that the bishops soon found themselves divided into three main groups. There was Arius and his immediate supporters, perhaps numbering about twenty in all. At the other extreme, and of about the same strength, were the anti-Origenist clerics who found a spokesman in Marcellus of Ancyra and included Atbanasius who came as Alexander's attendant. The great majority of the Eastern clergy were ultimately disciples of Origen. Future generations have tended to dub them "Semi-Arian." In fact they were simply concerned with maintaining the traditional Logos-theology of the Greek-speaking Church, and they mistrusted the fanatical anti-Arianism of Marcellus of Ancyra and Eustathius of Antioch. The situation was very confused. The debates, it was said a century later, resembled a battle in the dark, no one knowing whether he was striking at friend or foe." But quite early on, the Council decided that Arius's theology was unacceptable. Then, Eusebius of Caesarea, probably with the idea of clearing himself of the charges of heresy which he had faced earlier in the year at Antioch, brought to Constantine's notice the baptismal creed of his own Church. This was accepted as an orthodox statement, but recent research suggests that it was not in fact used as the basis of the eventual creed of Nicaea. The real problem which faced the drafting committee-for such indeed they were-was to exclude Arius's ideas. Unfortunately, there were many statements defining the nature of the Son with which Arius could agree. He could accept that Christ "was before all ages" (i.e., a purely temporal concept) and even that he was God from God or the power and image of the Father (i.e., divinity derived from God) but not that he was "truly God from God." It was at this stage that Constantine made his momentous suggestion. Might not the relationship of Son to Father be expressed by the term homoousios ("of the same substance" ). Its use, however, by the Sabellian bishops of Libya had been condemned by Dionysius of Alexandria in the 260s, and, in a different sense, its use by Paul of Samosata bad been condemned by the Council of Antioch in 268. It was thus a "loaded" word as well as being unscriptural. Why Constantine put it forward we do not know. The possibility is that once again he was prompted by Hosius, and he may have been using it as a "translation" of the traditional view held in the West, that the Trinity was composed of "Three Persons in one substance," without inquiring further into the meaning of these terms. The Emperor bad spoken, and no one dared touch the creed during his lifetime. The great majority of the Eastern bishops found themselves in a false position. Their embarrassment is shown by the letter which Eusebius of Caesarea wrote to his flock, explaining why he had agreed. They could see to it that extreme supporters of the Nicene formulas were removed from authority but the text was sacrosanct. It read: "We believe in one God, the Father All-sovereign, maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, that is from the substance of the Father God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made, things in heaven and things on earth: who for us men and for our salvation, came down and was made flesh, and became man, suffered, and rose on the third day, ascended into the heavens; is coming to judge the living and dead. And in the Holy Spirit. And those who say, "There was when be was not," and "Before be was begotten he was not," and that "He came into being from what is not" ("nothingness"), or those that allege, that the son of God is "of another sub-stance or essence," or "created," or "changeable," or "alterable," these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathernatizes." The Emperor exerted all his influence toward securing unanimity; and at length only two bishops stood out. These were old friends of Arius, and they were excommunicated. But two other senior bishops, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Tbeognis of Nicaea, refused to sign the sentences directed against Arius and they too fell under imperial displeasure. Their opposition showed, however, that Nicene theology would not be completely acceptable to the East. (The Rise of Christianity, 1985, W.H.C. Frend, p140-141)

Go To Alphabetical Index Of Deceptive Quotes

Written By Steve Rudd, Used by permission at: www.bible.ca