Constantine the Great: The reorganization of the Empire and the triumph of the ChurchFirth, John B. (John Benjamin)
History
Constantine the Great: The reorganization of the Empire and the triumph of the Church
Firth, John B. (John Benjamin)
Church history -- Primitive and early church, ca. 30-600; Constantine I, Emperor of Rome, -337
The word “Homoousion” had at length been uttered and, strangely enough,
by Eusebius of Nicomedia, though it was soon to become the rallying cry
of his opponents. He had employed it, apparently, to clinch the argument
against the Trinitarians, for, he said, if they declared the Son to be
Very God, that was tantamount to declaring that the Son was of one
substance with the Father. Greatly, no doubt, to his surprise, it was
seized upon by his opponents as the word which, of all others, precisely
crystallised their position and their objections to Arianism. But before
the fight began to rage round this word, the moderates came forward with
another suggestion of compromise. Eusebius of Cæsarea read before the
Council the confession of faith which was in use in his diocese, after
having been handed down from bishop to bishop. The Emperor had read it
and approved; perhaps, he urged, it might similarly commend itself to
the acceptance of all parties in the Council. The creed began as
follows:
“I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things both
visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God,
God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, the only-begotten Son, the
First-born of every creature, begotten of the Father before all
worlds, by whom also all things were made. Who for our salvation was
made flesh and lived amongst men, and suffered, and rose again on the
third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come in glory to
judge the quick and the dead. And I believe in the Holy Ghost.”
Eusebius, in writing later to the people of his diocese, said that when
this creed was read out,
“no room for contradiction appeared; but our most pious Emperor,
before any one else, testified that it comprised most orthodox
statements. He confessed, moreover, that such were his sentiments, and
he advised all present to agree to it, and subscribe to its articles
with the insertion of the single word ‘one in substance.’”
Indeed, little objection could be taken to the creed of Eusebius, which
might have been subscribed to with equal sincerity by Arius and
Alexander. But the great problem, which had brought the Council
together, would have remained entirely unsettled. The creed was not
sufficiently precise. It left openings for all kinds of heresies. The
Trinitarians, therefore, insisted upon inserting a few words which
should more precisely define the relationship between the Father and the
Son and their real nature and substance, and should retain undiminished
the majesty and Godhead of the Son. They put forward the simple
antithesis “begotten not made” in reference to the Son, whereby the
Arian doctrine that the Son was a creature was effectually negatived.
And they also adopted as their own the word which has made the Council
famous alike with believers and with sceptics—the word “Homoousion.”
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account