Nicaea and its Documents
“Journey to the Nicene events through the
available ancient sources”
Mina
Fouad Tawfike[1]
This famous Council was convened at the
city of Nicaea, in the Roman province Bithynia, a country of Asia, lying between
the Propontis and Black Sea, about the year 325 A.D.
The first and principle source from which
we should draw our information respecting the council of Nicaea must be of
course the acts of the synod (hefle p.262), unfortunately we don’t possess the
acts of the council, and it’s highly supposed that these acts have never been
existed. Gibbon observes very truly, that the transactions of the Council of
Nicaea are related by the ancients, not only in a partial, but in a very
imperfect manner[2].
So what
we posses now are only portions of them: the creed, the twenty canons and the
synod Decree plus recordings of the events of the council, its background and
letters that have been exchanged between the parties involved.
Though
the Pseudo-Isidore –which is a set of extensive and influential medieval
forgeries from the 9th century- writes in the preface of his
collection: [He had learnt from the Orientals that the acts of Nicaea were more
voluminous than the four Gospels][3]
Most of the events, their backgrounds and
the letters were recorded in the writings of ancient historians. These ancient
documents are:
1) Eusebius, Life of Constantine (Vita
Constantini)
2) Socrates, Ecclesiastical History (Historia
Ecclesia)
3) Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History (Historia
Ecclesia)
4) Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History (Historia
Ecclesia)
5) Eusebius, On the Feast of Easter (De
solemnitate paschalis)
6) Athanasius, De decretis synodis
7) Athanasius, Ep. ad episcopos Africae
8) Epiphanius, Haereses or Panarion, 69
9) Philostorgius, Ecclesiastical History (Historia
Ecclesia)
10) Rufinus, Ecclesiastical History (Historia
Ecclesia)
11) Gelasius
of Cyzicus, Historia Concilii Nicaeni
12)
Jerome, Biblical Preface to Judith
13)
Other sources and fragments
(1) Eusebius
(AD 263 – 339):
Eusebius,
bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, is one of the most prolific and important
writers of the early Church. We have no precise information of his birth date,
but the references in his own works enable us to fix approximately not earlier
than 260 AD[4].
Composition
of Life of Constantine
There
is still much uncertainty about the composition of Eusebius’ Vita
Constantini, when he collected the documents in it, when he wrote the work,
to what genre the work belongs, and to what extent the work was left unfinished
by Eusebius at his death[5]. And due to the apparent
number of historical inaccuracies, for some time the thesis was propounded that
it was not written by Eusebius at all, only attributed to him[6].
The work
has biographical elements; it is better described as an uneasy mixture of
panegyric and narrative history[7]. It is a clearly a work of
apologetic. It was composed after the death of the emperor in 337 AD and after
his three sons had been declared Augusti in 337 AD (VC 1.1). It
may even be set down to the credit of Eusebius that his praises of Constantine
are much loader after his death, than they ever were during his life time[8]. This work despite of all
criticism is a primary source of the highest value on Nicaea since Eusebius
himself attended the council.
Eusebius’
Nicaea:
In VC 2.61, Eusebius opens his
account of the religious disputes surrounding Arius and Melitius, which will
lead to the narrative of the Council of Nicaea in bk. 3:
[He (i.e. Constantine) received tidings of a most serious
disturbance which had invaded the peace of the Church… At length it reached the
bishops themselves, and arrayed them in angry hostility against each other, on
pretense of a jealous regard for the doctrines of Divine truth. Hence it was
that a mighty fire was kindled as it were from a little spark, and which,
originating in the first instance in the Alexandrian church overspread the
whole of Egypt and Libya, and the further Thebaid]
Eusebius gives no indication of the
development of the controversy, just as, typically, he omits to name Arius himself;
more details are given by other writers that we’ll see later, i.e. Socrates and
Sozomen. And nothing more is said by Eusebius of the early stages of the
dispute before reciting Constantine's letter to Alexander and Arius in VC
2.63-72.
In this letter, Constantine recounted the
origin of the controversy:
[I understand, then, that the origin of the present
controversy is this. When you, Alexander, demanded of the presbyters what
opinion they severally maintained respecting a certain passage in the Divine
law, or rather, I should say, that you asked them something connected with an unprofitable
question, then you, Arius, inconsiderately insisted on3217 what ought never to
have been conceived at all, or if conceived, should have been buried in
profound silence.] VC 2.69.
For Constantine, serious matters of
doctrine are not at stake, and Christians should not be seen to quarrel over
`small and quite minute points', but should be like philosophers and agree to
disagree:
[Let
therefore both the unguarded question and the inconsiderate answer receive your
mutual forgiveness. For the cause of your difference has not been any of the
leading doctrines or precepts of the Divine law, nor has any new heresy
respecting the worship of God arisen among you… “For as long as you continue to
contend about these small and very insignificant questions, it is not fitting
that so large a portion of God’s people should be under the direction of your
judgment, since you are thus divided between yourselves. I believe it indeed to
be not merely unbecoming, but positively evil, that such should be the case.
But I will refresh your minds by a little illustration, as follows. You know
that philosophers, though they all adhere to one system, are yet frequently at
issue on certain points, and differ, perhaps, in their degree of knowledge: yet
they are recalled to harmony of sentiment by the uniting power of their common
doctrines] VC 2. 70-71.
The letter has no impact as Eusebius said:
[The evil, however, was greater than could be remedied by a
single letter, insomuch that the acrimony of the contending parties continually
increased, and the effects of the mischief extended to all the Eastern
provinces] VC 2. 73.
Eusebius after few chapters mentioned
another dispute that will take place in the council of Nicaea:
[Another
most virulent disorder had existed, and long afflicted the Church; I mean the
difference respecting the salutary feast of Easter.3234 For while one party
asserted that the Jewish custom should be adhered to, the other affirmed that
the exact recurrence of the period should be observed, without following the
authority of those who were in error, and strangers to gospel grace] VC 3.5.
In the next chapter 3.6, Eusebius said
this:
[Then as if to bring a divine array against this enemy, he
convoked a general council, and invited the speedy attendance of bishops from
all quarters… The place, too, selected for the synod, the city Nicæa in
Bithynia] VC 3.6.
Eusebius' is the only continuous
contemporary account of the Council, descriptions are also found in the later church
historians, but their starting-point is the account in the VC[9].
Now in 3.7-8, Eusebius mentioned the places
the bishops came from, and he mentioned their number: [The number of bishops
exceeded two hundred and fifty] VC 3.8
This number will be
later cited in Socrates in HE 1.8 as [exceeded three hundred].
The number of bishops presents is given variously as 270
(Eustathius of Antioch cited in Theodoret), 318 (Evagrius HE 3.31;
Jerome, Rufinus, Athanasius Ep. To African BishopsI, Hilarius Contra
Constantium). It has been conjectured that the variation came from the omission
of names of the Arians, or that it varied during the two months and more. It
suggested that the number 318 that of the servants of Abraham in Gen. 14: 14
was soon generally accepted because of its symbolic reference.
Eusebius described as
entering of Constantine as follows:
[…at last he himself proceeded through the midst of the
assembly, like some heavenly messenger of God, clothed in raiment which
glittered as it were with rays of light, reflecting the glowing radiance of a
purple robe, and adorned with the brilliant splendor of gold and precious
stones. Such was the external appearance of his person; and with regard to his
mind, it was evident that he was distinguished by piety and godly fear. This
was indicated by his downcast eyes, the blush on his countenance, and his gait.
For the rest of his personal excellencies, he surpassed all present in height
of stature and beauty of form, as well as in majestic dignity of mien, and
invincible strength and vigor. All these graces, united to a suavity of manner,
and a serenity becoming his imperial station, declared the excellence of his
mental qualities to be above all praise.3247 As soon as he had advanced to the
upper end of the seats, at first he remained standing, and when a low chair of
wrought gold had been set for him, he waited until the bishops had beckoned to
him, and then sat down, and after him the whole assembly did the same] VC
3.10.
The description of the
Council of Nicaea is consonant with Eusebius’ aims and purposes of the
portrayal of the heroic Constantine.
From VC 3.10-14, Eusebius
gives no account of the debate and omits important facts, concentrating instead
on the Emperor's personal appearance (VC 3.10) and his address (VC
3.12).
In the following lines,
Eusebius gave a notice that: [The bishop who occupied the chief place in the
right division of the assembly then rose, and, addressing the emperor,
delivered a concise speech] VC 3.11, this bishop was identified later by
Sozomen that it’s Eusebius himself (HE 1.19), but it’s most likely that
it was Eusebius of Nicomedia. Constantine then gives a speech; Eusebius cited
the entire speech in VC 3.12. The speech itself echoes the reactions
already attributed to Constantine when he heard of the division within the
Church; the tone is highly conciliatory. In his speech, it’s obvious that he
changed his mind concerning the controversy and that made him call for the
council:
[…the news of your dissension, I judged it to be of no
secondary importance, but with the earnest desire that a remedy for this evil
also might be found through my means, I immediately sent to require your
presence] VC 3.12
Constantine spoke in
Latin, his speech being translated by an interpreter (VC 3.13). Gelasius
of Cyzicus in HE 2. 7. 1-41 reports the text of another speech reputedly
given by Constantine when opening the Council, but this is probably not genuine[10].
Eusebius mentioned
nothing about the debates, the content of the dispute, or the formula arrived
at, he just said:
[On this some began to accuse their
neighbors, who defended themselves, and recriminated in their turn. In this manner
numberless assertions were put forth by each party, and a violent controversy
arose at the very commencement.] VC 3.13
Sozomen in HE 1.20
justified such omission on prudential grounds, as being unsuitable for the
uninitiated:
[…since some pious friends, who understood such matters,
recommended that these truths ought to be spoken of and heard by the initiated
and their initiators1124 only, I agreed with their council; for it is not
unlikely that some of the uninitiated may read this book. While I have
concealed such of the prohibited material as I ought to keep silent about, I
have not altogether left the reader ignorant of the opinions held by the synod]
The synod came to a
judgment and this success –according to Eusebius- was because of Constantine
wisdom and reasoning:
[…the emperor gave patient audience to all alike, and received
every proposition with steadfast attention, and by occasionally assisting the
argument of each party in turn, he gradually disposed even the most vehement
disputants to a reconciliation. At the same time, by the affability of his
address to all, and his use of the Greek language, with which he was not
altogether unacquainted, he appeared in a truly attractive and amiable light,
persuading some, convincing others by his reasonings, praising those who spoke
well, and urging all to unity of sentiment, until at last he succeeded in
bringing them to one mind and judgment respecting every disputed question] VC
3.13
The matter was resolved: [The result was that
they were not only united as concerning the faith, but that the time for the celebration
of the salutary feast of Easter was agreed on by all. Those points also which
were sanctioned by the resolution of the whole body were committed to writing,
and received the signature of each several member.] VC 3.14
Eusebius makes no mention of the canons of Nicaea, and never
cited the creed. In VC 3.17-20 he cited Constantine’s Letter to the
Churches respecting the Council at Nicaea, The letter thus brings to bear a
variety of arguments for its acceptance: common agreement at Nicaea,
theological argument directed against the Jews, the Emperor's own personal
authority and that of God, through the decision of the Council[11].
(2) Socrates Scholasticus: ᾽Εκκλησιαστικὴ ῾Ιστορία
[from Nicaea p.26] (AD 380-?)
A little is known of Socrates apart from
what we can glean from his work. He was apparently a citizen of Constantinople
by birth. His exact dates can’t be determined, it’s suggested that he was born
around 389 AD; his ecclesiastical history ends in 439 AD.
Socrates
was a layman perhaps a lawyer by profession.
Socrates in his Ecclesiastical History
consciously and deliberately began where Eusebius left off[12]:
[Now, as we propose to write the details of what has taken
place in the churches since his time to our own day, we begin with the
narration of the particulars which he has left out] HE 1.1
He regarded Eusebius treatment of
Constantine’s reign and the rise of Arianism by in his work Life of
Constantine as an adequate:
[Also in writing the life of Constantine, this same author
has but slightly treated of matters regarding Arius, being more intent on the rhetorical
finish of his composition and the praises of the emperor, than on an accurate
statement of facts] HE 1.1
Socrates mentioned his sources in the
introduction to his work:
[We shall not be solicitous to display a parade of words,
but to lay before the reader what we have been able to collect from documents,
and what we have heard from those who were familiar with the facts as they told
them] HE 1.1
Whatever the occasion or purpose of
Socrates’ history, its model was Eusebius.
In his
history of the church, Socrates seems to have attempted to give a tolerant and
unbiased account of the events of that stormy century. It’s a work of a great
merit, surpassing in some respects (NPNF p. xiii).
Eusebius differentiated his work from classical
historiography by contrasting narratives of war with peace of the church, while
Socrates sees disputes in the church indeed the subject-matter of his church.
(p.27) Socrates’ attitude were very
different from those of Eusebius at a number of points, the most important
points are:
1. When
Eusebius was anxious to camouflage disputes in the church, Socrates regards
these as the material for history writing.
2.
Eusebius was intolerant of heresy and schism, but Socrates praises tolerance
towards heretics (5.20; 7.41-42)
3.
(p.29) When Eusebius was anxious to show the workings of providence in history
Socrates disclaims any attempt to analyze the mysterious reasons for the
providences and judgment of God.
4. In Socrates the
apologetic interest is less obvious than that in Eusebius
Though
Socrates everywhere tried to reach primary sources and he criticizes some of
them, it can’t be denied that there (npnf p. xiv) are a number of errors in his
history, for example he confused Maximian with Maximin. The chronology of
Socrates is generally accurate and his style (p. xv) is characterized by
simplicity and clarity.
Socrates’
Nicaea:
Socrates started the Nicene events and
backgrounds in HE 1.5; he mentioned a dispute between Arius and
Alexander the bishop of Alexandria. Arius imagined that Alexander was teaching
the same view of Sabellius the Libyan[13], so Arius responded to
what the Bishop said by saying:
[If the Father begat the Son, he that was
begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there
was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had
his substance (ὑπόστασιν) from nothing] HE 1.5
In the next chapter (HE
1.6) Socrates added that this teaching ran throughout all Egypt and that
Eusebius the Bishop of Nicomedia was a zealous defender of this teaching, so
Alexander convened a council and excommunicated Arius and the abettors of his
heresy, then he wrote an Epistle to the bishops constituted in several cities.
Here Socrates cites the whole letter (HE 1.6). In the letter we find
Alexander description of this heretic teaching as follows:
[That God was not always the Father, but
that there was a period when he was not the Father; that the Word of God was
not from eternity, but came to existence out of nothing (ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων γέγονεν);
for that the ever-existing God (‘the I AM’-the eternal One) made him who did
not previously exist, out of nothing; wherefore there was a time when he did
not exist, inasmuch as the Son is a creature and a work. That he is neither
like the Father as it regards his essence, nor is by nature either the Father’s
true Word, or true Wisdom, but indeed one of his works and creatures] HE 1.6
As Socrates said- in the
same chapter- Eusebius the bishop of Nicomedia possessed a great influence
because the emperor resided there, and – in Socrates words- Eusebius:
[wrote both to Alexander, that he might set aside the
discussion which had been excited, and again receive Arius and his adherents
into communion; and also to the bishops in each city, that they might not
concur in the proceedings of Alexander.] HE 1.6
This letter had no
effect, and as Socrates described:
[To as disgraceful an extent was this affair carried, that
Christianity became a subject of popular ridicule, even in the very theaters.
Those who were at Alexandria sharply disputed about the highest points of
Doctrine] HE 1.6
He continued in the next
chapter:
[When the emperor was made acquainted with
these disorders… sent a letter to Alexander and Arius by trustworthy person
named Hosius who was the bishop of Cordova in Spain] HE 1.7
Socrates cited the whole
letter as -Eusebius did- which shows that Constantine didn’t understand the
importance of this dispute at least from the Theological perspective:
[…wherefore let unguarded questions, and an inconsiderate
answer, on the part of each of you, procure equal forgiveness from one another.
No cause of difference has been started by you bearing on any important precept
contained in the Law; nor has any new heresy been introduced by you in connection
with the worship of God… you thus pertinaciously contend with one another about
matters of small or scarcely the least importance] HE 1.7
Then Constantine asked them to restore their friendship and
turn down their disputes.
In Chapter 8, Socrates
mentioned another dispute that will be later discussed in Nicaea:
[Moreover another local source of disquietude had
pre-existed there, which served to trouble the churches,—the dispute namely in
regard to the Passover, which was carried on in the regions of the East only] HE
1.8
The controversy was as
to whether the Easter should be observed on a fixed day in every year or on the
14th of the lunar month Nisan of the Jews; on whatever day of the week that
might happen to fall. Socrates added:
[This difference, however, did not interfere with their communion,
although their mutual joy was necessarily hindered. When, therefore, the
emperor beheld the Church agitated on account of both of these causes, he
convoked a General Council (οἰκουμενικήν), summoning all the bishops by letter
to meet him at Nicaea in Bithynia.] HE 1.8
In the following lines
Socrates didn’t give his account on the bishops’ assembly in Nicaea, instead he
cited Eusebius word for word as he himself stated:
[Accordingly the bishops assembled out of the various
provinces and cities; respecting whom Eusebius Pamphilus thus writes, word for
word, in his third book of the life of Constantine…]
This citation is from
Eusebius’ Life of Constantine,3.7-9.
Now as cited by
Socrates, Eusebius mentioned the place the bishops came from, he also mentioned
some of their names, he added:
[…whereas in this assembly the number of bishops exceeded
three hundred; while the number of the presbyters, deacons, and acolyths (ἀκόλουθος-
young priests, followers) and others who attended them was almost incalculable.]
Actually this citation
isn’t accurate, Eusebius in his Life of Constantine (3.8) said:
[…the number of bishops exceeded two hundred and fifty,
while that of the presbyters and deacons in their train, and the crowd of
acolytes and other attendants was altogether beyond computation.]
Socrates in 1.8,
after reciting the creed said that creed was recognized and acquiesced in by
three hundred and eighteen bishops.
In HE 1.8,
Socrates mentioned and for the first time Athanasius as a:
[…deacon of the Alexandrian Church who was
highly esteemed by Alexander his bishop, and on that account was much envied]
On the following day of
the bishops’ arrivals, they were assembled together in one place, and in
Socrates’ words:
[The emperor arrived soon after
and on his entrance stood in their midst, and would not take his place, until
the bishops by bowing intimated their desire that he should be seated: such was
the respect and reverence which the emperor entertained for these men.] HE 1.8
When it came to
describing the acts of the council, Socrates again cited from Eusebius’ Life
of Constantine 3.13, as he stated:
[But it may be well to hear what Eusebius
says on this subject, in his third book of the Life of Constantine. His words
are these: A variety of topics having been introduced by each party … so that
there was not only unity in the confession of faith, but also a general
agreement as to the time for the celebration of the feast of Salvation.166
Moreover the doctrines which had thus the common consent, were confirmed by the
signature of each individual.] HE 1.8
After this citation,
Socrates mentioned how he used Eusebius works:
[Such in his own words is the
testimony respecting these things which Eusebius has left us in writing; and we
not unfitly have used it, but treating what he has said as an authority, have
introduced it here for the fidelity of this history.] HE 1.8
Socrates mentioned other
source he used and criticized him: Sabinus the Macedonian. Socrates said:
[…put no confidence in Sabinus the
Macedonian. For this Sabinus, who was bishop of the Macedonians at Heraclea in
Thrace, having made a collection of the decrees published by various Synods of
bishops, has treated those who composed the Nicene Council in particular with
contempt and derision; not perceiving that he thereby charges Eusebius himself
with ignorance, who made a like confession after the closest scrutiny. And in
fact some things he has willfully passed over, others he has perverted, and on
all he has put a construction favorable to his own views. Yet he commends Eusebius
Pamphilus as a trustworthy witness, and praises the emperor as capable in
stating Christian doctrines: but he still brands the faith which was declared
at Nicæa, as having been set forth by ignorant persons, and such as had no
intelligence in the matter.] HE 1.8
After this, Socrates
came to the creed of faith; he called it the ‘agreement of faith’:
[We believe in one God, the Father
Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible:—and in one Lord Jesus
Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, that is of the
substance of the Father; God of God and Light of light; true God of true God;
begotten, not made, consubstantial (ομοουσιον- of the same essence) with the
Father: by whom all things were made, both which are in heaven and on earth:
who for the sake of us men, and on account of our salvation, descended, became
incarnate, and was made man; suffered, arose again the third day, and ascended
into the heavens, and will come again to judge the living and the dead. [We]
also [believe] in the Holy Spirit. But the holy Catholic and Apostolic church
anathematizes those who say “There was a time when he was not,” and “He was not
before he was begotten” and “He was made from that which did not exist,” and those
who assert that he is of other substance or essence than the Father, or that he
was created, or is susceptible of change.] HE 1.8
This creed is found twelve times in eleven ancient sources,
two versions being given in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon. The second
version of the Council of Chalcedon contains certain additions from the creed of
Constantinople; all the rest substantially agree. (Schaff, Creeds of
Christendom, Vol. I. p. 24, and Vol. II. p. 60, 91).
According to Socrates:
[This creed was recognized and acquiesced
in by three hundred and eighteen [bishops]; and being, as Eusebius says,
unanimous is expression and sentiment, they subscribed it. Five only would not
receive it, objecting to the term homoousios, ‘of the same essence,’ or
consubstantial: these were Eusebius bishop of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nice,
Maris of Chalcedon, Theonas of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemaïs. … Upon
this the Synod anathematized Arius, and all who adhered to his opinions, prohibiting
him at the same time from entering into Alexandria. At the same time an edict
of the emperor sent Arius himself into exile, together with Eusebius and
Theognis and their followers; Eusebius and Theognis, however, a short time
after their banishment, tendered a written declaration of their change of
sentiment, and concurrence in the faith of the consubstantiality of the Son
with the Father, as we shall show as we proceed.] HE 1.8
After this Socrates mentions the creed two more times, he
called it the ‘Distinct Avowal of Our Faith’ (HE 1.8) and the
‘Lesson\Creed (τὸ μάθημα)’ (HE 1.8).
The synod after taking
its decision set a letter to the churches; Socrates cited the complete letter (HE
1.9), the letter started as follows:
[To the holy, by the grace of God, and great church of the
Alexandrians, and to our beloved brethren throughout Egypt, Libya, and
Pentapolis, the bishops assembled at Nicæa, constituting the great and holy
Synod, send greeting in the Lord.]
The letter mentioned its purpose:
[That you may know what subjects were brought
under consideration and examined, and what was eventually determined on and decreed.
In the first place, then, the impiety and guilt of Arius and his adherents were
examined into, in the presence of our most religious emperor Constantine: and
it was unanimously decided that his impious opinion should be anathematized …
there
still remained the contumacy of Melitius [to be dealt with] and those who had
been ordained by him; … It was decreed, the Synod being moved to great clemency
towards Melitius, … that he remain in his own city but exercise no
authority either to ordain or nominate for ordination; and that he appear in no
other district or city] HE 1.9
Concerning
the Easter the letter said:
[…for this point also has been happily settled
through your prayers; so that all the brethren in the East who have heretofore
kept this festival when the Jews did, will henceforth conform to the Romans and
to us, and to all who from the earliest time have observed our period of
celebrating Easter.]
Socrates final comments
on the subjects:
[…they readmitted the heresiarch Melitius into communion,
suffering him to retain his episcopal rank, but divesting him of all authority
to act as a bishop … It should be observed moreover that Arius had
written a treatise on his own opinion which he entitled Thalia] HE 1.9
Some other letters were cited in Socrates’ work: Constantine
letter to the Alexandrians, another epistle of him to the bishops and people,
another epistle of Constantine to the churches, some epistles from Constantine to
Eusebius of Caesarea, letter from Constantine to Macarius of Jerusalem (HE 1.9)
In HE 1.13, while
speaking of Eutychian the Monk, Socrates mentioned the canons of Nicaea:
[The
bishops who were convened at the council of Nicæa, after having drawn up and
enrolled certain other ecclesiastical regulations which they are accustomed to
term canons]
(3)
Sozomen (c. 400 – c. 450):
Salminius
Hermias Sozomenus (Σωζομενός) (c. 400 – c. 450) a lawyer originated from
Palestine and seems to have traveled widely before settling in Constantinople
(young p.34). Sozomen wrote that his grandfather lived at Bethelia, near Gaza,
and became a Christian together with his household, probably under Constantius
II:
[My grandfather was of
pagan parentage; and, with his own family and that of Alaphion, had been the
first to embrace Christianity in Bethelia, a populous town near Gaza] HE 5.15
Sozomen wrote two works
on church history, of which only the second one is extant, and it is dedicated
it to Emperor Theodosius II.
Frances
Young (From Nicaea p. 33) suggests that Sozomen work sometimes gives the
impression of being a gossip column rather than serious history. He has added a
good deal of supplementary material but it’s full of anecdotes and biographical
details.
Sozomen
borrowed heavily from other sources for his work, the source for about
three-fourths of his material was the writings of Socrates. But compared to
Socrates he reproduced few actual texts, he claims to use collections of
documents but he writes from the point of view of a largely intolerant
Orthodoxy seeing its triumph as the triumph of God. His history is designed to
be a demonstration of the church as from God.
(p.34) Sozomen lacks
critical ability, and leaves much to be desired, he sometimes presents several
different views as when he gives five different accounts of the death of Arius.
He thus gives the appearance of being fair, while attempting no analysis or
sifting of the evidence available.
Sozomen
desired to present the truth, he stated:
[I will
readily transcribe freely from any work that may tend to the elucidation of
truth. If anyone who is ignorant of past events should conclude my history to
be false, because he meets with conflicting statements in other writings, let
him know that since the dogmas of Arius and other more recent hypotheses have
been broached, the rulers of the churches, differing in opinion among
themselves, have transmitted in writing their own peculiar views, for the benefit
of their respective followers; and further… Still, as it is requisite, in order
to maintain historical accuracy, to pay the strictest attention to the means of
eliciting truth, I felt myself bound to examine all writings of this class
according to my ability.] HE 1.1
In
general, the work of Sozomen is interesting and valuable for many reasons. In
the first place he pays more attention than any of the older historians to the
missionary activity of the Christians, and to him we are indebted for much precious
information about the introduction of Christianity among the Armenians, the
Saracens, the Goths, and other peoples. The history is especially rich in
information regarding the rise and spread of monasticism, and the labors of the
early founders of monasteries and monastic communities.
In
doctrinal matters he aimed constantly at being in thorough accord with the
Catholic party, and was a consistent opponent of heresy in all its forms. But,
while he maintained a constant attitude of hostility to Arianism, Gnosticism, Montanism,
Apollinarianism, etc., he never assailed the leaders of these heresies or
allowed himself to indulge in bitter personal attacks:
[Let
it not be accounted strange, if I have bestowed commendations upon the leaders
or enthusiasts of the above-mentioned heresies. I admire their eloquence and
their impressiveness in discourse. I leave their doctrine to be judged by those
whose right it is] HE 3.15
Sozomen’s
Nicaea:
Sozomen
listed most of the details that Socartes mentioned but Sozomen added more
details that no one else mentioned.
In Book 1, Ch. 15, Sozomen told us the
Arian heresy origin and progress, he suggested an early connection of Arius
with the Melitans:
[He [Arius] was a presbyter of the church
at Alexandria Egypt, and was at first a zealous thinker about the doctrine and
upheld the innovations of Melitius. Eventually however he abandoned this latter
opinion and was ordained deacon by Peter bishop of Alexandria who afterwards
cast him out of the church, because when Peter anathematized the zealots of
Melitius and rejected their baptism, Arius assailed him for these acts… after
the martyrdom of Peter, Arius asked forgiveness… and he was restored to his
office as deacon and after words elevated to the presbyter]
Sozomen added more
unique details:
[During the debate [in Alexandria]
Alexander seemed to incline first to one party and then to other, finally
however he declared himself in favor of those who affirmed that the son was
consubstantial and co-eternal with the father]
All other testimonies on Alexander portrayed him as stead
fast and exact in his definiton, so these words of Sozomen are doubtful and
unsupported.
In Ch 16, we read these
words:
[After there had been many synods held in
Egypt and the contest had still continued to increase in violence, the report
of the dissension reached the palace… the emperor… wrote to rebuke them [Arius
and Alexander] for having made a controversy public…]
Ch 17, Constantine
convened a synod
[About three hundred and twenty bishops
were present, accompanied by a multitude of presbyters and deacons. There were
like wise men present who were skilled in dialectics and ready to assist in the
discussions]… [Athanasius… seemed to have the largest share in the council
concerning the subject]
Ch 18,
[Certain of the pagan philosophers became desirous
of taking part in them]
Sozomen them told the story of these two converting to faith
by the simplicity of old men.
Ch 20,
Ch 20,
[Finally all the priests agreed with one
another and conceded that the Son is consubstantial with the Father]… [There
were but seventeen who praised the opinion of Arius]
Ch 21,
[They affirmed the Son be consubstantial
with Father, and that those are to be excommunicated and voted aliens to the
catholic church who assert that there was a time in which the son existed not…
]… [The council excommunicated Arius and his adherents and prohibited his
entrance to Alexandria… as also a work entitled “Thalia”]
Ch 23,
[The synod enacted laws which were called
canons]
(4)
Philostorgius (368 – ca. 439)
Philostorgius
was an Anomoean Church historian of the 4th
and 5th centuries. The Anomoeans were a sect that upheld an extreme form of
Arianism, which denied not only that Jesus Christ was of the same nature
(consubstantial) as God the Father but even that he was of like nature (homoiousian)
Very
little information about his life is available. He was born in Cappadocia. He wrote a history of the Arian controversy
titled Church History. Philostorgius' original appeared between 425 and
433, in other words, slightly earlier than the History of Socrates, and
was formed in twelve volumes bound in two books. The original is now lost.
However, one copy was found by the ninth-century historian Photius, in his
library in Constantinople, who wrote an epitome (summary) of it.
Philostorgius’ church history aim was to
disclose the providential designs of God in the course of history. It’s more
crudely than Eusebius with an apocalyptic and astrological flavor.
(5)
Theodoret of Cyrus (c. 393 – c. 457)
Theodoret
was a bishop of Cyrus near Antioch. In his church history the heretics were
blackened and dubbed.
Theodoret
used different documents from Socrates and his wording suggests independent use
of the same sources. Theodoret told us his purpose, that his attempting to
record in writing events that from the time being (hitherto) omitted. His
assessment of the course of the Arians controversy has no independent value. He
was an apologist.
(6) Gelasius
of Cyzicus (5th century)
The
only testimonies concerning this writer are offered by his work’s preface, Gelasius
tells us that he is the son of a presbyter of Cyzicus (Gel. Cyz. HE proem.
2.)[14] at one
point he went to Bitinia, during the usurpation of Basiliscus (A.D. 475–476). Gelasius
engaged in controversies with the Monophysites, who claimed that they were
faithful interpreters of the Nicaean orthodoxy. During these controversies the
topics most under discussion were the facts and the thesis of the council of
Nicaea (Gel. Cyz. HE proem. 9ff)[15].
Photius
who gave Gelasius’ book the title: “The Acts of the First Council in Three
Books”; acknowledges his inability to determine who he was[16].
Gelasius
decided to write three books on this topic, which are still extant and which
deal with the events of Constantine’s reign. These books attribute greatest
importance to the council of Nicaea[17]. The sources of this work
have been analysed and discussed with respect to Gelasius’ claims. He tells us
that he used the Acta of the Nicaean council, which were retrieved by
Dalmatius, bishop of Cyzicus. Gelasius read them in his father’s house when he
was young. He selected parts from them, which he used later, because he
couldn’t find the original[18] (Gelas. Cyz. HE proem.
2–3; 20.).
Gelasius
also records as among his sources the presbyter John, an ancient and good
writer, and Eusebius and Rufinus: the latter he mistakenly thought was present
at the Nicaean council (Gelas. Cyz. HE proem. 21–23)[19].
Gelasius’
work is very different from the ecclesiastical historiographic tradition, in
that he attributes very little importance to historical events, instead
concentrating on the doctrinal discussions which characterized the Nicaean
council: Photius considered it more as a report of the synod than as a
historical writing, and also took note of his humble and modest style (Phot.
Bibl. cod. 15, 4b, 23–27)[20]
Gelasius
took over the description of the participants at the council from Eusebius’ Vita
Constantini (Gelas. Cyz. HE proem.. 2. 5, 2–4 = Vit. Const. 3. 7–8),
but he also included another list, which he cites twice, concerning the signatures
on and the distribution of the decisions of the council[21]. The signature lists
given by Gelasius include numerous inconsistencies and anachronisms; however it
seems he presented the eparchies around the great church centers as they were
functioning at his time in the late 5th century, rather than at the time of the
synod of Nicaea[22].
(13) Other sources and
Fragments:
a.
Syriac Fragments
In
the British museum catalog this MS. is ascribed to the 6th or 7th
century, but a greater portion of it was written in A.D. 501. Actually this
volume is made up three separate manuscripts, containing 228 folia. The volume
contains writings which are related to Nicaea and other that are not related.
On fol. 14,b. is
a letter from Constantine summoning the bishops from Ancyra to Nicaea. This is
followed by a decree of Constantine against the Arians. Next comes the Nicene
Creed, then we have a unique perfect list of subscribers to the Nicene Council,
arranged in groups according to their provinces and cities and then following
this are the twenty canons of Nicaea[23].
There
nothing new or important in Constantine letter, part of it reads:
[it would be well for
it to
be assembled at
Nice, a city
of Bithynia, because the Bishops of Italy, and of the rest of the
countries of Europe are coming, and because of the excellent
temperature of the air, and because I shall be at hand as a
spectator and participator of what is done]
In
Constantine decree against the Arians we read:
[also
that all the writings of Arius, wherever
found, should be delivered up to be burnt
with fire, in order that not only
his wicked and evil doctrine may perish,
but also that the memorial of himself
and of his doctrine may be blotted out, that by no means there may remain to him any remembrance in the
world. And this also I ordain, that if anyone should be detected secreting any
writing composed by Arius, and should not straightway deliver up and bum it with
fire, his punishment shall be death; for soon as he is caught in this, he shall
suffer capital punishment by beheading, without delay.]
The Nicene Creed is the same as
mentioned in other sources.
In
the list of the subscribers to Nicene Council; the MS. mentions their
names and the places they came from, the MS. commits an error, it mentioned
Hosius as the Bishop of Cordova in Italy instead of saying it’s in Spain.
The
numbers the manuscript mentioned is: 3 Bishops from Italy (including Hoius
and two presbyters), 11 from Egypt, 3 of Thebias, 5 of Upper Libya, 19 of
Palestine, 10 of Phoenicia, 22 of Coele Syria, 6 of Arabia, 5 of Mesopotamia,
11 of Cilicia, 10 of Cappadocia, 2 of Armenia Minor, 5 of Armenia Major, 3 of
Pontus Polemicus, 3 of Phaphlagonia, 5 of Galatia, 6 of Asia, 1 of Hellespont,
9 of Lydia, 8 of Phrygia, 10 of Pisidia, 1 of Lycia, 7 of Pamphylia, 4 of the
Islands, 5 of Caria, 17 of Isauria, 2 of Cyprus, 11 of Bithynia, 1 of Europe, 2
of Dacia, 1 of Moesia, 1 of Carthage, 1 of Macedonia, 2 of Dardania, 3 of
Achaia, 1 of Thessaly, 1 of Pannonia, 1 of Gallia, 1 of Gothia and 1 of
Bosphorus.
This
part ends with the following words:
[The names if the
Bishops and of their cities end, which are in all 220, because the names of the
western Bishops were not written]
It’s
unclear why the MS. stated that; the list already contains several European
Bishops, and if we leave out the two presbyters of Rome, the number will be
218.
But
the MS. mentioned the Canons of Nicaea; it said the following (from fol. 16):
[Ecclesiastical Canons
of the great and holy synod of 318 Bishops, which was assembled at Nicaea]
It’s probably that even
the Syriac translator of the manuscript believed that there were 318 Bishops
even he had only 220 names.
The twenty canons:
b.
Coptic Fragments:
Four
fragments of a Coptic work on the history of the synod (were published in Spicilegium
solesmense complectens sanctorum patrum scriptorumque ecclesiasticorum anecdota
hactenus opera (1852)Author: Pitra, J. B. (Jean Baptiste), 1812-1889Volume: 1)
-
The first fragment contains the first part Nicene Creed, it starts like this:
[This is the faith proclaimed by our fathers against Arius and other heretics
specially Sabellius, Photinus (who lived long after Nicaea)]
-
The second fragment contains the second part of the Nicene Creed
-
The third fragment expresses the joy which the orthodox faith gives to the
author, and tells that each time the bishops rose at Nicaea they were 319 in
number and they were only 318 where they took their seats. It was the Holy
Spirit.
-
The fourth fragment contains the Coptic translation of the second, third,
fourth, fifth and sixth canons of Nicaea.
c.
Greek Book by anonymous author:
Entitled
Τα
Πράχθεντα εν
Νικαια, it
exists in several manuscripts and it pretends to be a contemporary of the
Nicene council. It contains clear errors for instance that the council lasted
three years and six months.
(Combefis,
Novum Auctarium Graeco-Latinae, 1648, Vol I, p. 574 sq.) mentioned in Hefele
p.267
d.
Thalia (Banquet)
A
famous work by Arius that was lost, it survived only in quotations made by his
opponents for the purpose of refuting the views expressed (Hefele p.263).
The
first is a report of Arius's teaching in Orations Against the Arians,
1:5-6. This paraphrase has negative comments interspersed throughout, so it is
difficult to consider it as being completely reliable.
The
second quotation is found in the document On the Councils of Arminum and
Seleucia, pg. 15. This passage is entirely in irregular verse, and seems to
be a direct quotation or a compilation of quotations.
[1] freeorthodoxmind@yahoo.com; www.freeorthodoxmind.org
[2] John Kaye, Some Account of the Council
of Nicaea in Connection with the Life of Athanasius, London 1853 ,p.36
[3] http://www.pseudoisidor.mgh.de
[4] Eusebius Pamphilus: The Life of
Constantine, Christian Roman Empire Series, Vol 8, Evolution Publishing, NJ
2009, p.ix
[5] Andrew Carriker, The Library of Eusebius
of Caesarea, Brill, Leiden 2003, p.286
[6] Thomas C. Ferguson, The Past is
Prologue: The Revolution of Nicene Historiography, Brill, Leiden 2005, p.48
[7] Averil Cameron and Stuart G. Hall,
Eusebius: Life of Constantine Introduction, translation, and commentary,
Clarendon Press, Oxford 1999, p.1
[8] Eusebius Pamphilus: The Life of Constantine, Christian Roman
Empire Series, Vol 8, Evolution Publishing, NJ 2009, p.xxvii
[9] Averil Cameron and Stuart G. Hall, Eusebius: Life of
Constantine Introduction, translation, and commentary, Clarendon Press, Oxford
1999, p.256
[10] Averil Cameron and Stuart G. Hall, Eusebius: Life of
Constantine Introduction, translation, and commentary, Clarendon Press, Oxford
1999, p.266
[11] Averil Cameron and Stuart G. Hall, Eusebius: Life of
Constantine Introduction, translation, and commentary, Clarendon Press, Oxford
1999, p.269
[12] Socrates English text is from: Philip
Schaff and Henry Wallace, NPNF, Second Series, Volume 2: Socrates, Sozomenus
Church Histories, Cosmio Classics 2007
[13] Sabellius said that: the Father, Resurrected Son and Holy
Spirit are different modes or aspects of one God, as perceived by the believer,
rather than three distinct persons in God Himself.
[14] Cited in Gabriele Marasco, Greek and
Roman Historiography in Late Antiquity: Fourth to Sixth Century A.D., Brill,
Leiden 2003, p. 284
[15] Cited in Gabriele Marasco, Greek and Roman Historiography in
Late Antiquity: Fourth to Sixth Century A.D., Brill, Leiden 2003, p. 284
[16] Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian
Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account
of the Principal Sects and Heresies, Grand Rapids 2000, p.383
[17] Gabriele Marasco, Greek and Roman Historiography in Late
Antiquity: Fourth to Sixth Century A.D., Brill, Leiden 2003, p. 284
[18] Gabriele Marasco, Greek and Roman Historiography in Late
Antiquity: Fourth to Sixth Century A.D., Brill, Leiden 2003, p. 285
[19] Gabriele Marasco, Greek and Roman Historiography in Late
Antiquity: Fourth to Sixth Century A.D., Brill, Leiden 2003, p. 285
[20] Gabriele Marasco, Greek and Roman Historiography in Late
Antiquity: Fourth to Sixth Century A.D., Brill, Leiden 2003, p. 287
[21] Dan Ruscu, Eusebius ‘ Scythian Bishop
and the Ecclesiastical History of Gelasius of Cyzicus, Studia Universitatis
BABEŞ-BOLYAI, THEOLOGIA CATHOLICA, LV 4, 2010, p.30
[22] Dan Ruscu, Eusebius ‘ Scythian Bishop and the Ecclesiastical
History of Gelasius of Cyzicus, Studia Universitatis BABEŞ-BOLYAI, THEOLOGIA
CATHOLICA, LV 4, 2010, p.32
[23] B. Harris Cowper, Fragments Relating to
the Council of Nice: The Syriac Text from an Ancient MS. in the British Museum
with a Translation and Notes, London, Williams and Norgate 1857, p.3
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten