Eustathius and Athanasius on the Arians at Nicaea

The bishops named above, however, did not consent to the confession sincerely, but only in appearance. This was shown later by their plotting against those who were foremost in zeal for religion, and also by what those champions of religion have written about them. For instance, Eustathius, the famous bishop of Antioch, who has already been mentioned, wrote against them and refuted their blasphemy when he was explaining the text in Proverbs, ‘The Lord created me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old.’ [a]

“I will now go on to tell how these different events came about. A general council was called at Nicaea, and about two hundred and seventy bishops gathered. There were, however, so many assembled that I cannot give their exact number, and in fact I have not taken much trouble to find it out. “When they began to inquire into the nature of the faith, the statement of faith of Eusebius was brought forward, which contained plain evidence of his blasphemy. Its reading before them all caused great grief to the hearers, because it departed from the faith, and it brought irreparable shame on the writer. After the Eusebian gang had been plainly convicted, and the ungodly writing had been torn up in the sight of all, some among them, acting together under the pretense of keeping the peace, silenced all the ablest speakers. “The Ariomaniacs, afraid of being thrown out of the church by so large a council of bishops, sprang forward to anathematize and condemn the condemned teachings, and signed the confession of faith unanimously. So, having kept their bishops’ seats through the most shameful deceit, when they ought rather to have been deposed, they go on, sometimes secretly and sometimes openly, championing the condemned teachings and plotting against the truth with various arguments. “Wholly bent on establishing these plantings of weeds, they shrink from the scrutiny of the intelligent, avoid the watchful, and attack the preachers of godliness. But we do not believe that these godless men can ever overcome God in this way. For though they ‘gird themselves,’ they ‘will be broken in pieces,’ according to the solemn prophecy of Isaiah.” [b]

These are the words of the great Eustathius. Athanasius, his fellow fighter and the champion of the truth, who succeeded the celebrated Alexander as bishop, added the following in a letter addressed to the Africans. [e]

“The bishops gathered in council wanted to refute the ungodly assertions invented by the Arians: that the Son was created out of what did not exist, that he is a creature and a thing made, that there was a time when he did not exist, and that he is changeable by nature. They were all agreed in setting out the following statements, which are in keeping with the holy Scriptures: that the Son is by nature the only Son of God, the Word, the Power, and the only Wisdom of the Father; that he is, as John said, ‘the true God,’ and, as Paul wrote, ‘the radiance of the glory, and the exact image of the person of the Father.’ “Then the followers of Eusebius, led astray by their own vile teaching, began to say to one another, ‘Let us agree, for we too are of God. “There is but one God, from whom are all things”; and “The old things have passed away; look, all things have become new, and all things are of God.”’ They also dwelt especially on what is written in The Shepherd: ‘Believe above all that there is one God, who created and fashioned all things, and made them to be out of what did not exist.’ [f]

“But the bishops saw through their evil design and ungodly trick, and explained the words ‘of God’ more clearly. They wrote that the Son is of the substance of God. So while the creatures, which in no way have their existence of or from themselves, are said to be of God, the Son alone is said to be of the substance of the Father; for this belongs only to the only Son, the true Word of the Father. This is the reason the bishops wrote that he is of the substance of the Father.

“But when the Arians, who seemed few in number, were questioned again by the bishops whether they admitted ‘that the Son is not a creature, but the Power, and the only Wisdom, and the eternal, unchanging Image of the Father, and that he is true God,’ the Eusebians were seen making signs to one another to show that these statements applied equally to us. “For it is said that we are ‘the image and glory of God,’ and ‘for always we who live’; there are also, they said, many powers, for it is written, ‘All the power of God went out of the land of Egypt.’ The cankerworm and the locust are called ‘a great power.’ And elsewhere it is written, ‘The God of powers is with us, the God of Jacob is our helper.’ Besides, we too are God’s own, and not in a bare sense only, for the Son called us ‘brothers.’ And the statement that Christ is ‘the true God’ does not trouble us, for, having come into being, he is true. [g]

“Such was the corrupt opinion of the Arians. But the bishops, having detected their deceit in this matter, gathered from Scripture the passages that say of Christ that he is the glory, the fountain, the stream, and the exact image of the person; and they quoted these words: ‘In your light we shall see light,’ and also, ‘I and the Father are one.’ Then, still more clearly, they declared briefly that the Son is of one substance with the Father; for this, in fact, is what the passages quoted mean. “The Arians’ complaint that these exact words are not found in Scripture is shown to be groundless by their own practice, for their own ungodly assertions are not taken from Scripture. It is not written that the Son is from what did not exist, or that there was a time when he did not exist; and yet they complain of being condemned by expressions that, though not actually in Scripture, agree with true religion. They themselves, on the other hand, as though they had found their words on a dunghill, uttered things truly of the earth. The bishops, on the contrary, did not invent their expressions themselves; they received the testimony from the fathers and wrote accordingly. “In fact, there were bishops of old, nearly one hundred and thirty years ago, both of the great city of Rome and of our own city, who condemned those who claimed that the Son is a creature and that he is not of one substance with the Father. Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, knew these facts. He at one time favored the Arian heresy, but afterward signed the confession of faith of the Council of Nicaea. He wrote to the people of his diocese, maintaining that the expression ‘of one substance’ was ‘used by illustrious bishops and learned writers as a term for expressing the divinity of the Father and of the Son.’” [j]

So these men hid their unsoundness out of fear of the majority and gave their assent to the decisions of the council, bringing on themselves the prophet’s condemnation; for the God of all cries out to them, “This people honor me with their lips, but in their hearts they are far from me.” Theonas and Secundus, however, would not take this course, and were excommunicated by common consent as men who valued the Arian blasphemy above the teaching of the gospel. The bishops then went back to the council and drew up twenty laws to regulate the discipline of the church. [m]