# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1845 04 05_S64
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

grievances, the decision of which was in any case not his to make, to themselves, so that they might forgive one another for Christ's sake and unite in brotherly love.

When thereupon the venerable Bishop Eustathius of Antioch had thanked the emperor in the name of his fellow ministers and had duly acknowledged his Christian disposition and zeal, the emperor continued that he wished for nothing more fervently than that, after God had granted him the victory over his worldly enemies and had subdued the tyranny of cruel persecutors of Christians, the Church in his lands might also come to peace, and might, against all false spirits and disturbers, unite upon the true foundation of the true faith in right unity of spirit. Therefore, as representatives of this Church, they should examine the Arian controversy together from the prophetic, evangelical, and apostolic writings, which they indeed had at hand here, and should express themselves to one another with calm deliberation as to what in the matter was to be censured and rejected.

Thereupon Eusebius of Nicomedia read aloud a written confession, in which the main point of the entire Arian heresy was expressed so plainly, yet also so shamelessly, that almost all those assembled could not restrain themselves from showing, in every way, their justified horror and indignation at it. But when a violent exchange of words then arose, and one after another set forth the blasphemous and godless character of that doctrine with biblical arguments, so that Eusebius himself fell into fear and consternation, and his document, once it had been read, was finally torn to pieces before the whole assembly, the emperor exhorted them again and again to gentleness and calm, quenched with mild persuasion the fire of those who had forgotten themselves in angry heat, and strengthened those whose opposition, though joined with firm earnestness, was nevertheless accompanied by composure and moderation.

Whether Arius himself was present at the assembly cannot be determined with certainty. He was, however, represented by at least seventeen bishops who stood on his side, while other persons present probably secretly adhered to him. But among all the opponents who fought against Arianism, one young man distinguished himself in particular, whom God had equipped with as much sound knowledge of doctrine as with courage and holy zeal for the cause of Christ. This was the upright and venerable Athanasius, who at that time, still an archdeacon of Alexandria, had accompanied his beloved bishop Alexander to Nicaea, and vigorously supported him in the struggle during his infirmity of age.

We intend, God willing, to set forth the whole life of this great teacher of the Church more fully at a later time in these pages, from which the Christian reader will further recognize what a powerful support and pillar of the Church this witness to the truth was in that time, but also how much he had to suffer for the truth's sake from the vengeful and malicious persecutions of the Arians. For now we shall stay only with the Nicene church council, and shall remark only the following concerning its further course and final outcome:

To be sure, those of Arian mind could not long resist the unanimous testimony of the great majority, and were forced, both in writing and by word of mouth, to admit that Jesus Christ was true God; but they craftily attached to this another notion, namely that He was God only in the sense in which Holy Scripture also often calls angels and holy men gods. If one then countered them more definitely, that He was the true God, they conceded this again only with the false qualification, that He had been made so by God. If, on the other hand, it was proven to them from Scripture that He was God by nature, they were content with this too, for they said, we also are of God, of whom all things are.

So did a Eusebius of Nicomedia, together with his like-minded party, twist and turn this way and that, so as to maintain their error as long as possible, while also concealing it as much as possible, lest they be deposed and excluded.*) Even the other Eusebius, the oldest of the famous church historians and bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, who at heart was at least not unfavorable to the Arians, wished only that one might remain with the more general expressions in which the Church had hitherto spoken of this article. But it was rightly felt that this would not settle the matter, nor sufficiently guard the false interpretation of this biblical mode of expression against the new heresy. Therefore all the biblical passages that speak of the true deity of the Son of God were gathered together once more, and from them the conclusion was drawn: that although it could indeed also be said of creatures that they are of God, since they, having no existence of their own, were created by God — the Son, nevertheless, is of the Father in a wholly different way, namely, "God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father." This understanding of theirs of the Word of God — as the Church of old, in complete agreement with the whole of Holy Scripture, had confessed and understood it — they now expressed, in order to guard the ancient apostolic confession of faith against heretical misunderstanding, in that more precisely defined symbol which the orthodox Church, in the collection of her symbols, has named the "Nicene Creed," has unanimously adopted, and has preserved to this day.

This confession was now laid before the assembled fathers, by imperial command, for their signature, and was actually signed by all, including both men named Eusebius (although they later explained themselves differently on the matter). Only two Arian bishops, Theonas and Secundus, refused to sign, and were, together with their Arius, deposed from their offices, excluded from the Church as enemies of Christianity, banished to Illyria, and all the writings of Arius were most strictly proscribed.

*) [Footnote] Note. The same ambiguity is still found among countless preachers, who are willing neither to give truth its due honor, nor to lose their offices. And alas, how many congregations let themselves be deceived by such men!

Whatever else was decided at the Council of Nicaea for the settlement of the disputes over the time of the celebration of Easter, and over other ecclesiastical matters, we shall now leave undiscussed, and shall give, in the next and final section, only the important and warning account of the terrible end of Arius.

(To be continued.)

Random Thoughts.

Indifference as to whether the doctrine be pure or false is generally more dangerous than a stubborn insistence on false doctrine. With indifference, the seeking after truth ceases; but zeal for such false doctrine can easily turn into zeal for the right doctrine, once God opens the eyes. Rev. 3:15-16.

Do not say: when false teachers are attacked hard, they usually do not get better but only worse! — They do not become worse through this; rather, if it seems so, they only become more manifest.

Do not say: what good does all this fighting against errors do; the false teachers do not convert anyway! — Even if they do not convert, they are nevertheless driven back to Scripture; they are indeed awakened out of their sleep by the rebuttal, and held back from straying ever further and more carelessly from Holy Scripture. This, to be sure, does not bring the fighter for truth the joy and honor of a victor, but it benefits the congregations of the false teachers, who are thereby stirred somewhat into zeal. That is reward enough for the little mockery and slander which, indeed, always follows the testimony of the truth.

False teachers always wear the sheep's clothing, but have the wolf's nature hidden beneath it; true teachers, on the other hand, sometimes wear a rough pelt, but beneath it the nature of a lamb.

A Prejudice Put to Shame.

When Duke George got hold of a copy of Luther's book, "Whether Soldiers, Too, Can Be in a State of Grace," from which Luther's name had been left off, he liked it so much that he said to Lucas Cranach, who was working for him at Dresden at the time: "See here, Lucas, you are always praising your monk at Wittenberg, this Luther, as though he alone were so learned, and he alone could speak good German, and he alone could write good books; but you are mistaken in this, as in other matters besides. See, here I too have a little book, which is indeed good, and better than Luther could ever have made it." The painter examines the book, and, drawing another copy of the very same book from his pocket, says: "Gracious prince and lord, this little book was made by Luther — only his name is not on it. Here is one that he gave me himself, on which his name is printed." The duke saw that this was so; grew angry, cursed, and said: "What a pity that so wretched a monk should have had to make so good a little book!"

Printed by Weber and Olshausen.