First Council of Nicaea

The First Council of Nicaea, convoked by the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great in AD 325, was the first ecumenical[1] conference of bishops of the Christian Church.

The purpose of the council (also called a synod) was to resolve disagreements in the Church of Alexandria over the nature of Jesus in relationship to the Father: in particular whether Jesus was of the same or of similar substance as God the Father. St. Alexander of Alexandria took the first position; the popular presbyter Arius, from whom the term Arian controversy comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians. Another result of the council was an agreement on the date of the Christian Passover, now called Easter, the most important feast of the Church's life. The council decided in favour of celebrating Passover on the first Sunday after the spring equinox, independently of the Bible's Hebrew Calendar (see also Quartodecimanism), and authorized the Bishop of Alexandria (presumably using the Alexandrian calendar) to announce annually the exact date to his fellow bishops.

The Council of Nicaea was historically significant because it was the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom.[2] "It was the first occasion for the development of technical Christology".[3] Further, "Constantine in convoking and presiding over the council signaled a measure of imperial control over the church."[4] With the creation of the Nicene Creed, a precedent was established for subsequent general councils to create a statement of belief and canons which were intended to become guidelines for doctrinal orthodoxy and a source of unity for the whole of Christendom--a momentous event in the history of the Church and subsequent history of Europe.

Character

The first Council of Nicaea was the first general gathering of bishops from the whole Church, to resolve differences of faith that had arisen and to define clearly the faith received from the apostles. In this council, Church and State acted together. Earlier councils, such as the Council of Jerusalem, had resolved important questions, to be sure. Now, the Council of Nicaea formulated a definitive statement against a growing heresy, a profession of faith intended to clarify and defend the heritage of true belief. This council had a worldwide effect, for the whole Church.

In Arianism lay a great obstacle to concord of the Church and the unity of the Byzantine Empire. Accordingly, for the summer of AD 325, the bishops of all provinces were summoned to Nicaea in Bithynia, a place easily accessible to the majority of the bishops, especially those of Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace.

Attendees

Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west).

The number of participating bishops cannot be accurately stated: Eusebius of Caesarea counted 250[5], Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318[6], Eustathius of Antioch counted 270[7], all three were present at the council. Later, Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300[8], Evagrius[9], Hilarius[10], Jerome[11] and Rufinus recorded 318.

The participating bishops were given free travel to and from their episcopal sees to the council, as well as lodging. These bishops did not travel alone; each one had permission to bring with him two presbyters and three deacons, so the total number of attendees would have been above 1500. Eusebius speaks of an almost innumerable host of accompanying priests, deacons, and acolytes.

A special prominence was also attached to this council because the persecution of Christians had just ended with the February 313 Edict of Milan by Constantine and Licinius.

The Eastern bishops formed the great majority. Of these, the first rank was held by the three archbishops: Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem. Many of the assembled fathers, e.g., Paphnutius of Thebes, Potamon of Heraclea and Paul of Neocaesarea, had stood forth as witnesses of the faith, and came to the council with the marks of persecution on their faces. Other remarkable attendees were Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Caesarea, Nicholas of Myra, Aristakes of Armenia, Jacob of Nisibis, a former hermit and Spyridion of Trimythous who even while a bishop made his living as a shepherd. From foreign places there came a Persian bishop John, a Gothic bishop Theophilus and Stratophilus, bishop of Pitiunt in Egrisi (located at the border of modern-day Russia and Abkhazia outside of the Byzantine empire).

The Latin-speaking provinces sent at least five representatives: Marcus of Calabria from Italy, Cecilian of Carthage from Africa, Hosius of Córdoba from Hispania, Nicasius of Dijon from Gaul, and Domnus of Stridon from the province of the Danube. Pope Silvester I declined to attend, pleading infirmity, but he was represented by two priests.

Among the assistants were Athanasius of Alexandria, a young deacon and companion of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, who distinguished himself as the "most vigorous fighter against the Arians," and similarly Alexander of Constantinople, then a presbyter, as representative of his aged bishop.

Agenda and procedure

The agenda of the synod were:

1.The Arian question,

2.The celebration of Passover, Now Called Easter,

3.The Meletian schism,

4.The Father and Son one in purpose or in person

5.The baptism of heretics, and

6.The status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius.

The council was formally opened May 20, in the central structure of the imperial palace, with preliminary discussions on the Arian question. In these discussions, some dominant figures were Arius, with some adherents, especially Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, Bishop Theognis of Nice, and Bishop Maris of Chalcedon. Hosius of Córdoba may well have been the chairman of the deliberations.

Eusebius of Caesarea called to mind the baptismal creed (symbol) of his own diocese at Caesarea in Palestine, as a form of reconciliation. The majority of the bishops agreed with him. For some time, scholars thought that the original Nicene Creed was based on this statement of Eusebius. Today, most scholars think that this Creed is derived from the baptismal creed of Jerusalem, as Hans Lietzmann proposed. Another possibility is the Apostle's Creed.

In any case, as the council went on, the orthodox bishops won approval of every one of their proposals. It is evident that the convinced Arians were very much a minority. It is also evident that the bishops expressed a firm dogmatic consensus, in direct opposition to the central tenets of Arianism. After being in session for an entire month, the council promulgated on June 19 the original Nicene Creed. This profession of faith was adopted by the overwhelming majority of bishops present. The emperor Constantine organized the Council along the lines of the Roman Senate. He was present as an observer, but he did not vote.

Arian controversy

The Arian controversy was a Christological dispute that began in Alexandria between the followers of Arius, the Arians; the followers of St. Alexander of Alexandria, known as homoousians; and a third group, known as homoiousians. Alexander and his followers believed that the Son was of the same substance as the Father, co-eternal with him. The Arians believed that they were different and that the Son, though he may be the most perfect of creations, was only a creation. Homoiosuians tried to make a compromise position, saying that the Father and the Son were of similar substance.

Much of the debate hinged on the difference between being "born" or "created" and being "begotten". Arians saw these as the same; followers of Alexander did not. Indeed, the exact meaning of many of the words used in the debates at Nicaea were still unclear to speakers of other languages; Greek words like "essence" (ousia), "substance" (hypostasis), "nature" (physis), "person" (hyposopon) bore a variety of meanings drawn from pre-Christian philosophers, which could not but entail misunderstandings until they were cleared up. The word homoousia, in particular, was initially disliked by many bishops because of its associations with Gnostic heretics, who used it in their theology.

Homoousians believed that to follow the Arian view destroyed the unity of the Godhead, and made the Son unequal to the Father, in contravention of the Scriptures ("The Father and I are one", John 10:30). Arians, on the other hand, believed that since God the Father created the Son, he must have emanated from the Father, and thus be lesser than the Father, in that the Father is eternal, but the Son was created afterward and, thus, is not eternal.

Homoousians countered the Arians' argument, saying that the Father's fatherhood, like all of his attributes, is eternal. Thus, the Father was always a father, and that the Son, therefore, always existed with him. (This argument, one might argue, has a flaw: God is the creator of humans. This is could be considered an attribute. Thus, following the logic of Alexander, he would have the eternal attribute of being the creator of humans, which would imply that humans have eternally existed, which is inconsistent with Christian theology. But it does not follow that humans always existed.)

The Council confirmed that the Father and the Son are of the same substance and are co-eternal. This decision was enforced by the Nicene Creed.

The Nicene Creed

By and large, many creeds were acceptable to the members of the council. From his perspective, even Arius could cite such a creed.

For Bishop Alexander and others, however, greater clarity was required. Some distinctive elements in the Nicene Creed, perhaps from the hand of Hosius of Cordova, were added.

1.Jesus Christ is described as "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God."

2.Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made."

3.Finally, he is said to be "from the substance of the Father." No follower of Arius could say these words as a profession of faith.

Of the third article only the words "and in the Holy Spirit" were left; the original Nicene Creed ended with these words. Then followed immediately the canons of the council. So, instead of a more neutral baptismal creed, as proposed by Eusebius, the council promulgated the uncompromising anti-Arian Nicene Creed. From earliest times, various creeds served as a means of identification for Christians, as a means of inclusion and recognition, especially at baptism. In Rome, for example, the Apostles' Creed was popular, especially for use in Lent and the Easter season. Now, one specific creed was used to define the Church's faith clearly, to include those who professed it, and to exclude those who did not.

The text of this profession of faith is preserved in a letter of Eusebius to his congregation, in Athanasius, and elsewhere. Although the most vocal anti-Arians, the Homoousians (from the Koine Greek word translated as "of same substance" which was condemned at the Council of Antioch in 264-268), were in the minority, the Creed was accepted by the council as an expression of the bishops' common faith and the ancient faith of the whole Church.

Bishop Hosius of Cordova, one of the firm Homoousians, may well have helped bring the council to consensus. At the time of the council, he was the confidant of the emperor in all Church matters. Hosius stands at the head of the lists of bishops, and Athanasius ascribes to him the actual formulation of the creed. Great leaders such as Eustathius of Antioch, Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius, and Marcellus of Ancyra all belonged to the anti-Arian party. So, the Homoousians gained the final victory.

In spite of his sympathy for Arius, Eusebius of Caesarea accepted the decisions of the council, accepting the entire creed. The number of bishops in opposition was small. After a month of discussion, there were only two adherents of Arius who remained steadfast, Theonas of Marmarica in Libya, and Secundus of Ptolemais. Of three others on whom Arius might have counted, Maris of Chalcedon finally agreed to the whole creed. Similarly, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nice also agreed, except for the explicitly anti-Arian statements.

Now, the emperor actually carried out his previous threat; everybody who refused to endorse the Creed had to face exile from the empire. Only three bishops, Arius, Theonas, and Secundus refused to sign adhere to the creed, and they were excommunicated. The works of Arius were ordered to be confiscated and consigned to the flames, although there is no evidence that this occurred. Nevertheless, the controversy, already festering, continued in various parts of the empire.

Separation of Easter from the Jewish Passover

After the June 19 settlement of the most important topic, the question of the date of the Christian Passover, now called Easter, was brought up. This feast is linked to the Jewish Passover, as crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus occurred during that festival. By the year 300, most Churches had adopted the Western style of celebrating the feast on the Sunday after the Passover, placing the emphasis on the resurrection, which occurred on a Sunday. Others however celebrated the feast on the 14th of the Jewish month Nisan, the date of the crucifixion according to the Bible's Hebrew calendar. Hence this group was called Quartodecimans. The Eastern Churches of Syria, Cilicia, and Mesopotamia determined the date of Christian Passover in relation to the 14th day of Nisan, in the Bible's Hebrew calendar. Alexandria and Rome, however, followed a different calculation, attributed to Pope Soter, so that Christian Passover would never coincide with the Jewish observance and decided in favour of celebrating on the first Sunday after the spring equinox, independently of the Bible's Hebrew calendar.

According to Duchesne[12], who founds his conclusions:

1.on the conciliar letter to the Alexandrians preserved in Theodoret[13];

2.on the circular letter of Constantine to the bishops after the council[14];

3.on Athanasius[15];

Epiphanius of Salamis wrote in the mid-4th Century, "...the emperor...convened a council of 318 bishops...in the city of Nicea...They passed certain ecclesiastical canons at the council besides, and at the same time decreed in regard to the Passover that there must be one unanimous concord on the celebration of God's holy and supremely excellent day. For it was variously observed by people..."[16]

The council assumed the task of regulating these differences, in part because some dioceses were determined not to have Christian Passover correspond with the Jewish calendar. "The feast of the resurrection was thenceforth required to be celebrated everywhere on a Sunday, and never on the day of the Jewish passover, but always after the fourteenth of Nisan, on the Sunday after the first vernal full moon. The leading motive for this regulation was opposition to Judaism, which had dishonored the passover by the crucifixion of the Lord."[17] Constantine wrote that: "... it appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul. ... Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way."[18] Theodoret recorded the Emperor as saying: "It was, in the first place, declared improper to follow the custom of the Jews in the celebration of this holy festival, because, their hands having been stained with crime, the minds of these wretched men are necessarily blinded. ... Let us, then, have nothing in common with the Jews, who are our adversaries. ... avoiding all contact with that evil way. ... who, after having compassed the death of the Lord, being out of their minds, are guided not by sound reason, but by an unrestrained passion, wherever their innate madness carries them. ... a people so utterly depraved. ... Therefore, this irregularity must be corrected, in order that we may no more have any thing in common with those parricides and the murderers of our Lord. ... no single point in common with the perjury of the Jews."[19]

The Council of Nicaea, however, did not declare the Alexandrian or Roman calculations as normative. Instead, the council gave the Bishop of Alexandria the privilege of announcing annually the date of Christian Passover to the Roman curia. Although the synod undertook the regulation of the dating of Christian Passover, it contented itself with communicating its decision to the different dioceses, instead of establishing a canon. There was subsequent conflict over this very matter. See also Computus.

Meletian Schism

Main article: Meletius of Lycopolis

The suppression of the Meletian schism was one of the three important matters that came before the Council of Nicaea. Meletius, it was decided, should remain in his own city of Lycopolis, but without exercising authority or the power to ordain new clergy; moreover he was forbidden to go into the environs of the town or to enter another diocese for the purpose of ordaining its subjects. Melitius retained his episcopal title, but the ecclesiastics ordained by him were to receive again the imposition of hands, the ordinations performed by Meletius being therefore regarded as invalid. Clergy ordained by Meletius were ordered to yield precedence to those ordained by Alexander, nor were they to do anything without the consent of Bishop Alexander.[20]

In the event of the death of a non-Meletian bishop or ecclesiastic, the vacant see might be given to a Meletian, provided he were worthy and the popular election were ratified by Alexander. As to Meletius himself, episcopal rights and prerogatives were taken from him. These mild measures, however, were in vain; the Meletians joined the Arians and caused more dissension than ever, being among the worst enemies of Athanasius. The Meletians ultimately died out around the middle of the fifth century.

Other problems

Finally, the council promulgated twenty new church laws, called canons, (though the exact number is subject to debate [21]), that is, unchanging rules of discipline. The twenty as listed in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers are as follows:[22]

1. prohibition of self-castration; (see Origen)

2. establishment of a minimum term for catechumen;

3. prohibition of the presence in the house of a cleric of a younger woman who might bring him under suspicion;

4. ordination of a bishop in the presence of at least three provincial bishops and confirmation by the metropolitan;

5. provision for two provincial synods to be held annually;

6. exceptional authority acknowledged for the bishops of Alexandria and Rome, for their respective regions;

7. recognition of the honorary rights of the see of Jerusalem;

8. provision for agreement with the Novatianists;

914. provision for mild procedure against the lapsed during the persecution under Licinius;

1516. prohibition of the removal of priests;

17. prohibition of usury among the clergy;

18. precedence of bishops and presbyters before deacons in receiving Holy Communion, the Eucharist;

19. declaration of the invalidity of baptism by Paulian heretics;

20. prohibition of kneeling during the liturgy, on Sundays and in the fifty days of Eastertide ("the pentecost"). Standing was the normative posture for prayer at this time, as it still is among the Eastern Orthodox. (In time, Western Christianity adopted the term Pentecost to refer to the last Sunday of Eastertide, the fiftieth day.) [23]

On July 25, 325, in conclusion, the fathers of the council celebrated the emperor's twentieth anniversary. In his valedictory address, Constantine again informed his hearers how averse he was to dogmatic controversy; he wanted the Church to live in harmony and peace. In a circular letter, he announced the accomplished unity of practice by the whole Church in the date of the celebration of Christian Passover (now called Easter).

Effect of the council

The long-term effects of the Council of Nicaea were significant. For the first time, representatives of all of the bishops of the Church convened to agree on a doctrinal statement. Also for the first time, the Emperor played a role, by calling together the bishops under his authority, and using the power of the state to give the Council's orders effect. This was the start of the Constantinian shift, an entangling of church and state that still gives rise to debate today.

In the short-term, however, the council did not completely solve the problems it was convened to discuss. The Arians and the Meletians soon regained nearly all the rights they had lost, and Arianism continued to spread and to cause division in the Church during the remainder of the fourth century. Almost immediately, Eusebius of Nicomedia used his influence at court to sway Constantine's favor from the orthodox Nicene bishops to the Arians. Eustathius of Antioch was deposed and exiled in 330. Athanasius, who had succeeded Alexander as bishop of Alexandria, was deposed by the First Synod of Tyre in 335 and Marcellus of Ancyra followed him in 336. Arius himself returned to Constantinople to be readmitted into the Church, but died shortly before he could be received. Constantine died the next year, after finally receiving baptism, and "with his passing the first round in the battle after the Council of Nicaea was ended."[

First Council of Nicaea

DateAD 325

Accepted byCatholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, Assyrian Church of the East, Anglicanism, Lutheranism

Previous councilnone considered ecumenical

Next councilFirst Council of Constantinople

Convoked byEmperor Constantine I

Presided byEmperor Constantine I

Attendance250-318 (only 5 from Western Church)

Topics of discussionArianism, celebration of Passover, now called Easter, Miletian schism, validity of baptism by heretics, lapsed Christians

Documents and statementsOriginal Nicene Creed and about 20 decrees

Chronological list of Ecumenical councils