The Nicaean Council

The First Nicaean Council

Jonathan L. Keene CHHI 521 History of Christianity I March 6th 2009 Dr. John Landers

Preface The purpose of this paper it to better familiarize the reader with the history of the first council of Nicaea. It will provide an outline of the events leading up to and instigating the council, the people involved, the topics discussed, and the result thereof. The primary sources I will be using are The Nicaean Creed and The Letter of Eusebius of Caesarea Describing the Council of Nicaea. J.L.K.

Table of Contents The First Nicaean Council.........................................................................................................................1 Preface........................................................................................................................................................2 Section One................................................................................................................................................4 Introduction...........................................................................................................................................4 The Era of the Council......................................................................................................................4 The Limited Sources....................................................................................................................5 Section Two...............................................................................................................................................5 The Arian Controversy..........................................................................................................................5 Section Three.............................................................................................................................................8 The Council of Nicaea...........................................................................................................................8 The Creed of Eusebius....................................................................................................................10 The Nicaean Creed..........................................................................................................................11 The Canons and Easter...............................................................................................................12 Conclusion ..............................................................................................................................................13 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................................................................................14

Section One Introduction The First Council of Nicaea was convened in the year 325 by Emperor Constantine I. It was called, largely, in reaction to the Arian controversy. It is almost impossible to talk about the Nicaean Council without mentioning and explaining the Arian controversy. I will discuss the details of the Arian controversy later when addressing the topics discussed at the council. The Council of Nicaea created what is know as the Nicaean Creed, and the Cesarean Creed as well as discussing other items, such as the celebration of Easter. Most notably, the creeds are the most important things to come from this First Council of Nicaea, we will look at those in detail later. For now lets look at the era in which the Council took place.

The Era of the Council The era of the council was a time of tremendous freedom for Christians. Never before in the life of the Church had there been so much social acceptance and governmental recognition of Christianity. Christians found themselves in a period following the greatest persecution the church had ever faced. The Edict of Milan signed by Constantine I and Licinius in A.D. 313 effectively reduced the persecution of Christians and returned property taken. The edict of Galerius, which was signed on April 30th, A.D. 311, was also very important in the end of Christian persecution. It stated, “In return for our tolerance, Christians will be required to pray to their god for us, for the public good, and for themselves, so that the state may enjoy prosperity and they live in peace.”1 The combination of these two edicts effectively ended persecution of the Church, thus opening up the avenues for free discussion and debate over the scriptures, the nature of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Even though the church had been around for hundreds of years, it had not had opportunity to unite and discuss doctrine and orthodoxy. These topics were on the tongue of almost every believer in the empire. “Every place in

1 Eusebius of Caeserea, Church History 8.17.6-10.

the city is full of them: the alleys, the crossroads, the forums, the squares. Garment sellers, money changers, food vendors-they are all at it. If you ask for change, they philosophize for you about generate and in-generate natures. If you inquire about the price of bread, the answer is that the Father is greater and the Son inferior. If you speak about whether the bath is ready, they express the opinion that the Son was made out of nothing.”2 It was a time of great debate and of new ideas. Finally a public forum was available for the discussion of Christian issues and concerns. It was in this environment of free speech that the church really had an opportunity to start to fine tune its beliefs as a whole.

The Limited Sources Surprisingly enough, very few original documents from this time of Christian freedom, governmental support, and social interest, survived. “In the absence of its formal records, our earliest sources for the theological deliberations of the Council of Nicaea are brief accounts by Eustathius of Antioch, Athanasius,3 and Eusebius of Caesarea.”4 Other original documents simply do not exist. The latter of special interest since it includes both the Caesarean Creed which he presented and the actual Creed of the Council for which it is our earliest authority; it is a letter to Eusebius' own church written immediately after or perhaps even during the sessions of the Council.”5 Due to the lack of surviving documentation on the Council of Nicaea, it is from this letter that most of the original information will be derived for this work.

Section Two The Arian Controversy The Council of Nicaea was a direct result of the Arian Controversy. This controversy 2 Gregory of Nyssa, Oration on the Deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit, in Patrologia Graeca, ed. By J.-P. Migne, Vol. 46, (Paris: Garnier Fratres, 1863), col. 558. 3 Theodoret, Church History, I, 7; Athanasius, Letter to the Bishops of Africa. 4 Edward Richard Hardy, Ph.D. Christology of the Later Fathers, in collaboration with Cyril C. Richardson, Th.D, D.D., Gen. Ed. Pref. by: John Baillie, John T. McNeill, Henry P. Van Dusen, Ichthus Edition, The Library of Christian Classics, Philadelphia, (The Westminster Press, June 1, 1977), page 335 5 Ibid., page 335

centered around the identity and natures of Jesus Christ and God the Father. In fact the Arian controversy stemmed from a more historical debate concerning the nature of the trinity. The early church fathers understood that Christ was divine as well as human, and they understood that there was only one God, but how to reconcile the apparent differences was reason for years of debate. There were some like Sabellius who claimed that Christ and God were the same. These “Sabellians” met with heavy criticism at times. Hilary of Poitiers disagreed with the claim that Christ and God were one in the same. “If he dares, let Sabellius proclaim the Father and the Son as one and the same...He will at once hear from the Gospels, not once or twice, but frequently: 'This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased.' He will hear: 'The Father is greater than I.' He will hear: 'I go to the Father.' He will hear: 'Father, I give thee thanks' and 'Father glorify me.'”6 This type of thinking led to an uncomfortable assumption that maybe there were two Gods, and even a third once you added the Spirit. “Tertullian looked for a way out of this problem with a series of metaphors. 'God sent forth the Word,' he explained, '...just as the root puts forth the tree, and the fountain the river, and the sun the ray.' Therefore we can distinguish between Father and Son, just as we can distinguish between the sun and the ray of light flowing from it, but they are not two separate things.'”7 Tertullian's attempts at compromise however just confused the issue for some. He asserted that the idea that Jesus comes from God, as a ray comes from the sun, which creates a subordination issue. Christ is made subordinate to the Father. “The Difficulties of this view became clear only in the theories of Arius, a priest living in Alexandria around 300, whom traditionally is cast as the villain in this story.”8 Arius believed that Christ and God were separate entities, Christ was subordinate to the Father, and Christ was a created being like us, although much better than us. Arius states, “The Word

6 Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity 2.23, tr. By Peter Holmes, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3 (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1963), p. 603. 7 William C. Placher, A History of Christian Theology, An Introduction, Philadelphia, (The Westminster Press, 1983), page 73 8 Ibid., page 73

of God was not from eternity, but was made out of nothing...Wherefore there was a time when he did not exist, inasmuch as the Son is a creature and a work...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.”9 Arius was well liked by his community and was quite a statesman. He was a very convincing person. He even created a slogan that was sung to a popular tune of the day. It stated, “There was a time when the Son was not.” Arius having theorized that Jesus had been created in time forged an impenetrable gap between God the Father and Jesus the Son. The gap is one of time versus eternity. Athenasius of Alexandria proposed that making Jesus a created being separated him from the Father by placing Jesus in time, where God was eternal, and therefore outside of time. Athenasius said that if Jesus was created in time and God was eternal, and both were divine, then there would inevitably be two Gods. Athenasius, therefor, rejected Arius' view on Christ. He insisted the Messiah was eternal with the Father. The question then arose of how did Jesus come into being. Athenasius touched on this subject when he said, “The generation of the Son is not like that of a man, which requires an existence after that of the Father....But the nature of the Son of God being infinite and eternal, His generation must, of necessity, be infinite and eternal too.”10 In Athenasius' view he placed Christ on the right side of eternity. He won considerable support and the debate began to rage all over the empire. Contentions grew between the followers of Arius and Athenasius. Arius said that Christ was 'created,' Athenasius said that Christ was 'begotten.' The exchange of ideas became so heated that the attention of the Emperor was aroused. Constantine had hoped that the enthusiastic and organized

9 Letter of Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, summarizing the Arian position; quoted in Socrates, Ecclesiastical History 1.6, tr. By A.C. Zenos, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Ser., Vol. 2 (Christian Literature Co., 1980), page 4. 1 0 Athenasius, Orations Against the Arians 1.14, in The Orations of St. Athenasius (London: Giffith Farran; no date or translator given), page 25

character of the Christians would create an adhesive quality to his very large empire. Now his hopes in a stable Christian element were being torn apart by a theological debate. He decided to look into the matter. After considering the issue he wrote the leaders on both sides and said, “Having made a careful inquiry into the origin and foundation of these differences, I find the cause to be of a truly insignificant character, and quite unworthy of such fierce contention.”11 Constantine in an effort to get past this controversy in order to bring back the stabilizing Christian element to the empire called the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325.

Section Three The Council of Nicaea The Council of Nicaea was the “first 'ecumenical council' (that is, an assembly of Christians drawn from the entire Christian world, whose decisions are regarded as normative for the churches).”12 Constantine called “all 1800 bishops of the Christian Church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a lesser and unknown number attended. Eusebius of Caesarea counted 250, Athenasius of Alexandria counted 318, and Eustathius of Antioch counted 270 (all three were present at the council).”13 Those who gathered were some of the very same men who had been persecuted by the Roman Empire in the past. Gathered from all over the empire they met in Nicaea, a city in Asia Minor which was very close to Constantinople, the Capitol of the Empire. Now in total freedom they were able to express themselves. The Council must have been charged with excitement and steeped in a profound sense of gratitude for the church coming through the most horrific time in her history. “In order to understand that event as those present saw it, it is necessary to remember that several of those attending the great assembly had recently been imprisoned, tortured, or exiled, and that some bore on 1 1 Constantine, Letter to Alexander the Bishop and Arius the Presbyter; quoted in Eusebius, Life of Constantine 2.68, tr. By Ernest Cushing Richardson, in A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Ser., Vol. 1 (Christian Literature Co., 1890) page 516. 1 2 Alister E. McGrath, Historical Theology, An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought, (Malden, Massachusetts, Blackwell Publishers, 1998) page 33. 1 3 Wikipedai, available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

their bodies the physical marks of their faithfulness. And now, a few years after such trails, these very bishops were invited to gather at Nicaea, and the emperor covered their expenses.”14 For the first time as well, representatives from many nations were able to meet under the banner of Christendom. “There were gathered the most distinguished ministers of God, from the many churches in Europe, Libya, and Asia. A single house of prayer, as if enlarged by God...Constantine is the first ruler of all time to have gathered such a garland in the bond of peace, and to have presented it to his Savior as an offering of gratitude for the victories he had won over all his enemies.”15 The Council discussed a plethora of topics but a majority of discussion focused on one topic: the Arian Controversy. As discussed earlier, this topic was essentially the reason the Council was called. We have already discussed the views of Arius versus those of Athenasius. At the council, however, Arius was not allowed to attend due to his status; he was not a bishop. In his place Eusebius of Nicomedia represented the Arian views on the nature of Christ. Not only was Arius not allowed to attend, but Athenasius was not allowed to attend either and for the same reason. Alexander of Alexandria represented the opposing theological viewpoint. Eusebius said that Jesus and God were totally different, but Alexander said they were identical. “Another small group-probably no more than three or four-held positions approaching “patripassianism,” that is, that the Father and the Son are the same, and that therefore the Father suffered the passion.”16 This group believed that Jesus and God were not different, not even slightly, so they disagreed with Arius. In later years the idea of patripassianism was rejected. These three groups did not by any means reflect the whole of the Council. Many of the bishops didn't side with anyone when they arrived in Nicaea. Yet through the Council they became very aware of the controversy. “It seems that at the beginning of the sessions these bishops hoped to achieve a compromise that would make it possible to move on to other matters. 1 4 Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation, (New York, New York, Harper One: An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, 1984) page 162 1 5 Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of Constantine 3.7. 1 6 Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity, Vol. 1: The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation, (New York, New York, Harper One: An Imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, 1984) page 164

A typical example of this attitude was Eusebius of Caesarea, the learned historian whose erudition gained him great respect among his fellow bishops.17 This is amazing in light of the fact that “Eusebius had been condemned for his Arian sympathies by a synod held under Eustathius at Antioch.”18 Early in the Council his enthusiastic profession of faith in orthodoxy must have won peoples hearts to him. He was found to not be a sympathizer after all and was accepted and apparently quite likable. Eusebius comes to the forefront of the Council due to his likability, and his scholarship. In a letter to his church he wrote out his statement of faith that was presented to the council for approval.

The Creed of Eusebius We believe in one God, Father , Almighty, the maker of all things visible and invisible, And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light of Light, Life of Life, unique Son, first-born of all creation, begotten of the Father before all the ages, through whom all things came to be, who for our salvation was incarnate and dwelt among men and suffered and rose on the third day and ascended to the Father and will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. We also believe in one Holy Spirit. Believing that each of these truly is and exists, the Father truly [as] Father, the Son truly Son, and the Holy Spirit truly the Holy Spirit, as our Lord said when sending forth his disciples for the preaching, 'God and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'-of which I firmly assert that this is what I hold, and so I am convinced. And so I have held, and will stand for this faith till death, anathematizing every godless heresy. That I have always been convinced of these things, heart and soul, since I was first conscious of myself, and so I am now convinced and profess-[this] I witness in truth before God Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ, and am prepared to demonstrate and prove to you that so I believed and preached in times gone by. 19 In addition to this statement of faith that Eusebius called 'My Creed,' the council produced some

1 7 Ibid., page 164 18 Edward Richard Hardy, Ph.D. Christology of the Later Fathers, in collaboration with Cyril C. Richardson, Th.D, D.D., Gen. Ed. Pref. by: John Baillie, John T. McNeill, Henry P. Van Dusen, Ichthus Edition, The Library of Christian Classics, Philadelphia, (The Westminster Press, June 1, 1977), page 335 19 Ibid., page 337

interesting terminology in regard to the Arian Controversy. These terms stem share a root in common, 'ousious,' which means, 'of one substance.' Arius said God and Jesus were 'heteroousious, of different substance,' Athenasius said that they were, 'homoousious, of the same substance.' According to Eusebius, after having listened to the reading of the above statement of faith, Constantine chose the term 'consubstantial' for the relationship of God and Jesus. In regards to Eusebius' statement of faith “...our most pious emperor himself...testified that its contents were very sound...and urged all to agree to it and to subscribe and assent to these very teachings, with the addition of the one word “consubstantial,” which he himself interpreted as follows: The Son is not to be called 'consubstantial' according to what happens to bodies, not is he constituted by a division or some kind of cutting up of the Father, nor can the immaterial and intellectual and bodiless nature undergo what happens to bodies, but these things must be conceived of in divine and ineffable terms.”20 In this respect Constantine was trying to say that Jesus is not created, nor born like a man, but is begotten of the Father and is of the same substance as the Father. Constantine, as he stated, encouraged all the bishops to accept Eusebius' statement. They bishops consented and created what is know as the Nicaean Creed:

The Nicaean Creed We believe in one God, Father , Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible, And in one Lord Jesus Christ, begotten of the Father uniquely, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the father, through whom all things were made, both things in heaven and those in earth, who for us men and for our salvation came down and was incarnate, [and] became man; he suffered and rose on the third day, ascended into heaven, and is coming to judge living and dead, And in the Holy Spirit. But those who say, there was once when he was not, and before he was begotten he was not and he came into bing out of things that are not, or allege 20 Edward Richard Hardy, Ph.D. Christology of the Later Fathers, in collaboration with Cyril C. Richardson, Th.D, D.D., Gen. Ed. Pref. by: John Baillie, John T. McNeill, Henry P. Van Dusen, Ichthus Edition, The Library of Christian Classics, Philadelphia, (The Westminster Press, June 1, 1977), page 337-338, citing Optiz, Urkunden, no. 22, in Athenasius Werke, Vol. iii, I pages 42-47.

that the Son of God is of a different substance or essence, or created or alterable or changeable, the catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.”21 One can see the clear and direct slap in the face of Arianism. Out of all the bishops gathered at the Council of Nicaea only two voted against the acceptance of the above creed. It is clear that this creed, perhaps with the encouragement of Constantine, tried to utterly destroy the improper views of Arius and his followers. Later this creed would be the foundation, and inspiration, for the Apostles Creed.

The Canons and Easter Lets touch lightly on some of the other subjects that were discussed at the Council of Nicaea. Although these items were discussed, it is the above creed and controversy that the Council of Nicaea is most remembered for. It is important to remember the time frame of the council. It was a time of excitement in the Roman Empire, freedom for Christians, freedom of ideas, a Christian emperor, yet very close in the historical setting to the persecutions, and really the adolescence of the Church. A lot of the other topics deal with subjects that were pertinent to the time, and some still have their effect on us today. There are a total of twenty other subjects that have been categorized into canons.22 These 20 canons were actually made into church law. An example of a few of them are as follows: 1. prohibition of self-castration; 5. Provision for two provincial synods to be held annually; 17. prohibition of usury among the clergy. Another, and more pertinent subject to us today, was the decision on when to celebrate Easter. It was a matter of debate as to when to celebrate Easter. The Nicaean Council actually dictated when Easter would be celebrated and the Church has been celebrating that way ever since. It is an amazing piece of Church tradition that has survived 1700 years.

2 1 Ibid., page 338. 2 2 For more information on the term 'canon' see: Christian Classics Ethereal Library; Excurses on the Use of the Word “Canon.” found at: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.ii.html.

Conclusion The Nicaean Council had quite an effect on believers of the time. It set the stage for an open discussion among believers about how the Church would grow and mature. It addressed doctrinal heresies, created laws, and established traditions. It is amazing, however, that the Arian Controversy was not immediately squelched, which is the one thing the Council is most know for. Even though 'anathematized,' the Arian theology continued for another century or so. In fact, some Roman Emperors actually accepted the Arian views. The Council of Nicaea marks the first time in history that a political leader called a Christian council and paid for the Bishops to be there. This Council also marks the first instance in which the Church universal gathered together to discuss doctrine and laws. It was a very important event to be sure. This paper has been written to help the reader gain an understanding about the Nicaean Council. It has shown the events that led up to the Council. It has reported on the attendees of the Council, given special attention to the works of Eusebius, and made clear the contributions of Constantine. It has discussed the Arian Controversy in detail and has demonstrated the Creeds that were created and adopted by the church in order to combat the false doctrines of Arius. The other topics of the Council have been touched on lightly. In conclusion, the lessons we can learn from the Council of Nicaea are many. The importance of open discussion and diplomatic collaboration are essential to unity. The understanding of the Council allows the reader to see the development of the Church from adolescence to maturity. It is important to be aware that history is a teacher, and to listen is wisdom.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Athenasius, Orations Against the Arians 1.14, in The Orations of St. Athenasius. Giffith Farran: London Bettenson, Henry & Maunder, Chris. (1999). Documents of the Christian Church: New Edition. Oxford University Press: NY. Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of Constantine 3.7. Gonzalez, Justo L. (1984). The Story of Christianity: Vol. 1, The Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation. HarperCollins Publishers: NY. Hardy, Edward R. (1977). Christology of the Later Fathers: The Library of Christian Classics: Ichthus Addition. The Westminster Press: Philadelphia, PA. Kelly, J.N.D. (1690). Early Christian Doctrines: Second Edition. Harper & Row, Publishers: NY Kerr, Hugh T. (1990). Readings in Christian Thought: Second Edition. Abingdon Press: Nashville, TN. McGrath, Alister E. (1998). Historical Theology: An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Blackwell Publishers: Malden, MA. Placher, William C. (1983). A History of Christian Theology: An Introduction. The Westminster Press: Philadelphia, PA. Holmes , Peter (1963). On the Trinity 2.23: Hilary of Poitiers, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3 Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company: Grand Rapids, MI.

Richardson, Cyril C. (1996). Early Christian Fathers: Vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics. Macmillan Publishing Company: NY. Richardson, Ernest C. (1890) A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Ser., Vol. 1. Christian Literature Company: NY.