http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
325 AD First Council of Nicaea
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| First Council of Nicaea |
| Date |
20 May to 19 Jun, AD 325 |
| Accepted by |
|
|
Next council
|
First Council of Constantinople |
| Convoked by |
Emperor Constantine I |
| President |
Hosius of Corduba (and Emperor Constantine)[1] |
| Attendance |
318 (traditional number) 250–318 (estimates) — only five from Western Church |
| Topics |
Arianism, the nature of Christ, celebration of Passover (Easter), ordination of eunuchs, prohibition of kneeling on Sundays and from Easter to Pentecost, validity of baptism by heretics, lapsed Christians, sundry other matters.[2] |
|
Documents and statements
|
Original Nicene Creed,[3] 20 canons,[4] and a synodal epistle[2] |
| Chronological list of Ecumenical councils |
The
First Council of Nicaea (
//;
Greek:
Νίκαια [ˈni:kaɪja]) was a council of Christian bishops convened in
Nicaea in
Bithynia by the
Roman Emperor Constantine I in
AD 325. This first
ecumenical council was the first effort to attain
consensus in the church through an
assembly representing all of
Christendom.
[5]
Its main accomplishments were settlement of the
Christological issue of the nature of the
Son of God and his relationship to
God the Father,
[3] the construction of the first part of the
Creed of Nicaea, establishing uniform observance of the date of
Easter,
[6] and promulgation of early
canon law.
[4][7]
Overview
Eastern Orthodox icon depicting the First Council of Nicaea
The First Council of Nicaea was the first
ecumenical council of the Church. Most significantly, it resulted in the first uniform Christian
doctrine, called the
Nicene Creed. With the creation of the creed, a precedent was established for subsequent local and regional councils of Bishops (
Synods) to create statements of belief and
canons of doctrinal
orthodoxy—the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of
Christendom.
Derived from
Greek (
Ancient Greek:
οἰκουμένη oikoumenē “the inhabited earth”), "ecumenical" means "worldwide" but generally is assumed to be limited to the known inhabited Earth,(
Danker 2000,
pp. 699-670) and at this time in history is synonymous with the Roman
Empire; the earliest extant uses of the term for a council are Eusebius'
Life of Constantine 3.6
[8] around 338, which states "he convoked an Ecumenical Council" (
Ancient Greek:
σύνοδον οἰκουμενικὴν συνεκρότει)
[9] and the Letter in 382 to
Pope Damasus I and the Latin bishops from the
First Council of Constantinople.
[10]
One purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements arising from within the
Church of Alexandria over the nature of
the Son
in his relationship to the Father: in particular, whether the Son had
been 'begotten' by the Father from his own being, with no beginning, or
rather, begotten in time, or created out of nothing, therefore having a
beginning.
[11][11] St. Alexander of Alexandria and
Athanasius took the first position; the popular
presbyter Arius, from whom the term
Arianism
comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians
overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250–318 attendees, all but two agreed
to sign the creed and these two, along with Arius, were banished to
Illyria).
[12]
Another result of the council was an agreement on when to celebrate
Easter, the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar, decreed in an epistle to the
Church of Alexandria in which is simply stated:
We also send you the good news of the settlement concerning the holy
pasch, namely that in answer to your prayers this question also has been
resolved. All the brethren in the East who have hitherto followed the
Jewish practice will henceforth observe the custom of the Romans and of
yourselves and of all of us who from ancient times have kept Easter
together with you.[13]
Historically significant as the first effort to attain
consensus in the church through an
assembly representing all of Christendom,
[5] the Council was the first occasion where the technical aspects of
Christology were discussed.
[5] Through it a precedent was set for subsequent general councils to adopt
creeds and
canons. This council is generally considered the beginning of the period of the
First seven Ecumenical Councils in the
History of Christianity.
Character and purpose
Constantine the Great summoned the bishops of the Christian Church to Nicaea to address divisions in the Church (mosaic in
Hagia Sophia, Constantinople (Istanbul), ca. 1000).
The First Council of Nicaea was convened by
Emperor Constantine the Great upon the recommendations of a synod led by
Hosius of Córdoba in the
Eastertide of 325. This synod had been charged with investigation of the trouble brought about by the
Arian controversy in the
Greek-speaking east.
[14] To most bishops, the teachings of
Arius were
heretical and dangerous to the salvation of souls.
[15] In the summer of 325, the bishops of all provinces were summoned to
Nicaea, a place reasonably accessible to many delegates, particularly those of
Asia Minor,
Georgia,
Armenia,
Syria,
Palestine,
Egypt,
Greece, and
Thrace.
This was the first general council in the history of the Church since the Apostolic
Council of Jerusalem, the Apostolic council having established the conditions upon which
Gentiles could join the Church.
[16]
In the Council of Nicaea, "The Church had taken her first great step to
define revealed doctrine more precisely in response to a challenge from
a heretical theology."
[17]
Attendees
Constantine had invited all 1800
bishops of the Christian church (about 1000 in the east and 800 in the west), but a smaller and unknown number attended.
Eusebius of Caesarea counted more than 250,
[18] Athanasius of Alexandria counted 318,
[9] and
Eustathius of Antioch estimated "about 270"
[19] (all three were present at the council). Later,
Socrates Scholasticus recorded more than 300,
[20] and Evagrius,
[21] Hilary of Poitiers,
[22] Jerome,
[23] Dionysius Exiguus,
[24] and
Rufinus[25] recorded 318. This number 318 is preserved in the liturgies of the
Eastern Orthodox Church[26] and the
Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria.
[citation needed]
Delegates came from every region of the
Roman Empire except
Britain. 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 priests and three
deacons, so the total number of attendees could have been above 1800. 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 ended only twelve years before with the
Edict of Milan, issued in February of AD 313 by Emperors Constantine and
Licinius.
The Eastern bishops formed the great majority. Of these, the first rank was held by the three
patriarchs:
Alexander of Alexandria,
Eustathius of Antioch, and
Macarius of Jerusalem. Many of the assembled fathers—for instance,
Paphnutius of Thebes, Potamon of Heraclea and
Paul of Neocaesarea—had stood forth as
confessors
of the faith and came to the council with the marks of persecution on
their faces. This position is supported by patristic scholar
Timothy Barnes in his book
Constantine and Eusebius.
[27]
Historically, the influence of these marred confessors has been seen as
substantial, but recent scholarship has called this into question.
[25]
Other remarkable attendees were
Eusebius of Nicomedia;
Eusebius of Caesarea, the purported first church historian; circumstances suggest that
Nicholas of Myra attended (his life was the seed of the
Santa Claus legends);
Aristakes of Armenia (son of
Saint Gregory the Illuminator);
Leontius of Caesarea;
Jacob of Nisibis, a former
hermit;
Hypatius of Gangra; Protogenes of Sardica; Melitius of Sebastopolis;
Achilleus of Larissa (considered the
Athanasius of
Thessaly)
[28] and
Spyridion of Trimythous, who even while a bishop made his living as a
shepherd[29] From foreign places came John, bishop of
Persia and
India, Theophilus, a
Gothic bishop and Stratophilus, bishop of
Pitiunt of
Georgia.
The
Latin-speaking provinces sent at least five representatives:
Marcus of Calabria from
Italia,
Cecilian of Carthage from
Africa,
Hosius of Córdoba from
Hispania,
Nicasius of Die from
Gaul,
[28] and
Domnus of Stridon from the province of the
Danube.
Athanasius of Alexandria, a young deacon and companion of Bishop
Alexander of Alexandria, was among the assistants. Athanasius eventually
spent most of his life battling against
Arianism.
Alexander of Constantinople, then a presbyter, was also present as representative of his aged bishop.
[28]
The supporters of Arius included
Secundus of Ptolemais,
Theonus of Marmarica, Zphyrius, and Dathes, all of whom hailed from the
Libyan Pentapolis. Other supporters included
Eusebius of Nicomedia,
Paulinus of Tyrus,
Actius of Lydda,
Menophantus of Ephesus, and
Theognus of Nicaea.
[28][30]
"Resplendent in purple and gold, Constantine made a ceremonial
entrance at the opening of the council, probably in early June, but
respectfully seated the bishops ahead of himself."
[16]
As Eusebius described, Constantine "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".
[31]
The emperor was present as an overseer and presider, but did not cast
any official vote. Constantine organized the Council along the lines of
the
Roman Senate. Hosius of Cordoba may have presided over its deliberations; he was probably one of the
Papal legates.
[16] Eusebius of Nicomedia probably gave the welcoming address.
[16][32]
Agenda and procedure
Fresco depicting the First Council of Nicaea.
The agenda of the synod included:
- The Arian
question regarding the relationship between God the Father and the Son
(not only in his incarnate form as Jesus, but also in his nature before
the creation of the world); i.e., are the Father and Son one in divine
purpose only or also one in being?
- The date of celebration of Pascha/Easter
- The Meletian schism
- Various matters of church discipline, which resulted in twenty canons
- Church structures: focused on the ordering of the episcopacy
- Dignity of the clergy: issues of ordination at all levels and of suitability of behavior and background for clergy
- Reconciliation of the lapsed: establishing norms for public repentance and penance
- Readmission to the Church of heretics and schismatics: including
issues of when reordination and/or rebaptism were to be required
- Liturgical practice: including the place of deacons, and the practice of standing at prayer during liturgy[33]
The council was formally opened May 20, in the central structure of
the imperial palace at Nicaea, with preliminary discussions of the Arian
question. In these discussions, some dominant figures were Arius, with
several adherents. "Some 22 of the bishops at the council, led by
Eusebius of Nicomedia, came as supporters of Arius. But when some of the
more shocking passages from his writings were read, they were almost
universally seen as blasphemous."
[16] Bishops
Theognis of Nicaea and
Maris of Chalcedon were among the initial supporters of Arius.
Eusebius of Caesarea called to mind the baptismal creed of his own
diocese at
Caesarea
at Palestine, as a form of reconciliation. The majority of the bishops
agreed. For some time, scholars thought that the original Nicene Creed
was based on this statement of Eusebius. Today, most scholars think that
the Creed is derived from the baptismal
creed of Jerusalem, as
Hans Lietzmann proposed.
The orthodox bishops won approval of every one of their proposals
regarding the Creed. 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 all the bishops "but two from
Libya who had been closely associated with Arius from the beginning".
[17]
No explicit historical record of their dissent actually exists; the
signatures of these bishops are simply absent from the Creed.
Arian controversy
The synod of Nicaea, Constantine and the condemnation and burning of
Arian books, illustration from a northern Italian compendium of canon
law, ca. 825
The Arian controversy arose in
Alexandria when the newly reinstated presbyter
Arius[34] began to spread doctrinal views that were contrary to those of his bishop, St.
Alexander of Alexandria.
The disputed issues centered on the natures and relationship of God
(the Father) and the Son of God (Jesus). The disagreements sprang from
different ideas about the God-head and what it meant for Jesus to be his
son. Alexander maintained that the Son was divine in just the same
sense that the Father is, co-eternal with the Father, else he could not
be a true Son. Arius emphasized the supremacy and uniqueness of God the
Father, meaning that the Father alone is almighty and infinite, and that
therefore the Father's divinity must be greater than the Son's. Arius
taught that the Son had a beginning, and that he possessed neither the
eternity nor the true divinity of the Father, but was rather made "God"
only by the Father's permission and power, and that the Son was rather
the very first and the most perfect of God's creatures.
[11][35]
The Arian discussions and debates at the council extended from about May 20, 325, through about June 19.
[35] According to legendary accounts, debate became so heated that at one point, Arius was struck in the face by
Nicholas of Myra, who would later be canonized.
[36]
This account is almost certainly apocryphal, as Arius himself would not
have been present in the council chamber due to the fact that he was
not a bishop.
[37]
Much of the debate hinged on the difference between being "born" or
"created" and being "begotten". Arians saw these as essentially the
same; followers of Alexander did not. 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" (
prosopon)
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), and because their heresies had been condemned at the 264–268
Synods of Antioch.
Arguments for Arianism
According to surviving accounts, the
presbyter Arius argued for
the supremacy of God the Father,
and maintained that the Son of God was created as an act of the
Father's will, and therefore that the Son was a creature made by God,
begotten directly of the infinite, eternal God. Arius's argument was
that the Son was God's very first production, before all ages. The
position being that the Son had a beginning, and that only the Father
has no beginning. And Arius argued that everything else was created
through the Son. Thus, said the Arians, only the Son was directly
created and begotten of God; and therefore there was a time that He had
no existence. Arius believed that the Son of God was capable of His own
free will of right and wrong, and that "were He in the truest sense a
son, He must have come after the Father, therefore the time obviously
was when He was not, and hence He was a finite being",
[38]
and that He was under God the Father. Therefore Arius insisted that the
Father's divinity was greater than the Son's. The Arians appealed to
Scripture, quoting biblical statements such as "the Father is greater
than I",
[39] and also that the Son is "firstborn of all creation".
[40]
Arguments against Arianism
The Council of Nicaea, with Arius depicted as defeated by the council, lying under the feet of Emperor Constantine
The opposing view stemmed from the idea that begetting the Son is
itself in the nature of the Father, which is eternal. Thus, the Father
was always a Father, and both Father and Son existed always together,
eternally, co-equally and con-substantially.
[41]
The contra-Arian argument thus stated that the Logos was "eternally
begotten", therefore with no beginning. Those in opposition to Arius
believed that to follow the Arian view destroyed the unity of the
Godhead,
and made the Son unequal to the Father. They insisted that such a view
was in contravention of such Scriptures as "I and the Father are one"
[42] and "the Word was God",
[42] as such verses were interpreted. They declared, as did Athanasius,
[43]
that the Son had no beginning, but had an "eternal derivation" from the
Father, and therefore was co-eternal with him, and equal to God in all
aspects.
[44]
Result of the debate
The Council declared that the
Son
was true God, co-eternal with the Father and begotten from His same
substance, arguing that such a doctrine best codified the Scriptural
presentation of the Son as well as traditional Christian belief about
him handed down from the
Apostles. This belief was expressed by the bishops in the
Creed of Nicaea, which would form the basis of what has since been known as the
Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.
[45]
Nicene Creed
Main article:
Nicene Creed
One of the projects undertaken by the Council was the creation of a
Creed, a declaration and summary of the Christian faith. Several creeds
were already in existence; many creeds were acceptable to the members of
the council, including Arius. 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. In the Council of Nicaea, 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.
Some distinctive elements in the
Nicene Creed,
perhaps from the hand of Hosius of Cordova, were added. Some elements
were added specifically to counter the Arian point of view.
[11][46]
- Jesus Christ is described as "God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God", proclaiming his divinity.
- Jesus Christ is said to be "begotten, not made", asserting that he
was not a mere creature, brought into being out of nothing, but the true
Son of God, brought into being 'from the substance of the Father'.
- He is said to be "of one being with The Father". Eusebius of Caesarea ascribes the term homoousios, or consubstantial, i.e., "of the same
substance" (of the Father), to Constantine who, on this particular
point, may have chosen to exercise his authority. The significance of
this clause, however, is extremely ambiguous, and the issues it raised
would be seriously controverted in future.
At the end of the creed came a list of
anathemas, designed to repudiate explicitly the Arians' stated claims.
- The view that 'there was once that when he was not' was rejected to maintain the co-eternity of the Son with the Father.
- The view that he was 'mutable or subject to change' was rejected to
maintain that the Son just like the Father was beyond any form of
weakness or corruptibility, and most importantly that he could not fall
away from absolute moral perfection.
Thus, instead of a baptismal creed acceptable to both the Arians and
their opponents the council promulgated one which was clearly opposed to
Arianism and incompatible with the distinctive core of their beliefs.
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 of 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 adhered to the Homoousian position.
In spite of his sympathy for Arius, Eusebius of Caesarea adhered to
the decisions of the council, accepting the entire creed. The initial
number of bishops supporting Arius was small. After a month of
discussion, on June 19, there were only two left: Theonas of Marmarica
in
Libya, and Secundus of Ptolemais. Maris of Chalcedon, who initially supported Arianism, agreed to the whole creed. Similarly,
Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nice also agreed, except for the certain statements.
The Emperor carried out his earlier statement: everybody who refused to endorse the Creed would be
exiled. Arius, Theonas, and Secundus refused to adhere to the creed, and were thus exiled to
Illyria, in addition to being
excommunicated. The works of Arius were ordered to be confiscated and
consigned to the flames while all persons found possessing them were to be executed.
[47] Nevertheless, the controversy continued in various parts of the empire.
[48]
The Creed was amended to a new version by the
First Council of Constantinople in 381.
Separation of Easter computation from Jewish calendar
The feast of Easter is linked to the Jewish
Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread, as Christians believe that the
crucifixion and
resurrection of Jesus occurred at the time of those observances.
As early as
Pope Sixtus I, some Christians had set Easter to a Sunday in the lunar month of
Nisan.
To determine which lunar month was to be designated as Nisan,
Christians relied on the Jewish community. By the later 3rd century some
Christians began to express dissatisfaction with what they took to be
the disorderly state of the
Jewish calendar.
They argued that contemporary Jews were identifying the wrong lunar
month as the month of Nisan, choosing a month whose 14th day fell before
the spring equinox.
[49]
Christians, these thinkers argued, should abandon the custom of
relying on Jewish informants and instead do their own computations to
determine which month should be styled Nisan, setting Easter within this
independently computed, Christian Nisan, which would always locate the
festival after the equinox. They justified this break with tradition by
arguing that it was in fact the contemporary Jewish calendar that had
broken with tradition by ignoring the equinox, and that in former times
the 14th of Nisan had never preceded the equinox.
[50]
Others felt that the customary practice of reliance on the Jewish
calendar should continue, even if the Jewish computations were in error
from a Christian point of view.
[51]
The controversy between those who argued for independent computations
and those who argued for continued reliance on the Jewish calendar was
formally resolved by the Council, which endorsed the independent
procedure that had been in use for some time at Rome and Alexandria.
Easter was henceforward to be a Sunday in a lunar month chosen according
to Christian criteria—in effect, a Christian Nisan—not in the month of
Nisan as defined by Jews.
[52]
Those who argued for continued reliance on the Jewish calendar (called
"protopaschites" by later historians) were urged to come around to the
majority position. That they did not all immediately do so is revealed
by the existence of sermons,
[53] canons,
[54] and tracts
[55] written against the protopaschite practice in the later 4th century.
These two rules, independence of the Jewish calendar and worldwide
uniformity, were the only rules for Easter explicitly laid down by the
Council. No details for the computation were specified; these were
worked out in practice, a process that took centuries and generated a
number of
controversies. (See also
Computus and
Reform of the date of Easter.) In particular, the Council did not decree that Easter must fall on Sunday. This was already the practice almost everywhere.
[56]
Nor did the Council decree that Easter must never coincide with Nisan
14 (the first Day of Unleavened Bread, now commonly called "Passover")
in the
Hebrew calendar.
By endorsing the move to independent computations, the Council had
separated the Easter computation from all dependence, positive or
negative, on the Jewish calendar. The "Zonaras proviso", the claim that
Easter must always follow Nisan 14 in the Hebrew calendar, was not
formulated until after some centuries. By that time, the accumulation of
errors in the Julian solar and lunar calendars had made it the de facto
state of affairs that Julian Easter always followed Hebrew Nisan 14.
[57]
Meletian schism
The suppression of the Meletian schism, an early breakaway sect, was
another important matter that came before the Council of Nicaea.
Meletius, it was decided, should remain in his own city of
Lycopolis in
Egypt,
but without exercising authority or the power to ordain new clergy; 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
Laying on 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, and they were not to do anything without
the consent of Bishop Alexander.
[58]
In the event of the death of a non-Meletian bishop or ecclesiastic, the vacant
see
might be given to a Meletian, provided he was 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.
Promulgation of canon law
The council promulgated twenty new church laws, called
canons, (though the exact number is subject to debate, that is, unchanging rules of discipline. The twenty as listed in the
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers[59] are as follows:
- 1. prohibition of self-castration
- 2. establishment of a minimum term for catechumen (persons studying for baptism)
- 3. prohibition of the presence in the house of a cleric of a younger woman who might bring him under suspicion (the so called virgines subintroductae)
- 4. ordination of a bishop in the presence of at least three provincial bishops and confirmation by the Metropolitan bishop
- 5. provision for two provincial synods to be held annually
- 6. exceptional authority acknowledged for the patriarchs of Alexandria (pope), Antioch, and Rome (the Pope), for their respective regions
- 7. recognition of the honorary rights of the see of Jerusalem
- 8. provision for agreement with the Novatianists, an early sect
- 9–14. provision for mild procedure against the lapsed during the persecution under Licinius
- 15–16. prohibition of the removal of priests
- 17. prohibition of usury among the clergy
- 18. precedence of bishops and presbyters before deacons in receiving the Eucharist (Holy Communion)
- 19. declaration of the invalidity of baptism by Paulian heretics
- 20. prohibition of kneeling on Sundays and during the Pentecost (the fifty days commencing on Easter). Standing was the normative posture for prayer
at this time, as it still is among the Eastern Christians. Kneeling was
considered most appropriate to penitential prayer, as distinct from the
festive nature of Eastertide and its remembrance every Sunday. The
canon itself was designed only to ensure uniformity of practise at the
designated times.
On July 25, 325, in conclusion, the fathers of the council celebrated
the Emperor's twentieth anniversary. In his farewell address,
Constantine informed the audience 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
(Easter).
Effects of the council
The long-term effects of the Council of Nicaea were significant. For
the first time, representatives of many 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.
In the short-term, however, the council did not completely solve the
problems it was convened to discuss and a period of conflict and
upheaval continued for some time. Constantine himself was succeeded by
two Arian Emperors in the Eastern Empire: his son,
Constantius II and
Valens. Valens could not resolve the outstanding ecclesiastical issues, and unsuccessfully confronted
St. Basil over the Nicene Creed.
[60]
Pagan powers within the Empire sought to maintain and at times re-establish paganism into the seat of the Emperor (see
Arbogast and
Julian the Apostate).
Arians and Meletians soon regained nearly all of the rights they had
lost, and consequently, Arianism continued to spread and to cause
division in the Church during the remainder of the fourth century.
Almost immediately,
Eusebius of Nicomedia,
an Arian bishop and cousin to Constantine I, used his influence at
court to sway Constantine's favor from the orthodox Nicene bishops to
the Arians.
[61]
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 from Arian Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, and "with his passing
the first round in the battle after the Council of Nicaea was ended".
[61]
Role of Constantine
Christianity was illegal in the empire until the emperors Constantine and
Licinius agreed in 313 to what became known as the
Edict of Milan. However, Nicene Christianity did not become the
state religion of the
Roman Empire until the
Edict of Thessalonica
in 380. In the mean time, paganism remained legal and present in public
affairs. In 321 (four years before Nicaea), Constantine declared Sunday
to be an Empire-wide day of rest in honor of the sun. At the time of
the council, imperial coinage and other imperial motifs still depicted
pagan cult symbology in combination with the Emperor's image.
Constantine's role regarding Nicaea was that of supreme civil leader
and authority in the empire. As Emperor, the responsibility for
maintaining civil order was his, and he sought that the Church be of one
mind and at peace. When first informed of the unrest in Alexandria due
to the Arian disputes, he was "greatly troubled" and, "rebuked" both
Arius and Bishop
Alexander for originating the disturbance and allowing it to become public.
[62]
Aware also of "the diversity of opinion" regarding the celebration of
Easter and hoping to settle both issues, he sent the "honored" Bishop
Hosius of Cordova (Hispania) to form a local church council and "reconcile those who were divided".
[62]
When that embassy failed, he turned to summoning a synod at Nicaea,
inviting "the most eminent men of the churches in every country".
[63]
Constantine assisted in assembling the council by arranging that travel expenses to and from the bishops'
episcopal sees, as well as lodging at Nicaea, be covered out of public funds.
[64]
He also provided and furnished a "great hall ... in the palace" as a
place for discussion so that the attendees "should be treated with
becoming dignity".
[64]
In addressing the opening of the council, he "exhorted the Bishops to
unanimity and concord" and called on them to follow the Holy Scriptures
with: "Let, then, all contentious disputation be discarded; and let us
seek in the divinely-inspired word the solution of the questions at
issue."
[64]
Thereupon, the debate about Arius and church doctrine began. "The
emperor gave patient attention to the speeches of both parties" and
"deferred" to the decision of the bishops.
[65]
The bishops first pronounced Arius' teachings to be anathema,
formulating the creed as a statement of correct doctrine. When Arius and
two followers refused to agree, the bishops pronounced clerical
judgement by excommunicating them from the Church. Respecting the
clerical decision, and seeing the threat of continued unrest,
Constantine also pronounced civil judgement, banishing them into exile.
Misconceptions
Biblical canon
A number of erroneous views have been stated regarding the council's role in establishing the
biblical canon. In fact, there is no record of any discussion of the biblical canon at the council at all.
[66] The development of the biblical canon took centuries, and was nearly complete (with exceptions known as the
Antilegomena, written texts whose authenticity or value is disputed) by the time the
Muratorian fragment was written.
[67]
In 331
Constantine commissioned fifty Bibles for the
Church of Constantinople,
but little else is known (in fact, it is not even certain whether his
request was for fifty copies of the entire Old and New Testaments, only
the New Testament, or merely the Gospels), and it is doubtful that this
request provided motivation for
canon lists as is sometimes speculated. In
Jerome's
Prologue to Judith[68] he claims that the
Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures".
Trinity
The council of Nicaea dealt primarily with the issue of the deity of
Christ. Over a century earlier the use of the term "Trinity" (
Τριάς in Greek;
trinitas in Latin) could be found in the writings of
Origen (185–254) and
Tertullian (160–220), and a general notion of a "divine three", in some sense, was expressed in the second century writings of
Polycarp,
Ignatius, and
Justin Martyr.
In Nicaea, questions regarding the Holy Spirit were left largely
unaddressed until after the relationship between the Father and the Son
was settled around the year 362.
[69] So the doctrine in a more full-fledged form was not formulated until the
Council of Constantinople in 360 AD.
[70]
Constantine
While Constantine had sought a unified church after the council, he did not force the
Homoousian view of Christ's nature on the council (see
The role of Constantine).
Constantine did not commission any Bibles at the council itself. He did
commission fifty Bibles
in 331 for use in the churches of Constantinople, itself still a new
city. No historical evidence points to involvement on his part in
selecting or omitting books for inclusion in commissioned Bibles.
Despite Constantine's sympathetic interest in the Church, he did not
actually undergo the rite of baptism himself until some 11 or 12 years
after the council.
Disputed matters
Role of the Bishop of Rome
Roman Catholics assert that the idea of Christ's deity was ultimately
confirmed by the Bishop of Rome, and that it was this confirmation that
gave the council its influence and authority. In support of this, they
cite the position of early fathers and their expression of the need for
all churches to agree with Rome (see Ireneaus,
Adversus Haereses III:3:2).
However, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, and
Oriental Orthodox
do not believe the Council viewed the Bishop of Rome as the
jurisdictional head of Christendom, or someone having authority over
other bishops attending the Council. In support of this, they cite Canon
6, where the Roman Bishop could be seen as simply one of several
influential leaders, but not one who had jurisdiction over other bishops
in other regions.
[71]
According to Protestant theologian
Philip Schaff,
"The Nicene fathers passed this canon not as introducing anything new,
but merely as confirming an existing relation on the basis of church
tradition; and that, with special reference to Alexandria, on account of
the troubles existing there. Rome was named only for illustration; and
Antioch and all the other eparchies or provinces were secured their
admitted rights. The
bishoprics of
Alexandria,
Rome, and
Antioch were placed substantially on equal footing."
[72]
There is however, an alternate Roman Catholic interpretation of the
above 6th canon proposed by Fr. James F. Loughlin. It involves five
different arguments "drawn respectively from the grammatical structure
of the sentence, from the logical sequence of ideas, from Catholic
analogy, from comparison with the process of formation of the Byzantine
Patriarchate, and from the authority of the ancients"
[73]
in favor of an alternative understanding of the canon. According to
this interpretation, the canon shows the role the Bishop of Rome had
when he, by his authority, confirmed the jurisdiction of the other
patriarchs—an interpretation which is in line with the Roman Catholic
understanding of the Pope.
[73]
See also
References
- Britannica 2014
- SEC, pp. 112–114
- SEC, p. 39
- SEC, pp. 44–94
- Kieckhefer 1989
- On the Keeping of Easter
- Leclercq 1911b
- Vita Constantini, Book 3, Chapter 6
- Ad Afros Epistola Synodica
- SEC, pp. 292–294
- Kelly 1978, Chapter 9
- Schaff & Schaff 1910, Section 120
- SEC, p. 114
- Carroll 1987, p. 10
- Ware 1991, p. 28
- Carroll 1987, p. 11
- Carroll 1987, p. 12
- Vita Constantini
- Theodoret, Book 1, Chapter 7
- Theodoret, Book 1, Chapter 8
- Theodoret, Book 3, Chapter 31
- Contra Constantium Augustum Liber
- Temporum Liber
- Teres 1984, p. 177
- Kelhoffer 2011
- Pentecostarion
- Barnes 1981, pp. 214–215
- Atiya 1991
- Vailhé 1912
- Photius I, Book 1, Chapter 9
- Vita Constantini, Book 3, Chapter 10
- Original lists of attendees can be found in Patrum nicaenorum
- Davis 1983, pp. 63–67
- Anatolios 2011, p. 44
- Davis 1983, pp. 52–54
- OCA 2014
- González 1984, p. 164
- M'Clintock & Strong 1890, p. 45
- John 14:28
- Colossians 1:15
- Davis 1983, p. 60
- John 10:30
- On the Incarnation, ch 2, section 9, "... yet He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father's Son"
- Athanasius (Patriarch of Alexandria) - Select treatises of St. Athanasius in controversy with the Arians, Volume 3 Translator and Editor John Henry Newman. Longmans, Green and co., 1920. page 51. Retrieved 24 May 2014.
- González 1984, p. 165
- Loyn 1991, p. 240
- Schaff 1910, Section 120
- Lutz von Padberg 1998, p. 26
- Anatolius, Book 7, Chapter 33
- Chronicon Paschale
- Panarion, Book 3, Chapter 1, Section 10
- On the Keeping of Easter
- Chrysostom, p. 47
- SEC, p. 594
- Panarion, Book 3, Chapter 1
- Sozomen, Book 7, Chapter 18
- L'Huillier 1996, p. 25
- Leclercq 1911a
- Canons
- AOC 1968
- Davis 1983, p. 77
- Sozomen, Book 1, Chapter 16
- Sozomen, Book 1, Chapter 17
- Theodoret, Book 1, Chapter 6
- Sozomen, Book 1, Chapter 20
- Ehrman 2004, pp. 15–16, 23, 93
- McDonald & Sanders 2002, Apendex D2, Note 19
- Preface to Tobit and Judith
- Fairbairn 2009, pp. 46–47
- Socrates, Book 2, Chapter 41
- Canons, Canon 6
- Schaff & Schaff 1910, pp. 275–276
- Loughlin 1880
Bibliography
Primary sources
Note: NPNF2 =
Schaff, Philip; Wace, Henry (eds.), Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, retrieved 2014-07-29
- Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine, NPNF2 1, retrieved 2014-02-24
- Socrates and Sozomenus Ecclesiastical Histories, NPNF2 2
- Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, and Rufinus: Historical Writings, NPNF2 3, retrieved 2014-02-24
- Athanasius: Select Works and Letters, NPNF2 4, retrieved 2014-02-24
- Jerome: The Principal Works of St. Jerome, NPNF2 6, retrieved 2014-02-24
- The Seven Ecumenical Councils, NPNF2 14
- Chronicon Paschale [Paschal Chronicle]
- Pentecostarion, Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain, 3 November 2008, retrieved 22 February 2014
- Chrysostom, John; Harkins, Paul W (trans) (1 April 2010), Discourses Against Judaizing Christians, The Fathers of the Church 68, Catholic University of America Press, ISBN 978-0-8132-1168-8
- Epiphanius of Salamis; Williams, Frank (trans) (1994), The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Leiden: Brill, ISBN 90-04-09898-4
- Hilary of Poitiers, Contra Constantium Augustum Liber [A Book Against the Emperor Constantine]
- Jerome, Temporum Liber [The Book of Times]
- Photios I of Constantinople; Walford, Edward (trans), Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, Compiled by Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople
Secondary sources
- Ayers, Lewis (20 April 2006), Nicaea and Its Legacy, New York: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-875505-0, retrieved 2014-02-24
- Barnes, Timothy David (1981), Constantine and Eusebius: ,, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, ISBN 978-0-674-16530-4, retrieved 2014-02-24
- Carroll, Warren (1 March 1987), The Building of Christendom, Front Royal: Christendom College Press, ISBN 978-0-93-188824-3, retrieved 2014-02-24
- Danker, Frederick William (2000), "οἰκουμένη", A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Third ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ISBN 978-0-226-03933-6, retrieved 2014-02-24
- Davis, Leo Donald (1983), The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787), Collegeville: Liturgical Press, ISBN 978-0-8146-5616-7, retrieved 2014-02-24
- Ehrman, Bart (2004), Truth and Fiction in the Da Vinci Code, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-1-28084-545-1
- Fairbairn, Donald (28 September 2009), Life in the Trinity, Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, ISBN 978-0-8308-3873-8, retrieved 2014-02-24
- Gelzer, Heinrich; Hilgenfeld, Henricus; Cuntz, Otto, eds. (1995), Patrum nicaenorum nomina Latine, Graece, Coptice, Syriace, Arabice, Armeniace [The names of the Fathers at Nicaea in Latin, in Greek, Coptic, Syriac, Arabic, Armenian] (2nd ed.), Stuttgart: Teubner
- González, Justo L (1984), The Story of Christianity 1, Peabody: Prince Press, ISBN 978-1-56563-522-7, retrieved 2014-02-24
- Kelhoffer, James A (2011), The Search for Confessors at the Council of Nicaea, Journal of Early Christian Studies 19 (4): 589–599, doi:10.1353/earl.2011.0053, ISSN 1086-3184
- Kelly, J N D (29 March 1978), Early Christian Doctrine, San Francisco: HarperCollins, ISBN 978-0-06-064334-8, retrieved 2014-02-24
- Kelly, J N D (1981), Early Christian Creeds, Harlow: Addison-Wesley Longman Limited, ISBN 978-0-582-49219-6, retrieved 2014-02-24
- Kieckhefer, Richard (1989), "Papacy", in Strayer, Joseph Reese, Dictionary of the Middle Ages 9, Charles Scribner's Sons, ISBN 978-0-684-18278-0, retrieved 2014-02-24
- L'Huillier, Peter (January 1996), The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils, Crestwood: St Vladimir's Seminary Press, ISBN 978-0-88141-007-5, retrieved 2014-02-24
- Leclercq, Henri (1911), "Meletius of Lycopolis", The Catholic Encyclopedia 10, New York: Robert Appleton Company, retrieved 19 February 2014
- Leclercq, Henri (1911), "The First Council of Nicaea", The Catholic Encyclopedia 11, New York: Robert Appleton Company, retrieved 19 February 2014
- Loughlin, James F (1880), The American Catholic Quarterly Review 5: 220–239
- Loyn, Henry Royston (1991), The Middle Ages, New York: Thames & Hudson, ISBN 978-0-500-27645-7, retrieved 2014-02-24
- M'Clintock, John; Strong, James (1890), Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature 6, Harper & Brothers, retrieved 2014-02-24
- MacMullen, Ramsay (2006), Voting About God in Early Church Councils, New Haven: Yale University Press, ISBN 978-0-300-11596-3, retrieved 2014-02-24
- McDonald, Lee Martin; Sanders, James A, eds. (2002), The Canon Debate, Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, ISBN 978-1-56563-517-3
- Newman, Albert Henry (1899), A Manual of Church History 1, Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, OCLC 853516, retrieved 2014-02-24
- Newman, John Henry; Williams, Rowan (1 September 2001), The Arians of the Fourth Century, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, ISBN 978-0-268-02012-5, retrieved 2014-02-24
- Norris, Richard Alfred (trans) (1980), The Christological Controversy, Sources of Early Christian Thought, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, ISBN 978-0-8006-1411-9, retrieved 2014-02-24
- St Nicholas the Wonderworker and Archbishop of Myra in Lycia, retrieved 22 February 2014
- Lutz von Padberg (1998), Die Christianisierung Europas im Mittelalter [The Christianization of Europe in the Middle Ages], P. Reclam, ISBN 978-3-15-017015-1, retrieved 2014-02-24
- Rubenstein, Richard E (26 August 1999), When Jesus became God, New York: Harcourt Brace & Co, ISBN 978-0-15-100368-6, retrieved 2014-02-24
- Rusch, William G (trans) (1980), The Trinitarian Controversy, Sources of Early Christian Thought, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, ISBN 978-0-8006-1410-2, retrieved 2014-02-24
- Schaff, Philip; Schaff, David Schley (1910), History of the Christian Church 3, New York: C Scribner's Sons, retrieved 2014-02-24
- Tanner, Norman P (1 May 2001), The Councils of the Church, New York: Crossroad, ISBN 978-0-8245-1904-9, retrieved 2014-02-24
- Teres, Gustav (October 1984), Time Computations and Dionysius Exiguus, Journal for the History of Astronomy 15 (3): 177, retrieved 2014-02-24
- Vailhé, Siméon (1912), "Tremithus", The Catholic Encyclopedia 15, New York: Robert Appleton Company, retrieved 2014-02-24
- Ware, Timothy (1991), The Orthodox Church, Penguin Adult
- Williams, Rowan (1987), Arius, London: Darton, Logman & Todd, ISBN 978-0-232-51692-0, retrieved 2014-02-24
Mainstream scholars like Coogan point to strong evidence that humans had a hand in the writing and editing of biblical texts.
Enlarge
Photo credit: © WGBH Educational Foundation
For nearly 2,000 years, Jewish and Christian tradition held that
Moses, directed by God, composed the first five books of the Bible.
Enlarge
Photo credit: Public Domain/Edmund Ollier
The Book of Genesis offers what appear to be two disparate accounts of Noah and the flood interwoven together.
Enlarge
Photo credit: Courtesy The Bridgeman Art Library International
Separate biblical writers in Genesis seem to have used different
names for God. One of these names is YHWH, generally pronounced
"Yahweh."
Enlarge
Photo credit: © WGBH Educational Foundation
In Jewish tradition, when reading from the Torah, the Hebrew word Adonai ("The Lord") is substituted for the sacred name "Yahweh." Enlarge
Photo credit: © WGBH Educational Foundation
To portray the writers of the biblical texts, NOVA turned to actual scribes living in Jerusalem today.
Enlarge
Photo credit: © WGBH Educational Foundation
Coogan and other scholars think that a group they call the Priestly
Writers compiled the work of previous authors during the Babylonian
Exile.
Enlarge
Photo credit: © WGBH Educational Foundation
