The Council of Nicaea – 1700 years

By Fr. George Florovsky

Nicaea was the city chosen to host the First Ecumenical Council. Constantinople was officially proclaimed only in 330, and at the time of the convocation of the Council of Nicaea, the imperial residence was in Nicomedia, very close to Nicaea. Nicaea, whose name comes from the Greek word for “victory,” was easily accessible by sea and land from all parts of the Empire. The imperial letter convening this council has not been preserved. Eusebius reports that the emperor sent letters of invitation to the bishops of all countries, ordering them to come quickly – “σπεύδειν ἁπανταχόθεν τοὺς ἐπισκόπους γράμμασι τιμητικοῖς προκαλούμενος”.[1] All expenses were to be paid from the imperial treasury. The number of bishops gathered that has come down to us is three hundred and eighteen – this is what St. Athanasius the Great, Socrates Scholasticus and Theodoret of Cyrene claim. Over time, a mystical symbolism began to be associated with this number – in the Greek abbreviation some see a reference to the cross and to the “holy name of Jesus”. In his work De fide (1, 18) St. Ambrose of Milan connects the number of three hundred and eighteen bishops with the number of Abraham’s servants from the book of Genesis (14:14). In individual accounts, the number differs. According to Eusebius, for example, it is two hundred and fifty – “πεντήκοντα καὶ διακοσίων ἀριθμὸν”.[2] However, Eusebius does not include the number of priests and deacons. Arabic accounts from a later period speak of more than two thousand bishops. The Latin lists preserved today contain the signatures of no more than two hundred and twenty-four bishops. There is no reason, however, why the number of three hundred and eighteen should not have been in fact accurate. If we include the priests, deacons, and others present at the council, the number would have reached two thousand.

The eastern provinces were well represented. From the Latin West, on the other hand, there were only eight delegates, one of whom exercised considerable influence—Hosius of Cordova, Spain (c. 257–357), who was also the theological advisor to St. Constantine. In addition to Hosius, the Latin West was represented by Nicasius of Dijon, Caelitian of Carthage, Domnus of Pannonia, Eustorgius of Milan, Marcus of Calabria, and two Roman presbyters—Victor (or Vitus) and Vincent, who represented the Roman bishop St. Sylvester (314–335). Also present were a Persian bishop named John and the Gothic bishop Theophilus, who was apparently a teacher of Ulfilas (c. 311–383), the Arian translator of the Bible into Gothic, whose influence on subsequent history, especially in the West, was enormous. Known as the “Apostle of the Goths,” Ulfilas, according to Philostorgius, translated the entire Bible except for the books of Kings. With his translation of the Bible into Gothic and the conversion of the Goths to Christianity—in its Arian version—Ulfila cast his shadow over the West for centuries to come.

The Council of Nicaea was officially opened with the arrival of Constantine—probably on June 14. Eusebius describes the appearance of the emperor in his usual style: “When the bishops had gathered in the main building of the imperial palace, … each took his place … and quietly awaited the arrival of the emperor. The palace servants entered one after another, but only those of them who professed faith in Christ. When the moment of the emperor’s approach was announced, … all the bishops rose from their places and the emperor appeared as a messenger of the heavenly God (οἷα θεοῦ τις οὐράνιος ἄγγελος) – covered with gold and precious stones, with a glorious figure, tall and slender, full of beauty, with power and majesty. To this external decoration of his was added the spiritual adornment of the fear of God and of modesty and humility, which could be seen in his lowered eyes, his flushed face, the movements of his body and in his gait. When he reached the golden throne prepared for him, he stopped and did not sit down until the bishops gave a sign for this. After he had sat down, the bishops also took their places”.[3]

After a brief address by “the bishop at the emperor’s right hand”, Constantine “with a gentle voice” delivered an introductory speech in the official Latin language, which was immediately translated into Greek. Although the individual accounts of this speech differ slightly from one another by Eusebius, Sozomen, Socrates, and Rufinus, all agree on the essential point: “The purpose of my desire, friends, was to be allowed to enjoy your assembly, for which I thank the King of all, because – above all other blessings – He has granted me to contemplate this best of all blessings: all of you gathered in agreement and with one mind. Let no envious enemy, therefore, deprive us of this blessing… I consider the internal discord in the Church to be more terrible and more painful than any war and battle… Therefore, since by the will and with the help of the All-Good One I have maintained victory over my enemies, I consider it my first duty to give thanks to God and to rejoice together with those whom He has liberated through me. However, understanding your division, I did not leave this also without attention, and in my desire the evil to be cured, I immediately gathered you together. But my desire will be fulfilled only when I see you united in that peaceful agreement, which you yourselves, as anointed by God, should proclaim to the rest. Do not delay, therefore, my friends, servants of God and good servants of the Master and Savior of us all. Do not delay to examine the causes of your discord at their very beginning and to resolve all disputed questions by peaceful decrees. By this you will please God, and to me, your fellow minister (τῷ ὑμετέρῳ συνθεράποντι), you will bring great joy.”[4]

After this opening speech, according to Eusebius, the emperor returns the council back to the bishops: παρεδίδου τὸν λόγον τοῖς τῆς συνίδου προέδροις.[5] The bishops begin their work, but the emperor also continues to take an active part in the sessions.

According to Socrates’ Ecclesiastical History (1, 8), for Sabinus of Heraclius, the majority of the bishops represented at the Council of Nicaea were uneducated. Harnack writes that this “… is confirmed by the surprising results. The universal acceptance of the final decision of the council is understandable only if we assume that the matter under discussion was beyond the capabilities of most of the bishops”.[6] It is possible that this was exactly the case. However, we cannot close our eyes to the fact that competent theologians were also represented there, and even a large number is not a guarantee of discussing the truth. St. Athanasius, although a deacon, was present, along with Alexander of Alexandria. Hosius, whom St. Athanasius calls “the Great” – ὁ μέγας, was clearly not a mediocre man. And probably the most educated of all the bishops was Eusebius of Caesarea. The remaining attendees, although they cannot be considered theologians in the strict sense of the word, are worthy of note for their lives as confessors and for their spirituality. There is Paphnutius of Upper Thebaida. There is also Potamon of Heraclius, whose right eye was blinded. Paul of Neocaesarea, who had suffered the tortures under Licinius, had both hands mutilated and was tortured with red-hot iron. There are also the hermit James of Nisibis and Spyridon of Cyprus, the saint of the Ionian Islands.

It is traditionally believed that two theological parties opposed the Council of Nicaea. However, careful analysis shows that there were three parties. This is clear from the position of Eusebius of Caesarea, from the nature of his confession and from the subsequent history of the dispute. St. Athanasius simply mixed two hostile parties into one opposition. The “orthodox” party, at first a minority, was represented by Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, Macarius of Jerusalem, Marcellus of Ancyra, Hosius of Corduba, and St. Athanasius, as a deacon.

The Arians came to the council of Nicaea apparently convinced of their victory, since they had a supporter in the person of the bishop of that city and because of their great influence at the imperial court. The Arians, or Eusebians, as they were called, numbered about twenty bishops, headed by Eusebius of Nicomedia. There was also the presbyter Arius, who was repeatedly summoned to explain his views: evocabatur frequenter Arrius in concilium – as Rufinus says.[7] Other supporters of Arianism were Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, and Menophanthus of Ephesus.

The middle group, which was the majority, was led by Eusebius of Caesarea. This moderate party of his was made up of different groups, so it could swing in different directions.

The Arians were the first to draw up a confession at the Council of Nicaea. On their part, this was a logistical error. The creed they drew up was communicated to the council by their spokesman, Eusebius of Nicomedia. With it, their theological position became clear and unambiguous. Their creed met with open disapproval and – according to what is known – was torn to pieces. The signatories – with the exception of the Egyptians Theona and Secundus, who remained adamant – regrouped in the hope of presenting something more acceptable. They essentially abandoned the cause of Arius.

Thus the focus turned to Eusebius of Caesarea and the moderates. Eusebius offers an ancient Palestinian creed that was, in general, similar to the Nicene Creed. It acknowledges the divine nature of Christ, but avoids the term ὁμοούσιος (Gr.) = consubstantialis (Lt.) = of one substance. Constantine seems to have seen this creed and approved of it. As a defensive measure, Eusebius added to it an anti-Sabellian section, explicitly emphasizing that the Father is the true Father, the Son is the true Son, and the Holy Spirit is the true Holy Spirit. According to Eusebius, this creed was unanimously proclaimed as “orthodox.”

The problem arose from the suspicion of the “orthodox” party—it seemed that a minority of Arians were inclined to accept this creed, but if so, then something was wrong with it. The “orthodox” party insisted on a creed to which no Arian would honestly subscribe. They insisted on the insertion of ὁμοούσιος—a term hated by the Arians; a term which they considered unscriptural, Sabellian, materialistic. From Eusebius we know that the emperor was on the side of those who demanded ὁμοούσιος, and that it was Hosius who suggested it to Constantine. But the insertion of this word did not settle the matter. It was thought that the Caesarean Creed contained expressions which could be interpreted in a certain Arian sense.

Hosius of Cordoba went a step further, announcing that another creed would be read by Hermogenes of Caesarea, then a deacon and later a bishop, who was also the secretary of the council. This was a very carefully constructed doctrinal formula, purporting to be a revision of the creed of Caesarea. Here one can see the contribution of the Alexandrians, as well as that of Eustathius of Antioch and Macarius of Jerusalem, but the main influence here was Hosius – of whom St. Athanasius writes that “οὗτος… ἐν Νικαίᾳ πίστιν ἐξέθετο”.[8] The first change was the exchange of ἀπάντων ὁρατῶν (“of all things visible in general”) with πάντων ὁρατῶν (“of all things visible…”). The reason for this was to exclude the creation of the Son and the Holy Spirit. The second change is the replacement of the word “Logos” with “Son” at the beginning of the second paragraph, so that everything that follows is referred to the Son. The word λόγος is completely absent from the Nicene Creed, but neither St. Athanasius nor the Arians object to its exclusion. The third change is the expansion of θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ (“God from God”) to γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς μονογενῆ θεὸν ἐκ θεοῦ (“begotten of the Father, only-begotten God from God”). It seems that in the final debates the words “τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρός” (“that is, from the essence of the Father”) were inserted between μονογενῆ and θεὸν to exclude any Arian interpretation. The fourth change is aimed at several expressions considered unsatisfactory, ambiguous, and prone to misinterpretation. The expressions ζωὴν ἐκ ζωῆς (“life from life”), πρωτότοκον πασίς κτίσεως (“firstborn of all creation”), πρὸ πάντων τῶν ἐἰώνων ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ πατρὸς γεγεννημένον (“before all ages begotten of the Father”) were deleted. Instead of them was inserted: Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, … δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο (“God true from God true, begotten, not made, … by whom all things were made”). Here, however, as the discussions continued, another addition was deemed necessary – after οὐ ποιηθέντα (“uncreated”) the words ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί (“of one substance with the Father”) were added, again because without this addition the text could be interpreted in an Arian sense. The fifth change consisted in replacing the evasive and indefinite ἐν ἀνθρώποις πολιτευσάμενον (“he lived among men”) by the clear ἐνθρώπήσαντα (“and became man”). In short, everything that approached Arianism in meaning was excluded from the final Creed.

The opposing parties argued fiercely. And the disputes became so intense that the emperor felt obliged to participate in them: ἐρωτήσεις τοιγαροῦν καὶ ἀποκρίσεν ἐντεῦθεν ἀνεκινοῦντο, ἐβασάνιζέν τε ὁ λόγος τὴν διάνοιαν τῶν εἰρημένων – according to Eusebius, according to the History of Theodoret.[9] It is clear from the accounts of St. Athanasius that the Eusebians continued to make proposals of a conciliatory nature and tried to include certain expressions that could be interpreted in an Arian sense. In the Nicene Creed, however, the expressions ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας (“from the essence”) and ὁμοούσιος (“of the same essence”) prevail.

For the first time, a new type of document entered the history of the Church – a list of the signatures of the bishops under the Acts and decisions of an ecumenical council. The state – the empire, which until recently had been so hostile to the Church, now supports it, elevating its doctrinal decisions to the status of imperial law. Almost all the bishops sign.

It is significant that the first name on this list is that of Hosius of Cordova. His signature is followed by the signatures of the two Roman presbyters, signing on behalf of their Roman bishop. After a day of reflection, Eusebius also signs. Only the two Egyptian bishops – Theonas and Secundus – refuse to sign. Together with Arius, they are exiled to Illyria.

The bishops have discussed. The emperor has interacted and participated. Nevertheless, it is clear that the theological decisions come from the bowels of the Church. Now, with the signatures of the bishops, the Acts of the First Ecumenical Council become imperial law. Now the power of the state can be felt. The emperor orders the books of Arius to be burned. In his History, Socrates relates that anyone caught with Arian books was threatened with the death penalty. Moreover, the emperor declared that henceforth adherents of Arianism were to be called “Porphyrians,” that is, they were to be considered the worst enemies of Christ.[10] In his letter to the Church of Alexandria, the emperor testified to his conviction that the results of the council were the work of the Holy Spirit: ὁ γὰρ τοῖς τριακοσίοις ἤρεσεν ἐπσκόποις, οὐδέν ἐστιν ἕτερον, ἣ τοῦ Θεοῦ γνώμη, μάλιστά γε ὅπου τὸ ἄγιον πνεῦμα, τοιούτων καὶ τηλικούτων ἀνδρῶν ταῖς διανοίαιαις ἐγκειμενον, τὴν θείαν βούλησιν ἐξεφώτισε.[11] And yet, a new form of persecution was begun—the persecution of those who refused to sign or accept the decisions of the ecumenical councils. This was the first example of state punishment for heresy. Until the conversion of the Empire to Christianity, the maximum punishment for heresy was excommunication. Now exile and death were added to this, since any disobedience to the Church was considered—at the same time—a crime against the State.

The age of Constantine is a turning point in Christian history. But what exactly was the Church’s view of the Empire before it was Christianized? Once the Empire was Christianized, what were the gains and losses for the Church? What, in essence, was the “Byzantinization” of the Church?

There was no anarchism in the attitude of the early Christians towards the Roman Empire. The “divine” origin of the state and its authority was something formally recognized by St. Paul the Apostle, for whom it was no difficulty to turn for protection to the Roman magistrates and to Roman law. The positive value and function of the state were something generally recognized in Christian circles. Even the fierce attacks on it in the book of Revelation were no exception. What was denounced there were the arbitrariness and injustice of the specific Rome, but not the principle of political order. In the Roman courts, Christians could quite sincerely and honestly protest their political innocence, as well as plead in favor of their loyalty to the Empire. In fact, the early Christians prayed most piously for the state, for peace and order, and even for the emperors themselves. We find a high assessment of the Roman Empire even in those Christian writers of that time who were well-known for their resistance, such as Origen and Tertullian. The theological “justification” of the Empire dates back to the period of persecution. But Christian loyalty was necessarily a limited loyalty. Of course, Christianity was by no means a conspiracy, and Christians never intended to overthrow the existing order, although they did believe that it would eventually lose its meaning.

From the Roman perspective, however, it was impossible not to see Christians as suspicious, not because they were in any way involved in politics, but precisely because they were not. For the Romans, their political “indifference” was irritating. Christians stood aside from the care of the “community” in the critical times for the struggle for its existence. They claimed not only “religious freedom” for themselves. They also claimed the supreme authority of the Church. Despite the fact that the Kingdom of God was categorically “not of this world,” it seemed like a threat to the all-competent kingdom of man. The Church was – in a sense – a kind of “resistance movement” in the Empire, and Christians were “conscientious objectors.” They were ready to resist any attempt to “integrate” them into the fabric of the Empire. In the apt words of Christopher Dawson, Christianity was “… the only remaining power in the world that could not be absorbed by the gigantic machinery of the new enslaving state.” [12] Christians were not a political faction, but their religious allegiance had an immediate “political” connotation. It has already been noted that in the ancient world monotheism was a “political problem” in itself (Eric Peterson). For Christians there was no other option but to claim “autonomy” – for themselves and for the Church. And this is precisely what the Empire could never allow or understand. Thus the clash was inevitable, although it could have been postponed. For the Empire the Church was a challenge, and the Empire was a constraint for the Christians. After its long and protracted struggle with the Church, the Roman Empire finally capitulated. Imp. Constantine converted to the faith and humbly begged to be accepted into the Church. The Christian response to this was by no means unanimous. Many of the Christian leaders were ready to welcome without reservation the conversion of the Caesar-Emperor and the resulting conversion of the Empire. Among them, however, there were not a few who had misgivings about such an imperial maneuver. Certainly there were hardly any among them who did not rejoice at the cessation of hostilities, as well as at this freedom of public worship, which would now be legally guaranteed. The main problem, however, remained unsolved, and here we are talking about a problem of an extremely complex nature. It may even be said that it was an extremely paradoxical problem. Tertullian had already raised some uncomfortable questions, which, however, remained only questions of a rhetorical nature in his time. Could the Caesars accept Christ and believe in Him? They clearly belonged to “this world.” They were an integral part of the “secular” fabric, they were necessarii saeculo (needed by the world). Could a Christian then be emperor? Could a Christian belong simultaneously to the two opposing orders – to the Church and to the world (Apology, 21, 24)? In Constantine’s time this notion of the “Christian Caesar” was still a mystery and a conundrum – despite the eloquent effort of Eusebius of Caesarea to discuss the idea of ​​the “Christian empire”. For many Christians, this very idea contained an internal contradiction. Caesars are necessarily devoted to the cause of this world. The Church, however, is not of this world. The service of the Caesars is by its very nature secular. Was there then any place for emperors – as such – in the very structure of the Christian community? It has recently been suggested that Constantine himself was perhaps rather confused and uncertain on this point. It seems that one of the reasons he delayed his own baptism was precisely this vague sense of the difficulty of being both Christian and Caesar. There was no problem in Constantine’s personal conversion. As emperor, however, he was doomed. He had to bear the burden of his high position in the Empire. He continued to be the “divine Caesar.” As emperor, he was also deeply involved in the traditions of the Empire, however much he actually tried to free himself from them. The transfer of the imperial residence to a new city, far from the memories of the old pagan Rome, was an imposing symbol of this noble effort. But the Empire itself remained the same as before—with its autocratic ethos and customs, with all its pagan practices, including the worship of its Caesars and their deification. We have ample reason to trust Constantine’s personal honesty. He was undoubtedly deeply convinced that Christianity was the only force capable of breathing life into the ailing body of the Empire and of providing a new principle of unity in that time of social disintegration. However, he evidently could not ab dictates from his supreme authority, nor to abandon the world. Indeed, Constantine was deeply convinced that by divine providence a high and holy mission had been entrusted to him; that he had been chosen to re-establish the Empire by recreating it on Christian foundations. This conviction, more than any separate political theory, was the decisive factor in his policy and in his actual manner of governing.

The situation was extremely uncertain. Should the Church accept the offer made to it by the Empire and take on the new task? Is this a favorable opportunity, or rather a dangerous compromise? In practice, the experience of close cooperation with the Empire was not entirely joyful and encouraging for Christians, even in the days of Constantine himself. The Empire did not seem to the Church to be an easy and convenient ally and partner. Under Constantine’s successors all the inconveniences of this cooperation become clearly visible even if we ignore the unsuccessful attempt of Julian to restore paganism. The leaders of the Church were forced again and again to protest against the persistent attempts of the Caesars to exercise their supreme authority also in matters of faith. Thus, in a very real sense, the victory of the Council of Nicaea was doomed to a short life. Nicaea is the beginning, not the end, of ongoing theological disputes over the nature of the God-man, and hence over the nature of God and the nature of man.

Notes:

[1] Vita Constantini, 3, 6.

[2] Ibid., 3, 8.

[3] Ibid., 3, 10.

[4] Ibid., 3, 12.

[5] Ibid., 3, 13.

[6] Fr. Florovsky quotes the English translation of Adolf Harnack’s History of Dogmas:Harnack, A. History of Dogma, Vol. 4, Grand Rapids, MI: „Christian Classics Ethereal Library“, p. 53. The same is also available online and reads: „As regards the composition of the Council, the view expressed by the Macedonian Sabinus of Heraclea (Socr. I. 8), that the majority of the bishops were uneducated, is confirmed by the astonishing results. The general acceptance of the resolution come to by the Council is intelligible only if we presuppose that the question in dispute was above most of the bishops“.

[7] Historia Ecclesiastica, 10, 5c.

[8] „”Explained the Faith at Nicaea”“ – Historia Arianorum, 42, 3.

[9] Historia ecclesiastica, 1, 12, 9.

[10] Letter of Constantine to the Bishops and the People – In: Historia ecclesiastica, 1, 9.

[11] Epistula Constantini imperatoris ad ecclesiam Alexandrinam – Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, ed. Mansi, Vol. 2, Florentiae, 1759, col. 725B.

[12] Dawson, C. The Making of Europe, London: „Sheed And Ward“, 1948, p. 23.

Source:  Florovsky, G. „The Council of Nicaea“ – In: The Byzantine Fathers of the Fifth Century (= The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, 8), Vaduz: „Büchervertriebsanstalt“ 1987, p. 278-86.