The Council of Nicaea was the first ecumenical council of Christendom, held from May to August of AD 325. Emperor Constantine the Great convened the council with the primary aim of forging unity amongst Christians on theologies and other disputes. Issues throughout the Empire had been developing as theological matters concerning the Godhead became more divided. The Nicene Creed produced at the Council was the first uniform doctrine of Christianity with the aim of unification; however, the subsequent years of divisions suggest otherwise. The Creed’s content and language exacerbated the divisions between different camps, leading to further ecclesiastical arguments. The Arian controversy, primarily in Alexandria, fuelled these divisions which centred around the natures of the Godhead. The Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed of 381, instigated by Theodosius I, was a turning point in unifying Christianity and the Empire because the Creed generally became accepted as the foundation for orthodox Christianity. Consensus building movements had contributed to a growing pro-Nicene theology throughout the Empire but the imperial sponsorship it received from Theodosius was the legislative push required to become a unifying force. Historians often treat the Council of Nicaea as a prelude to the following ecclesiastical conflicts, but recently there has been an increasing number of studies on the Council itself and its implications for Christianity. The Council of Nicaea ultimately had a strong unifying effect for orthodox Christianity and the Empire in establishing a uniform doctrine, but the short-term effects were much more divisive and discordant.
Constantine the Great convened and financed the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 under the advisement of Hosius of Corduba, who presided over the Council. After a synod earlier in the year that examined the divisions in Christianity perpetrated by Arianism, it was concluded that a council was needed to gain consensus on theological matters. The general number adopted by our sources for bishops in attendance is 318, but varying numbers have been cited in some texts. Athanasius[1], Evagrius[2] and Hilary of Poitiers[3]among others claimed that 318 bishops attended and then the Eastern and Coptic Orthodox churches stated this number in the liturgies thus it is commonly followed. The actual attendance for the Council was much larger as it was composed of priests and deacons as well as bishops, with the majority travelling from the Eastern sees. There is a lack of official records on the Council’s proceedings thus it is complicated to reconstruct reliably so there is a dependence on narratives from those present who had their own agendas[4]. For example, Eusebius of Caesarea’s narrative was impacted by the affiliation he had with the Emperor (Life of Constantine, 3.10-12). As for the Nicene Creed, it is believed that there were copies kept in the major sees of the Empire due to the citations by Basil, Cyril, and Ambrose; the creed was not necessarily intended for the laity at the time of production, however. The Nicene Creed was a declaratory creed rather than a liturgical one and thus its intention was to state the faith in its principal tenets rather than in a manner that would be read as worship in churches. The Creed did not satisfy many attendees due to the extreme differences in theologies; it was viewed either as too latitudinarian due to the unscriptural terms or too rigidly anti-Arian. It has been speculated whether the issues with the Creed could largely have been avoided through changing the grammar rather than the theological content due to the widely accepted guidelines for speaking about divinity, including scriptural language.[5] However, due to the state of Christendom prior to the Council, the ensuing events were likely inevitable due to the core ecclesiastical divisions that became increasingly apparent.
The preceding years to the Council are recounted by Eusebius of Caesarea in ‘Life of Constantine’ but the theological epoch is pieced together through other ecclesiastical historians such as Rufinus, Socrates and Theodoret. Constantine was aware of the issues throughout his empire preceding the Council of Nicaea which had been festering since the beginning of the Arian controversy. Arius, an Alexandrian presbyter, had strong beliefs about the Godhead which opposed what became orthodox Christology; he did not believe in coequal Trinitarianism which stated that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit were distinct persons sharing a single essence. Instead, Arius’ teachings followed that the Son was ‘created’ (Arius, Letter to Alexander of Alexandria 2-5), where the Nicene Creed states that the Son was ‘begotten, not made’ (The Creed of Nicaea). The Creed was mostly dedicated to this issue of the Godhead’s nature which demonstrates how significant the theology was. Arius’ doctrine drew from the writings of Origen, active around the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, in some respects with the subordination of the Son to the Father but their theologies were not identical.[6] The empire was also in a particularly volatile period because of social developments in the Church; Alexandria was slowly shifting to a monarchical episcopacy therefore the Council occurred at a liminal time when hierarchies and independencies were still being established. The Meletian schism in Egypt in the early 300s also acted as a prelude to the events at the Council of Nicaea and validates how divided Christendom was in the early 4th century. Socrates has emphasised how Constantine’s primary aim through the Council was to foster peace above all else (HE 1.10) and it becomes clear why when looking at the extensiveness of divisions in his empire. While some historians often portray the Emperor as naïve when assessing his motives, Elliott makes pains to emphasise that Constantine did not expect the whole of Christendom to accept the Creed without question, even if he did hope. Particularly his concern lay with the Alexandrians due to this being the birthplace of the Arian controversy.[7] Furthermore, the sheer size of Christendom by AD 325 meant that any attempt to mandate an empire-wide orthodox theology was ambitious. Willian Frenkel has commented on the historiography of the Council of Nicaea, stating that it is centred around literary and polemical accounts from the clergy. This has created a multi-faceted narrative which, while historically significant, lacks explanations for those in the empire less involved with synods and imperial laws.[8] Constantine was correct to be cautious, as is proved by the subsequent years of Christological divisiveness exacerbated by the Nicene Creed.
The Nicene Creed defined the nature of the Father and the Son as consubstantial and of the same essence, which essentially marked Arianism as heresy, with additional anathemas more specific to the exclusion of Arianism. Conflicting testimonies on the origins of the Creed exist, as some believe that it stems from Eusebius of Caesarea. He claimed that he recited the creed of a Church of Palestinian Caesarea which the council then adapted with the addition of the term ‘homoousios’ (Appendix to Ath. Decr.) but most modern scholarship sees this as unlikely due to creedal discrepancies. The most controversial aspect of the Nicene Creed which created the antithesis of unity in the Empire was this ‘homoousios’ term. Homoousion was used to describe God the Son as the same in being with God the Father, later applied to the Holy Spirit as well, and its introduction into orthodox Christology created tension. As the term was Greek, even more moderate Origenist bishops were fearful of its inclusion because its unscriptural nature seemed pagan. The Nicene Creed and its supporters were criticised by some centrists of being Sabellian, a form of modalism viewed as heresy. It became apparent in the immediate years following the Council that the Creed, which had been crafted with unity in mind, was spiralling into further discord. Most in attendance of the Council adhered to the Creed but, as this equated to endorsing the Homoousian position, some were reluctant to. Arius, Theonas of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais were exiled and excommunicated while the supporters of Arianism were considered as “enemies of Christianity”.[9] This arguably worsened the ecclesiastical relations of the Empire and strayed from Christological unification.
The Nicene Creed saw limited initial engagement and the decisions of the Council were slowly reversed as the Arians and Meletians regained most of what they lost. For example, Arius’ exile was revoked in the autumn of AD 327 by Constantine himself and the Eastern empire ended his condemnation in AD 336.[10] Constantine’s stance had changed drastically because directly after the Council in October 325 he banished Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea for associating with Arians and criticised Eusebius of depriving his people of the faith.[11] In the years following the Council, two camps emerged and controlled most of the ecclesiastical world. The alliance of Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia supported the teachings of Arius, despite their lack of support during the Council, and argued that the Son was different in ousia (essence) than the Father and not eternal. The other alliance was headed by Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria who were distinctly anti-Arian. Athanasius succeeded Alexander in AD 328 and his account ‘De Decretis’ made clear his stance that one either agreed with the Council or with Arius, there was not an in-between. Historical opinions on the groups which emerged differ, Sarah Parvis sees the Eusebians as a distinct organised camp whereas Mark DelCogliano views them as more of an “ad-hoc centrist alliance” that simply contested the extremes of anti-Arianism and Sabelliansim.[12] The two camps had opposing theologies on the substance of the Godhead, and this dictated the divisions; the First Synod of Tyre in 335 saw how disagreements infiltrated secular issues in the Empire as well as religious. Athanasius experienced five exiles throughout the four decades following the Council of Nicaea, due to the theological gulf in Christendom which was perpetuated by the Council. There were also many attempts at conciliar creed making to either replace or improve the Nicene Creed, such as the Creed of the Long Lines in 344. These credal texts became increasingly convoluted as each theology attempted to create the superior text which made it a challenge for Nicaea to hold authority. The role of the emperor impacted the reception of the Council of Nicaea because during Constantine’s reign, while the Creed was not necessarily followed, the Council was generally respected. However, after his death in AD 337, this perspective deteriorated into attempts to replace the creed with a more satisfactory orthodoxy in the 340s. When Constantius II became the joint ruler with Constans and Constantine II, he opened his reign by disregarding canon 15 produced at the Council of Nicaea which forbade bishops from moving sees by allowing Eusebius to transfer from Nicomedia to Constantinople. Furthermore, after he became sole ruler in AD 353, he attempted moving the Church towards a more middling position with a series of councils. The Council of Rimini in 359 and of Seleucia in 360 saw his effort to impose his own semi-Arian views on the Empire. The Dated Creed, also known as the Nike Creed or Ariminum Creed, in theory banned the Creed of Nicaea which used the ousia language and claimed that this language was used illogically in the Creeds. Constantius had to enforce the acceptance of this creedal text because, despite unease about the homoousios term, the Nicene Creed still had supporters in Christendom.
In the midst of the Arian reaction to the Council of Nicaea, there was a growing consensus building movement for the Nicene Creed from the 350s. The movement emerged more in the 360s but truly was at its height in the 370s, a strict change from the ecclesiastical divisions in the early years following the council. Mark DelCogliano has observed the growth of this movement throughout the 4th century that was primarily fuelled by Athanasius. He cites the Synod at Antioch in 341 as the first real attempt at building a consensus as the approved creeds upheld orthodoxy while avoiding the more extreme theologies and controversial Nicene language. The Second Creed was produced here, and later developed into the Fourth Creed which was recognised as the statement of faith by the eastern episcopacy at the Council of Serdica in AD 343.[13] A tendency of these early post-Nicene creedal texts was to be as minimally anti-Arian as possible to reduce opposition and then anathematise specificities. There was a renewed attempt to pursue religious unity, especially between the eastern and western Empire. The pro-Nicene movement was driven by Athanasius and Gregory of Nazianus, whose remarks concerning a church council demonstrate the divided clergy which “not even a ruler backed by reverential fear and authority” could have resolved (Gregory of Nazianus, Concerning His Own Life 1680-9). Gregory mainly garnered support in Constantinople through his rhetoric while Athanasius focused on the inclusion of the ousia language, which he believed was a necessity in comprehending the nature of God. Athanasius maintained the authority of the Council of Nicaea by circulating the creed and defending its language in the face of much opposition. The slow progress of a pro-Nicene consensus continued throughout the mid 4th century, but the turning point arrived with the reign of Theodosius I. When he became emperor in AD 379, the movement was able to legislate their efforts with his support of the Nicene Creed as Christological orthodoxy.
The long-term impacts of the Council of Nicaea witness much more of a unifying force than the short term effects. Theodosius’ rule ratified the pro-Nicene consensus; he began his reign by arriving in Constantinople in AD 380 and exiling the Arian bishop Demophilus and placing Gregory of Nazianus as the de facto archbishop while he set to initiating de jure change. The second ecumenical council, the Council of Constantinople in AD 381, was convened and financed by Theodosius. The Council’s primary act was the confirm the Nicene Creed with a few revisions, resulting in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. The Eastern Empire particularly had been divided into factions, with even intra-faction divisions, and thus an imperial push for unity was necessary. The Creed of 381 was a restatement of the Creed of 325 with a few key differences. The later creedal texts added more concerning the Holy Ghost, among other clauses that had been established in older creeds. The Creed was confirmed at subsequent councils in Ephesus, Constantinople and Chalcedon in AD 431, 448 and 451 where the synods recognised that new revisions were required to sustain the developments of new theologies and heresies (The Council of Chalcedon, Definition of the Faith). However, they are clear to state that the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is seen as a revision of the original creed, therefore the unity it promoted is ultimately attributed to the Council of Nicaea.[14] With the assistance of Theodosius’ patronage, adherence to the Council of Nicaea became standardised and integrated into the basic understanding of orthodox Christianity. The focal point of ecclesiastical debates shifted to other matters while the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed became a cypher to which theologies referred to.[15] Theodosius’ reign played an undoubtedly significant role in ratifying the Nicene Creed; convening the Council of Constantinople, issuing imperial edicts, confirming that Nicene orthodoxy was the official religion of the Roman Empire and mandating an empire wide adherence to it ensured that unity was maintained. DelCogliano suggested that one of the primary reasons that Christian orthodoxy now follows a pro-Nicene theology is because Theodosius had the time to legislate the theology he endorsed. Had Constantius II lived longer, he could have secured his semi-Arian orthodoxy and the Empire could have followed a different path.[16] As Young Richard Kim states, Christianity is written by the powerful much in the same way that history is, and thus the unifying force that succeeded was that of the Emperor who had the opportunity to secure the theology he subscribed to.[17]While the long term effects of the Council of Nicaea are a unifying force for Christianity, variation in the Creed was still apparent even in pro-Nicene groups. The Armenian Church follows the Chalcedonian Definition of the Creed, and debates continued into the 5th century. However, these debates were much less divisive as they focused more on the interpretation of the Creed rather than its validity.[18] Ultimately, the Council of Constantinople was much more of a strong unifying force for Christianity and the Empire than the Council of Nicaea, but their purposes were very similar.
The Council of Nicaea of AD 325 had a mixed effect throughout the 4th century. The immediate result was one of divisiveness as competing ecclesiastical parties pitted their theologies against each other and the Nicene Creed only exacerbated this with its controversial language. Despite most bishops confirming the Creed, the following decades witnessed tumultuous ecclesiastical debates as opposing camps gained momentum. Emperor Constantine’s primary aim in convening the Council was to promote unity and peace among the Church but the resulting schisms show this was unsuccessful until the Council of Constantinople in AD 381. Arianism remained prevalent throughout the 4th century despite the efforts of pro-Nicene consensus building movements spearheaded by Athanasius of Alexandria, partially due to the semi-Arian stance taken by Constantius II. The support that the pro-Nicene theology received from Theodosius aided its journey to orthodoxy with imperial legislature. Fundamentally, the Council of Nicaea did have a strong unifying force for Christianity and the Empire because it was adopted as orthodoxy and maintains an almost unchallenged status. However, while it ended as a unifying force, the divisiveness it perpetuated throughout the Church and Empire in the 4th century must be taken into account when understanding the effects of the Council of Nicaea.
Molly Davies is currently pursuing a BA in History (2nd year) at the University of Manchester.
Notes: [1] Athanasius of Alexandria, Ad Afros Epistola Synodica [2] Theodoret, 3.31 [3] Contra Constantium Augustum Liber [4] Mark Smith, The Idea of Nicaea in the Early Church Councils, AD 431-451 (Oxford, 2018), p. 9. [5] Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford, 2004), p. 13. [6] Ibid., p. 20. [7] T.G. Elliott, Constantine and the Arian Reaction after Nicaea (Cambridge, 1992), p. 169. [8] Luise M. Frenkel, ‘The Reception of the Council of Nicaea by Ethnic Minorities in the Eastern Roman Empire’, Annuarium Historiae Conciliorum, Vol. 49, No. 1 (2020), p. 15. [9] Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Section 120 (1910) [10] Sara Parvis, ‘The Reception of Nicaea and Homoousios to 360’, in Young Richard Kim (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea (Cambridge, 2020), p. 225. [11] Elliott, Constantine, p. 170. [12] Karl Heiner Dahm, ‘The Council of Nicaea – (Y.R) Kim (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea’, The Classical Revies, Vol. 71, No. 2 (2021), p. 523. [13] Mark DelCogliano, ‘The Emergence of the Pro-Nicene Alliance’ in Young Richard Kim (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea (Cambridge, 2020), pp. 256-9. [14] Mark J. Edwards, ‘The First Council of Nicaea’, in Margaret M. Mitchell and Frances M. Young (ed.), The Cambridge History of Christianity (Cambridge, 2006), p. 152. [15] Mark S. Smith, The Ida of Nicaea in the Early Church Councils, Ad 431-451 (Oxford, 2018), p. 3. [16] DelCogliano, ‘The Emergence’, p. 274. [17] Young Richard Kim, ‘Introduction’ Young Richard Kim (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea (Cambridge, 2020), p. 6. [18] Edwards, ‘First Council of Nicaea’, p. 154.
תגובות