First Council of Nicea
From Wikipedia:
The First Council of Nicaea (/naɪˈsiːə/ ny-SEE-ə; Ancient Greek: Σύνοδος τῆς Νικαίας, romanized: Sýnodos tês Nikaías) was a council of Christian bishops convened in the Bithynian city of Nicaea (now İznik, Turkey) by the Roman Emperor Constantine I. The Council of Nicaea met from May until the end of July 325.[4]
This ecumenical council was the first of many efforts to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all Christendom. Hosius of Corduba may have presided over its deliberations.[5][6] Its main accomplishments were settlement of the Christological issue of the divine nature of God the Son and his relationship to God the Father,[2] the construction of the first part of the Nicene Creed, mandating uniform observance of the date of Easter,[7] and promulgation of early canon law.[3][8]
Background
Alexandrian controversies
Main articles: Arian controversy and Melitians
The major impetus for the calling of the Council of Nicaea arose in a theological dispute among the Christian clergy of Alexandria concerning the nature of Jesus, his origin, and relation to God the Father.[9] Scholars propose dates between 318 and 322 for the beginning of the dispute.[10] The precise origins of the controversy are unclear, but the principal actors were Archbishop Alexander of Alexandria and the presbyter Arius.[11]Arius' teachings are known partially from a few of his writing which survive, but principally from his opponents, primarily Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria.[12][13]Arius criticized Alexander's teachings on Christology; Alexander taught that Jesus as God the Son was eternally generated from from the Father, while Arius and his followers asserted that the Father alone was eternal, and that the Son was created or begotten by the Father, and thus had a defined point of origin and was subordinate to the Father.[14][15] Arius accused Alexander of following the teachings of Sabellius, who taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were one person, rather than the view held throughout the east that they were distinct.[16] Alexander called a local council of bishops from Egypt and Libya, which sided with Alexander's view. Arius refused to subscribe to the council's decision, and was he and several followers were excommunicated and exiled from Alexandria by Alexander. Arius then traveled to churches around the Roman east and wrote to bishops to gain support of his view. Among Arius' supporters were Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea, and they advocated for his view and his restoration to the church in Alexandria. Alexander also circulated letters defending his own position.[17][10]
Parallel to the theological controversy between Alexander and Arius was the Melitian schism in the Alexandrian church. Melitius, bishop of Lycopolis, had acted in the stead of the imprisoned bishop Peter I of Alexandria during the Diocletianic Persecution, but after Peter's death in 311 refused to give up his right to ordain clergy or recognize the authority of Peter's successors Achillas or Alexander.[18][19]
Constantine and the calling of the council
In 324, the western Roman emperor Constantine defeated the eastern emperor Liciniusand became the sole ruler of the Roman Empire.[20] It was at this time that, likely from Eusebius of Nicomedia, he became aware of the controversy between Alexander and Arius.[21] Constantine wrote a letter to the two, urging them to end their dispute and reconcile.[22] This was not Constantine's first direct involvement in ecclesiastical controversy; he had previously attempted to resolve a schism over Donatism in North Africa, first appointing Miltiades, Bishop of Rome to hear the dispute (with the instruction "I do not wish you to leave schism or division of any kind anywhere.") and then calling the Council of Arles.[23]
Constantine's letter was carried to Alexandria by Bishop Hosius of Corduba as his representative. Hosius apparently then presided over a synod at Alexandria concerning the date of Easter, before calling a council of Eastern bishops in Antioch. This council endorsed Alexander's position and issuing a statement of faith that held that the Son was "begotten not from non-existence, but from the Father, not as made, but as genuine product" and contained anathemas against Arius.[24][10] Eusebius of Caesaria was also temporarily excommunicated because of his contention that the Father and the Son were of two different natures.[25][26]
The bishops were then to assemble Ancyra in Asia Minor for a "great and hierarchic council", either at their own impetus or Constantine's command. Constantine moved the council to Nicaea in Bithynia, a venue that would allow him to attend personally (due to its proximity to his capital at Nicomedia) and would allow easier access for bishops from throughout the empire.[27] The emperor had also planned a commemoration of the twentieth year of his reign in Nicaea.[28]
Attendance and logistics
The expenses of the council, including the travel of the bishops, were paid by the imperial treasury.[29] Contemporary reports of attendance range from 250 to 300, with the figure of 318 given by Athanasius of Antioch becoming traditionally accepted.[30]318 is also the number of members of Abraham's household given in the Book of Genesis.[31] Lists of signatories to the final decisions of the council contain 200–220 names.[32] With presbyters and deacons attending each bishop, the total attendance may have been between 1200 and 1900.[29] Most of the bishops were eastern, with about twenty from Egypt and Libya, another fifty Palestine and Syria, and more than one hundred from Asia Minor.[31] One bishop each from Persia and Scythia were present.[32] The few western attendees were Hosius, Caecilianus of Carthage, Nicasius of Die, Marcus of Calabria, Domnus of Pannonia, and Victor and Vicentius, two presbyters representing Bishop Sylvestor of Rome. Of the eastern bishops, the principal supporters of Arius were Eusebius of Nicomedia, Eusebius of Caesarea, Menophantus of Ephesus, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Narcissus of Neronias, Theonas of Marmarike, Secundus of Ptolemais, and Theognis of Nicaea. The principal anti-Arians included Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, Marcellus of Ancyra and Macarius of Jerusalem.[33]
The council was held in Nicea's imperial palace.[34] The bishops most likely assembled in a rectangular basilica hall based on Eusebius of Caearea's description.[35]
Proceedings
Constantine opened the council with a formal entrance after the bishops arrived, with Eusebius describing him as "like some heavenly angel of God, his bright mantle shedding lustre like beams of light, shining with the fiery radiance of a purple robe, and decorated with the dazzling brilliance of gold and precious stones." He then gave an opening speech in Latin (rather than the Greek spoken by most of the attendees).[36] Fifth-century church historian Socrates of Constantinople gives the date of the opening as 20 May 325, though may have been later in June.[37][38]
It is most likely that Hosius presided over the council's debates and proceedings as Constantine's representative.[39][40] Constantine did join in the debates of the council (in Greek), but did not see himself as a voting member as he was not a bishop.[39] No detailed acta of the council exist as they do for later councils, so the exact sequence of the council's debates is uncertain.[41] Church councils at the time were modeled after the proceedings of the Roman Senate, with the presiding officer having a large degree of control, and participants speaking in turn based on heirarchy.[42]Probably the first matter considered was the status of Eusebius of Caesarea and the other bishops excommunicated at Antioch, as this would determine whether they could participate in the rest of the council. According to Eusebius, his profession of faith was accepted and he was restored.[43]An account by Eustathius of Antioch records a statement of faith by a Eusebius being rejected by the council, though this was likely Eusebius of Nicomedia.[44] A statement of faith based on earlier creeds was drafted (possibly by a smaller committee), and each line was debated by the council. All but two bishops subscribed to the final form of the creed as adopted.[45] In addition to the Arian question, the council also considered the calculation of Easter, and adopted the Roman and Alexandrian method over the objection of several eastern bishops.[46] The bishops also agreed to a resolution on the Melitian schism and issued twenty canons.[47] The council closed in the first weeks of July, with the bishops invited to attend Constantine's celebration of his twentieth anniversary on the throne on 25 July. Both the bishops and the emperor issued letters recounting the councils' decisions to be circulated throughout the empire.[48]
Ecumenical Council
The First Council of Nicaea was the first ecumenical council of the church. Nicaea "was the first time that any attempt had been made to summon a general council of the whole church at which, at least in theory, the church in every part of the Roman Empire should be represented".[49]
Derived from Greek (Ancient Greek: οἰκουμένη, romanized: oikouménē, lit.'the inhabited one'), "ecumenical" means "worldwide" but generally is assumed to be limited to the known inhabited Earth,[50] and at this time in history is nearly synonymous with the Roman Empire. The earliest extant uses of the term for a council are Eusebius' Life of Constantine[51] around 338, which states "he convoked an ecumenical council" (σύνοδον οἰκουμενικὴν συνεκρότει, sýnodon oikoumenikḕn synekrótei)[52] and a letter in 382 to Pope Damasus I and the Latin bishops from the First Council of Constantinople.[53]
Historically significant as the first effort to attain consensus in the church through an assembly representing all of Christendom,[54] the Council was the first occasion where the technical aspects of Christology were discussed.[54] 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.[55]
Arian controversy
Main articles: Arius, Arianism, and Arian controversy
The two views
The synod of Nicaea, Constantine and the condemnation and burning of Arian books, illustration from a northern Italian compendium of canon law, c. 825
The Arian controversy arose in Alexandria when the newly reinstated presbyter Arius[56] began to spread doctrinal views that were contrary to those of his bishop, 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 Godhead and what it meant for Jesus to be God's Son. Alexander maintained that the Son was divine in just the same sense that the Father is, coeternal with the Father, else he could not be a true Son.[57][58]
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 first and the most perfect of God's creatures.[57][58]
[
](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Belgrade_grafiti_-_First_Council_of_Nicaea.jpg)A grafitti in Belgrade, Serbia, depicting apocryphal events at the First Council of Nicaea. The text reads "St. Nicholas at the council in Nicaea in the year 325 stops the great lie of the heretic Arius who convinced the people that Jesus Christ is not God".
The Arian discussions and debates at the Council extended from about 20 May through about 19 June.[58] 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.[59] This account is almost certainly apocryphal, as Arius would not have been present in the council chamber because he was not a bishop.[60]
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 Gnostics (who used it in their theology), and because their beliefs 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 first production, before all ages, the position being that the Son had a beginning, and that only the Father has no beginning. 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",[61] 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" (John 14:28),[62] and also that the Son is "firstborn of all creation" (Colossians 1:15).[63]
Arguments against Arianism
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, coequally and consubstantially.[64] The anti-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" (John 10:30)[65] and "the Word was God" (John 1:1).[66]They declared, as did Athanasius,[67] that the Son had no beginning but had an "eternal derivation" from the Father and therefore was coeternal with him and equal to God in all aspects.[68]
Result of the debate
The first Council of Nicaea from the Manasses Chronicle.
The Council declared that the Son was true God, coeternal 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.[69]
Nicene Creed
Main article: Nicene Creed
Icon depicting the Emperor Constantine and the bishops of the First Council of Nicaea (325) holding the Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed of 381
The Council formulated 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.