Chapter 3: Council of Nicea
In the Church of the fourth century, there were two centers of intellectual life that have assumed a special place in history: Antioch and Alexandria. Both of these cities had their own schools in which Christianity was discussed and analyzed, and both cities developed their own approach. When we speak of them today, we think more of the "spirit" behind each school, rather than the school itself. It was the special approach of each that determined their influence.
Antioch was one of the largest cities of the Roman Empire, surpassed only by Rome and Alexandria. It was one of the most beautiful cities of the East, a center of Greek culture; yet it marked the border line between the two worlds, the East and the West. Oriental mysticism mingled there with the more legal spirit of Rome. It was here that Peter had first settled, before moving on to Rome; on February 22 the Church celebrates this in the feast of the "Chair of St. Peter at Antioch." And as St. Luke informs us, "... it was in Antioch that the disciples were first called 'Christians'" (Acts 11:26).
In the fourth century, there was a learned man at Antioch who exercised so great an influence over Christian thought that he is usually called the founder of the "School of Antioch." This man was Lucian. The name of Diodorus of Tarsus also marks a high point of the school, as well as St. John Chrysostom, the great preacher-bishop of Constantinople, who also had received his training at Antioch.
The spirit of Antioch laid special emphasis upon the grammatical and historical meaning of Scripture, and on the value of human reason in the service of religion. This carried with it, unfortunately, the special danger of falling into a purely historical and rational approach to Christian truth. History and human reason tended to mark the approach of Antioch more than they ought to. The end result was a number of heresies in which Scripture was understood more by human reason than according to the traditional faith of the Church.
Alexandria, on the other hand, was the great port city of Egypt. Even before the time of Christ, it included a large Jewish population, a group that showed a special concern for combining Jewish culture with Greek philosophy. To meet the needs especially of the Egyptian Jews, the Greek translation of the Old Testament was made - the Septuagint, as it is called.
The Christians of Alexandria in the fourth century shared much of this same spirit. As in Antioch, there were certain catechetical schools established in the third century. The greatest name associated with these schools in northern Africa is that of Origen. His influence was such that he is justly looked upon as the great light of the Alexandrian school; he was active in this city about the year 215 under Clement of Alexandria.
Somewhat in opposition to Antioch, the school of Alexandria adopted a more philosophical or even mystical approach to Christian truth. In explaining Scripture, this latter school tended to see imagery or allegory in the inspired texts, and showed less concern than did Antioch for the literal sense of Scripture. This approach carried with it another special danger, the danger of falling into some kind of exaggerated "spiritualism." It could produce a manner of speaking of the Church that tended to wander off from the visible reality of daily life. Despite this, the followers of Origen time and again rose to defend the orthodox teaching of the Church. Of them all, St. Athanasius stands out as the greatest. The history of this most famous bishop of Alexandria is intimately linked up with the story of Arius and Arianism.
In the fourth century, and in the centuries to follow, the theological disputes were to center in a special way in these two schools, Antioch and Alexandria. The pendulum swings first to one side, then to the other. Out of the conflict came the clear statements of the early Councils of the Church.
When Lucian began his teaching at Antioch, he sowed the seeds of the greatest error concerning Christ in the early Church, Arianism. Lucian had been a friend and ally of Paul of Samosata, and he carried with him many similar ideas. Paul had really held that there was no Trinity. The Logos (the "power" of God, as he understood it) had simply "dwelt" in the man, Jesus of Nazareth. Lucian held something similar, and passed it on to his most famous pupil at the school of Antioch - a priest by the name of Arius.
Arius was a native of Libya but was attached to the church of Alexandria. He evidently studied at Antioch under Lucian; at any rate, his doctrine is assuredly inspired by that of Lucian. Arianism breathes the spirit of Antioch even though it came to light in Alexandria; it was, moreover, accepted very quickly by the school of Antioch while failing to capture Alexandria or Egypt throughout the fourth century. In its concern for the literal meaning of Scripture, and its deceptive use of the arguments of human reason, Arianism reflects the approach of Antioch rather than the allegory of Alexandria.
As a heresy, Arianism was not "popular" in the sense that the ordinary Christian fully understood the complicated system. It was above all a concern of the schools. It is a curious fact of history, however, that this heresy did filter down into the market place, and became the topic of daily conversation and the subject matter of popular songs and hymns. What this really amounted to was more of a "taking sides" on the part of the people - particularly when the political decrees of the emperors added to the conflict. To be a "good Arian," as far as the man in the street was concerned, often meant to be a devoted follower of some strong leader. This very fact contributed much to the progress of Arianism, just as it did later on with regard to Protestantism in the sixteenth century.
Arius himself was an excellent example of such a strong leader. He was well known as a preacher, and had a large following among a certain class of Christians at Alexandria. He was able to gather about him men and women who were especially interested in leading a more perfect or penitential form of fife. Into his preaching, however, he gradually introduced more and more of Lucian's theory about the Son of God. This could not fail to attract the attention of the bishop of Alexandria, a man named Alexander. About 318 the bishop began an inquiry into the manner in which Arius explained Christ as the Son of God. When he recognized the teaching of Arius for what it was, he saw how much it was opposed to the faith handed down by the Apostles. Arius was therefore called upon to give up this teaching once and for all. When he refused to do so, he was excommunicated by the bishop, along with his followers, most likely in 319 or 320.
The theory of Arius is difficult to express briefly. His interpretation of one scriptural text may serve as a starting point. St. Paul had written to the Colossians: "He (Christ) is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature. For in him were created all things in the heavens and on the earth . . ." (Col. 1:15). Ignoring all other texts of the Bible, the Arians tried to defend their theory on this and similar phrases.
For Arius, there was but one God and one divine Person. This God is eternal. There is mention in Scripture, however, of not only Christ but also the Logos: the "Word." As far as Arius was concerned, this Word (the Logos) was not God; he was not the second Person of the Trinity. He was simply a creature, but a creature of a special and unique type. The Logos, he claimed, was created by God before everything else; he was created before the world, before the universe, before time. But the Logos was created by God, and created out of nothing; thus he is the "first-born of every creature." As a result, however, the Logos was not God, and therefore he did not possess the very same nature or being as God. He was not, in other words, of the same "substance" as God.
In Greek the word especially used for substance was ousia. The adjective "same" was, in Greek, homos. It is from this Greek word that we have such English words as "homogenized." Homogenized milk, for example, is milk that is all of "one and the same kind" (from homos and genos - "kind"). Thus homo-ousia means "one and the same substance."
The Arians would not admit this truth; what they were really denying, of course, was the divinity of Christ. If the Logos was not of the same nature, the same substance as God, then he was not God. And this is just what they taught.
There was a time, then, when the Logos did not exist. He was created by the free will of God. According to Arius, however, this Logos became in turn the creator of all other things in the universe. Thus the Word was more of a superangel, as it were, the first and highest creature of God; in fact, the Logos was the only creature directly created by God. In this sense only is he called by Scripture the "only-begotten." All other things were created directly by the Logos and not by God. This does give other creatures some kind of reason for calling the Logos "God." He brought them into existence.
This must be understood as "God" only in a secondary sense, however. Arius would admit that the Logos, as a creature, could have sinned; this could not be true of God. Since the Father foresaw from all eternity that the Logos would not sin, He "adopted" the Logos in a special manner as His Son. Only in this way is the Logos God; he is an "adopted God," but nothing more.
Thus when Scripture speaks of the "Son of God," this is all it means, according to Arius. When Paul said that the Word is the "first-born of every creature," and that "in him were created all things," this is how it is to be understood. But there is no real possession of one and the same nature by God and the Logos. They differ as the Creator differs from a creature.
The entire matter might have ended when the bishop of Alexandria excommunicated Arius, but it did not. Arius was a proud man, and a man with influential contacts. When he realized that he was in trouble, he sought out protectors, and he found them. Thus the conflict was extended. His most powerful defender was a fellow disciple of Lucian; it was Eusebius, by this time bishop of the imperial city of Nicomedia. He was a man of great power, and eventually Arius fled to Nicodemia, having left Alexandria. There he experienced the protection of Eusebius; from Nicomedia he carried on his defense.
A period of letter writing soon followed. Arius wrote those bishops he hoped would defend him; some of his bishop-patrons wrote other bishops, trying to win them over to the position of Arius. The bishop of Alexandria, however, also wrote to the other bishops - more than 70 letters in all. Among them was a letter to the Pope at Rome, containing an official account of the heretical teaching of Arius, and of his excommunication.
While all of this was going on, Constantine, who had come to power in 306, was gaining ground. In 313, the imperial edict that brought the persecution of the Church to an end bore the names of Galerius, Constantine, and Licinius. Fifteen days after the publication of the decree, Galerius was dead; only Constantine and Licinius remained. In September of 323, however, Constantine defeated the Eastern Emperor, Licinius, and in 324 became at last the sole ruler of the Roman world. And it was to him that the disputing parties now turned for a solution.
Constantine had for some reason chosen as his special ecclesiastical adviser the bishop of the Spanish city of Cordova, a man named Hosius. This bishop may possibly have had something to do with the conversion of Constantine. At any rate, Hosius was destined to play a large role in the first General Council of the Church.
When Constantine had emerged as the sole ruler of the Empire, and had heard of the doctrinal disputes that were going on in the Church, he first of all sent Hosius to the bishop of Alexandria. He had hoped thus to negotiate peace between the disputing parties. Little was accomplished by this mission, but either as a result of it or by reason of later conversations, it was realized that this problem could not be settled at a local level. Hosius had learned the full error of Arius and its terrifying implications for Christian truth. As a solution, the Council of Nicea, the first Christian landmark in the long line of General Councils, came into being.
There had been many smaller "councils" or synods before Nicea; the idea was not entirely new. What was different, however, was the notion of a General or Universal Council. For the first time the bishops of the entire world were to be gathered together to determine a point of Catholic belief. As the ancient historian Eusebius remarks: "When they were all assembled at
Nicea, it appeared evident that the proceeding was the work of God. . . ." For the first time, the activity of the Holy Spirit in a General Council was to be experienced by the Christian world.
Our knowledge of the Council is rather limited; the accounts of the Acta of the gathering are said to have covered some forty volumes, but they have long since been lost. It seems clear, however, that Constantine himself, at the urging of the bishops near him, sent out the invitations to the bishops to attend. Constantine also paid the expenses involved in the celebration of the Council. The primary purpose of the gathering was to solve the problem of Arianism, although two other points were to be discussed: (1) the date for the celebration of Easter, which had been disputed by some; and (2) the question of the schism of Meletius in Egypt - a man who attempted to usurp the power of the bishop of Alexandria in a dispute concerning those who had denied the faith during the persecutions (the lapsi).
The Roman Pontiff, Sylvester I, was apparently not consulted before Constantine acted, but he ratified the move by sending two legates to the gathering, the Roman priests Victor and Vincentius. It was in this way that the "head" of the college of bishops convoked the meeting -what the authors refer to as the "formal convocation."
The Council was to be held at Nicea in Bithynia. It was a convenient location for the Western bishops to reach, since it is close to the sea, but the principal reason for the choice seems to have been the desire of the Emperor to attend. Nicea lay close to the summer residence of the Emperor, and it was therefore far more convenient. Today there is nothing at this spot but a small village called Isnik, but at that time, Nicea was the center of the cultural life of Bithynia. Known as the "Golden City," it was a fitting spot for this great spectacle to unfold.
The Council opened, it would seem, about May 20, 325. It apparently closed on June 19. The opening session was a magnificent event, and obviously quite a change for many of the bishops who attended. Some of them had known even personally the final persecutions under Diocletian and, even more recently, under Licinius. They must have flinched as they passed by the armed soldiers, standing now only as honorary guards to add solemnity to the event. Memories of imperial guards in the past, seeking out Christians and leading them to death, could not help but come to mind. But the world had changed very rapidly.
The bishops gathered in the grand hall of the imperial palace at Nicea, where seats had been arranged on opposite sides of the room. Clad as an Oriental sovereign, in gold and precious stones, Constantine entered the hall in solemn fashion once the bishops had gathered together. He then addressed them briefly in Latin on the purpose of the Council, and his talk was immediately translated into Greek. Then the lively debates began among the bishops present.
In all, there were about 250 bishops present. The traditional number given is 318, but this seems to be a reference more to the 318 servants of Abraham than historical record (cf. Gen. 14:14). The Creed itself bears the signature of only 220 bishops. Most of those in attendance came from the eastern half of the Empire, but the Western provinces, Africa, Spain, Gaul, and Italy, were also represented by at least one bishop.
The bishops soon grouped into parties, following their own convictions. There was a small but powerful group of 15 or 20 bishops favoring Arius, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia. A second group urged the solution of stating simply what had been said before, with no further clarification; these included the bishops who disliked the idea of defining faith in new terms not found in Scripture. A third group, however, eventually achieved its desire. These bishops wished to re-examine the entire teaching in the light of tradition, and express Catholic belief clearly, and, if need be, in new terminology.
Arius was given a chance to defend his teaching, but when he expressed his position clearly and bluntly, all but his own party wished to condemn him. It was apparent by then that some kind of formula had to be adopted to do this. Eusebius of Nicomedia, Arius' patron, was ready for this; he had prepared such a formula. As might be expected, it was so vague that both the Catholics and the Arians could sign it with equal ease; it was no solution at all.
Only after overcoming the objections of those who wished to repeat nothing but the scriptural terminology was the final Creed formulated: "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance of the Father; God from God, light from light, true God from true God; begotten, not created, consubstantial (homo-ousion) with the Father. . . ."
The phrase "Son of God" was used in place of Logos to avoid any confusion on that point. The words "only-begotten" were further explained as meaning that the Word was not created from nothing, but possessed the very nature and substance of the Father.
It was, however, by describing the Son of God as "of one and the same substance" with the Father - consubstantial - that the Arians were overcome above all. Those who insisted on this word realized this as much as did the Arians themselves. To say that the Logos was "of one and the same substance" with the Father meant that he was not simply "from God" or "like God"; it meant that he is God in the full sense of the term, identical with the Father. It was thus the ideal means for separating the orthodox believers from the heretics, for to accept this term meant to abandon the teaching of Arius. In this way did homo-ousion become the byword of Nicea and the years that lay ahead.
When these formulations were finally settled, all but two of the bishops signed; they were condemned by the Council along with Arius. Even Eusebius of Nicomedia signed. The first General Council came to an end, and before the papal legates and the bishops returned to their homes, the Emperor entertained them at a lavish banquet. Constantine then officially approved the decrees of the Council, and set them forth as laws of the State, ordering the removal of all those who failed to accept these decrees. But the story did not end there; in fact, it was scarcely beginning.