First Council of Nicaea

With the sole rule achieved by the (Western) Roman Emperor Constantine I after the decisive battle against the Eastern Roman Emperor Licinius in September 324, now also over the easternmost areas of the Empire, the dogmatic unity of the Christian Imperial Church, which had been developing since the Constantinian turn and was supported and recognized by the state throughout the Roman Empire, necessarily became increasingly important. Various issues and problems, especially in the eastern parts of the Roman Empire now also ruled by Constantine I from September 324, such as Egypt with Alexandria, made this unity difficult. Since the significant differences could not be solved by the bishops and other church dignitaries alone, Emperor Constantine I urged a unified settlement of the various points of contention, one of the tasks of the first Nicaean Council. Furthermore, the newly won, comprehensive imperial autocracy over the entire Roman Empire was probably to be sealed in Nicaea with an ecclesiastical unity synod under Constantine's patronage and direction after the victory over Licinius, which he also interpreted in religious terms. Especially since Nicaea, as well as the originally planned venue of the Council, Ancyra, belonged to those eastern territories of the Empire over which Constantine the Great also ruled from September 324. He also actively intervened in the course of the council with compromise formulas, and from his point of view, securing religious peace was an essential imperial task with political implications (see also Pax romana).

In the 20th century, the records of a local council were discovered that took place in Antioch (now Antakya/Turkey) six months before the Council of Nicaea. This council is considered by some scholars (J.N.D. Kelly, Eduard Schwartz) to be an essential precursor to Nicaea. Participants were 59 bishops from Palestine, Arabia, Phoenicia and Cappadocia. It was presided over by Ossius of Córdoba, who also played a leading role at Nicaea. The occasion for the council was the election of a new bishop of Antioch, but besides this a clear statement on Arianism and a detailed anti-arian creed were written, which, however, shows no literary relationship to the Nicaean creed. Scholarly controversy surrounds the thesis that Eusebius of Caesarea and other bishops are said to have been provisionally excommunicated-with the chance to change their minds before the "great and holy synod" of Ancyra (which then took place at Nicaea)-because they refused to sign this confession.

time and place

The council took place in Nicaea, today's İznik, then the second largest city of Bithynia and only about 30 km from the then imperial seat of Nicomedia, a place easily accessible by land and sea. The localities probably belonged to the imperial palace.

The opening session was held on 20 or 25 May 325, possibly as late as June, and the council ended in late July of that year with a banquet to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the accession of Emperor Constantine.

The participants

Emperor Constantine had invited all 1800 bishops of the Christian Church of that time (about 1000 in the Greek and 800 in the Latin language area) by letter to participate and bore the travel expenses of the 200-300 bishops and clerics who accepted the invitation. The traditional number of 318 bishops, which became canonical in the 60s of the fourth century and was first mentioned in 359/360 by Hilarius of Poitiers, goes back to the 318 servants or men of Abraham (Gen 14:14 EU).

Since each bishop could bring two presbyters and three deacons, up to two thousand people may have attended the council. Most of the eastern provinces of the empire were well represented. Of the Latin, 'Western Roman' churches, however, only seven came: Ossius of Cordoba, Nicasius of Die, Caecilian of Carthage, Domnus of Strido, Mark of Calabria, and the two presbyters Victor (or Vitus) and Vicentius as deputies of the old bishop of Rome Sylvester I.

Among the bishops, some, e.g. Paphnutius of Thebes, Potamon of Heraclea and Paul of Neo-Caesarea, were visibly maimed by the persecution of Christians, which had taken place only 15 years earlier. Notable are James of Nisibis, who lived as a hermit, or Spyridion of Cyprus, who even as a bishop still lived as a shepherd. Also present were Nicholas of Myra, a Persian bishop John and a Gothic bishop Theophilus, i.e. bishops from areas outside the Roman Empire.

By order of the emperor, the Alexandrian presbyter Arius also took part.

With the emperor, Ossius of Córdoba and Eusebius of Nicomedia may have had the most influence.

The participants had three main positions on the question of the doctrine of the Trinity:

• The few Arians around the presbyter Arius from Alexandria and his Arianism.
• The Homoousians (from homo-ousios, consubstantial) held to the perfect divinity of Christ. At the head were the patriarchs Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem, along with Ossius of Cordoba, the court bishop, and especially the young archdeacon Athanasius of Alexandria, who had neither seat nor voice, but excelled in perseverance, argumentation, and zeal.
• The vast majority belonged in one way or another to the so-called 'Origenist middle group', which had developed from a particular interpretation of Origen's theology only well after his death. This middle group also included Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea. From this direction two separate currents arose after 357, the so-called 'Homoeans' and the 'Homoeusians' (both parties used arguments derived from Origen). Many representatives of this middle group opposed the condemnation of Arius and what they saw as the questionable theology espoused very aggressively by Arius' main opponent, Alexander of Alexandria. From the late 360s onwards, the majority of the 'Origenist middle group' turned decisively against the so-called new-arian doctrine of the Trinity around Aëtios of Antioch and Eunomius, the so-called Heterousians.

Course

The course itself has not been handed down in detail; there are various summary accounts of individual points, for example by Eustathius, some of which contradict each other.

In his Vita Constantini, a kind of biography/life story of Constantine I, Eusebius of Caesarea briefly reports on the opening and the results of the council. Eusebius writes in his Vita Constantini, III, 13, that at the beginning many bishops had brought submissions about private disputes before the emperor, who finally exhorted the participants to reconciliation and harmony. Later legendary embellishments even had the emperor burn all written submissions unread.

At first, the Arians proposed a confession, but it was torn up by those present in tumult, whereupon sixteen of the eighteen signatories changed sides. Arius argued from the position of an absolutely monotheistic theology, which must not allow any violation of the unity and uniqueness of God. Consequently, he denied the deity of the person of Jesus Christ and assigned to him only the role of the most distinguished of all creatures. In his philosophical arguments he started from Platonic and Neoplatonic premises.

The opponents of Arius on the side of Athanasius, on the other hand, argued with the term homoousios, of one being (equality of beings). The homoousians argued that Arianism did not replace the Christian doctrine of God with monotheism, but with polytheism, since for the Arians God and Jesus Christ are completely different beings who are both worshipped. Besides, this would make liturgical traditions such as baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit or prayers to Jesus Christ nonsensical. Moreover, perhaps most importantly, the Christian concept of redemption in Christ is inconceivable in Arianism, since only a truly divine mediator can bring about a reconciliation of creation with God - this is not possible for a creature.

Then Eusebius of Caesarea, who had taken Arius in after his banishment from Alexandria, proposed an ancient Palestinian confession that affirmed the divinity of Christ in general biblical terms. According to more recent findings based on the Council of Antioch, however, this may not have been a proposal of a confession for the assembly, but a justification of his orthodoxy before the council due to his excommunication (which Eusebius understandably does not emphasize in a letter to his congregation).

Eusebius remarks that his submitted Creed was considered orthodox by the Emperor Constantine, but the impression subsequently given by Eusebius that the Creed he submitted was to have become the Confession of Nicaea, with a slight modification, but was given an entirely different text by a council commission and so adopted, is not true.

Since, on the one hand, the few representatives of Arian Christology found an interpretation suitable to them for every biblical expression proposed by the very vehement but hardly more strongly represented anti-arian or anti-origenist faction proposed, found an interpretation that suited them, and on the other hand the opposing faction was not willing to leave the decision further open by an ambiguous confession, the emperor expressly voted for the expression "beingness" (Greek ὁμοούσιος homoousios, Latin consubstantialis (of the same substance)) rejected by Arius, and ordered the confession to be revised accordingly. Eusebius writes that the emperor personally interpreted this expression so that it could be accepted as widely as possible: "He declared that ὁμοούσιος was not to be understood in the sense of bodily relations, (?) since an immaterial spiritual and non-corporeal nature could not be subject to bodily relations. These things would have to be understood as having spiritual and ineffable meaning."

Since various very similar Eastern confessions exist, it cannot be decided which of them was the basis for the newly elaborated confession. The revised group under Ossius of Córdoba was not content with the expression of the unity of the Son with the Father, but inserted to a large extent all the formulas against which the Arians, but also in many cases the representatives of the Origenist middle group, had opposed themselves in recent years. Among the formulas were: "begotten of the essence of the Father," "begotten and uncreated," and "consubstantial with the Father." The Council emphasized that the Son was person of the Trinity and not part of creation. To this was added an addition that explicitly condemned the Arian heresy.

Council decisions

Confession of Nicaea

Practically all the bishops signed the Nicaean Creed proposed by Ossius, first Ossius and after him the two Roman presbyters in the name of their bishop. Eusebius of Caesarea also signed after a day's reflection and defended his signature in a letter to his bishopric. Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea signed the confession, but not the appendix at the end of the text of the confession, the anathematisms (condemnations) of core Arian positions, were deposed for it and banished for a time, but then rehabilitated about 327. Only Arius and two of his followers, the bishops Theonas and Secundus, who also came from Egypt, consistently refused to sign the confession and were banished to Illyria, but also rehabilitated like Eusebius of Nicomedia in about 327.

Canons of the Council

In addition to the main issue of Arianism, the council decided on other issues that were being debated in the church at the time. These are listed in the canons of the council:

• Canon 1: Eunuchs, unless they have castrated themselves, can become priests. Prohibition of self-castration.
• Canon 2: People ordained as priests or bishops at the same time as baptism after a short catechumenate, contrary to 1 Tim 3:6-7 EU, may retain their status, but in the future this is not to happen. If a clergyman so ordained is convicted of sin by two or three witnesses, he will be suspended.
• Canon 3: The Council absolutely forbids bishops, priests and deacons to live with a woman, except of course her mother, sister or aunt or a woman above suspicion.
• Canon 4: A bishop should be ordained by all the bishops of the province. If this is not practicable, at least three Bishops shall proceed with the ordination after the others have given their consent in writing. In any case, the Metropolitan has the right to confirm the procedure.
• Canon 5: The excommunication of a priest or lay person must be respected by the bishops of all the provinces. However, there is to be an investigation by the other bishops of the province to ensure that no one has been excommunicated by a bishop for personal reasons. In order to conduct these investigations in an orderly manner, the bishops of each province are to meet in synod twice a year.
• Canon 6: The ancient authority of the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch and Rome over their provinces is confirmed. An election of bishops without the consent of the Metropolitan is invalid. However, if there are two or three dissenting votes among the electing bishops, the majority decides.
• Canon 7: The Bishop of Aelia (Jerusalem) is to be honored according to ancient custom, but without limiting the rights of the Metropolitan.
• Canon 8: Novatian clergy who publicly enter the Church may retain their spiritual rank if they commit themselves in writing to accept and obey the decrees of the Church. However, they are subordinate in rank to any local clergy of the Church.
• Canon 9: If people have been ordained to the priesthood without examination and subsequently confess a sin that disqualifies them for it, the ordination is invalid.
• Canon 10: If it is discovered that a priest apostatized at the time under persecution and was subsequently ordained to the priesthood, the ordination is invalid.
• Canon 11: If people have fallen away from the faith without danger, they are to be treated leniently, although they do not deserve such leniency: They are to be readmitted to Communion after a penance of twelve years.
• Canon 12: If Christians who have first renounced military service have returned to the army (which under Licinius required sacrifices to pagan gods), they are to be admitted to communion again after thirteen years of penance. This period of penance may, however, be shortened by the bishop in cases of genuine repentance.
• Canon 13: The Eucharist may be given to a dying person if he asks for it, even if he was not admitted to Communion.
• Canon 14: Catechumens who have fallen away may pray again with the catechumens after a penitential period of three years.
• Canon 15: Bishops, priests, and deacons are not to wander from city to city, but if they attempt to do so, are to be sent back to the Church where they were ordained.
• Canon 16: Priests and deacons who leave their Church may not be received by another Church. Bishops may not ordain anyone who belongs to another diocese.
• Canon 17: He who charges usurious interest shall be deposed.
• Canon 18: Deacons are not to give the Eucharist to priests, but are to receive the Eucharist from the bishop or priest.
• Canon 19: Followers of Paul of Samosata who seek refuge with the Church are to be rebaptized in any case. Clergy may be re-ordained after examination.
• Canon 20: On Sunday and at Pentecost, prayers are not to be said kneeling, but standing.

Easter date

The literal canon concerning the date of Easter has not been preserved; whether a binding regulation for the calculation of the date of Easter was adopted is possibly not completely certain. Perhaps only something like a recommendation was given at Nicaea to adhere to the Easter date and method of calculation calculated at Alexandria. At any rate, the regulation or recommendation can be reconstructed from various extant remarks by fourth-century authors (e.g., in Epiphanios of Salamis, Socrates Scholastikos). According to these, it was decided or recommended:

• Easter must be celebrated on the same day for all churches.
• Easter is to be celebrated after the beginning of spring.
• Easter is to be celebrated on a Sunday after the Jewish feast of Passover.
• The bishop of Alexandria is to calculate the date of Easter annually, and report it early to the pope at Rome, so that it may be indicated from here to all the other churches. Alexandrian science was held to be the best competent for mathematical-astronomical calculations. The pope, however, was to select from the differing results of competing modes of calculation, or to bring about an agreement by negotiation.