By Fr. George Florovsky
The city of Nicaea was selected as the city to host
the First Ecumenical Council. Constantinople was to be officially
inaugurated only in 330 and hence at the time of the convening of the
Council of Nicaea the imperial residence was in Nicomedia, very close to
Nicaea. Nicaea — its name comes from the Greek for "victory" — was
easily accessible by sea and land from all parts of the empire. The
imperial letter convening the council is no longer extant. Eusebius
informs us that the emperor sent letters of invitation to the bishops of
all countries and instructed them to come quickly — σπευδειν άπανταχόθεν τους επισκόπους γπάμμασι τιμητικοίς πpoκaλoυμevoς.
All expenses were to be paid from the imperial treasury. The number of
bishops present has come down to us as 318 — so states Athanasius,
Socrates, and Theodoret. An element of mystical symbolism became
attached to this number of 318, some seeing in the Greek abbreviation a
reference to the cross and a reference to the "holy name of Jesus." St.
Ambrose in his De fide (i, 18) connected the number of 318 with the number of servants of Abraham in Genesis 14:14. The number differs in other accounts. For example, Eusebius gives the number as two-hundred and fifty — πεντηκοντα και
διακοσίων αριθμόν. But Eusebius does not include the number of priests
and deacons. Arabic accounts from a later period give the number of more
than two-thousand bishops. The extant Latin lists of signatures contain
no more than two-hundred and twenty-four bishops. There appears
to be no reason why the number of 318 is not in fact accurate. If one
includes the number of priests, deacons, and others, then the number may
have reached two thousand.
The Eastern provinces were heavily represented. The
Latin West, however, had only seven delegates, one of whom exercised
considerable influence — Hosius of Cordova, Spain (c. 257-357), who was
an ecclesiastical adviser to Constantine. In addition to Hosius, the
Latin West was represented by Nicasius of Dijon, Caecilian of Carthage,
Domnus of Pannonia, Eustorgius of Milan, Marcus of Calabria, and the two
presbyters from Rome, Victor or Vitus and Vincentius, who represented
the bishop of Rome, St. Sylvester (bishop from 314 to 335). A Persian
bishop by the name of John was present and a Gothic bishop, Theophilus,
who was apparently the teacher of Ulfilas (c. 311-383), the Arian
translator of the Bible into Gothic — the influence of Ulfilas upon
subsequent history, especially in the West, was great; known as the
"Apostle to the Goths," Ulfilas, according to Philostorgius, translated
the entire Bible except the books of Kings; in translating the
Bible into Gothic and in converting the Goths to Arian Christianity,
Ulfilas’ casts his shadow over the West for centuries to come.
The official opening of the Council of Nicaea took
place with the arrival of Constantine, probably on the fourteenth of
June. Eusebius describes in his usual style the entrance of the emperor:
"When all the bishops had entered the main building of the imperial
palace… each took his place… and in silence awaited the
arrival of the emperor. The court officers entered one after another,
though only those who professed faith in Christ. The moment the approach
of the emperor was announced… all the bishops rose from their seats and the emperor appeared like a heavenly messenger of God — οια Θeoυ τις ουράνιος άγγελος
— covered with gold and gems, a glorious presence, very tall and
slender, full of beauty, strength, and majesty. With this external
adornment he united the spiritual ornament of the fear of God, modesty,
and humility, which could be seen in his downcast eyes, his
blushing face, the motion of his body, and his walk. When he reached the
golden throne prepared for him, he stopped, and he did not sit down
until the bishops so indicated. After he sat, the bishops resumed their
seats."
After a brief address from "the bishop on the right
of the emperor," Constantine delivered "with a gentle voice" in the
official Latin language the opening address, which was immediately
translated into Greek. Although the accounts of this speech differ
slightly in Eusebius, Sozomen, Socrates, and Rufinus, they agree on the
essentials. "It was my greatest desire, my friends that I might be
permitted to enjoy your assembly. I must thank God that, in addition to
all other blessings, he has shown me this highest one of all: to see you
all gathered here in harmony and with one mind. May no malicious enemy
rob us of this fortunateness… Discord in the Church I consider
more fearful and painful than any other war. As soon as I, with God’s
help, had overcome my enemies, I believed that nothing more was now
necessary than to give thanks to God in common joy with those whom I had
liberated. But when I heard of your division, I was convinced that this
matter should by no means be neglected. And in the desire to assist by
my service, I have summoned you without delay. I shall, however, feel my
desire fulfilled only when I see the minds of all united in that
peaceful harmony, which you, as the anointed of God, must preach to
others. Do not delay, therefore, my friends. Do not delay, servants of
God. Put away all causes of strife and loose all knots of discord by the
laws of peace. Thus, shall you accomplish the work most pleasing to God
and confer upon me, your fellow servant — τω ύμετέρω συνθεραποντι — an exceeding great joy."
After this opening speech, according to Eusebius, the emperor turned the council over to the bishops — παρεδιδου τον λόγον τοις συνόδου πρόεδροις. The bishops began their work but the emperor continued to take an active part in the proceedings.
According to Socrates’ history (I, 8) Sabinus of
Heraclea asserted that the majority of the bishops present at the
Council of Nicaea were uneducated. Harnack writes that this "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." In general,
this may be the case. But the fact cannot be overlooked that there were
competent theologians present and quantity does not ensure the
deliberation of truth. St. Athanasius, even though a deacon, was present
with Alexander of Alexandria. Hosius, to whom St. Athanasius refers as
"the Great" — ό μέγας, was
apparently not a mediocrity. The most learned bishop was probably
Eusebius of Caesarea. Others present, although they cannot be considered
theologians in the strict sense of the word, are noteworthy for their
lives as confessors and for their spirituality. Paphnutius of the Upper
Thebaid was in attendance. Potamon of Heraclea, whose right eye had been
blinded, was present. Paul of Neocaesarea had been tortured under
Licinius — both hands had been crippled and he had been tortured with
red hot iron. Jacob of Nisibis, the hermit, and Spiridon of Cyprus, the
patron saint of the Ionian Islands, were present.
Traditionally the Council of Nicaea is looked upon
as having had two opposing theological parties. But closer analysis
indicates that there were three parties. This becomes clear from the
position of Eusebius of Caesarea, from the nature of his confession, and
from the subsequent history of the controversy. St. Athanasius simply
mixed the two opposing parties as 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 Cordova, and by the deacon, St Athanasius.
The Arians came to the Council of Nicaea apparently
confident of victory, for the bishop of Nicaea was their supporter and
the Arians had substantial influence with the imperial court. The Arians
— or the Eusebians, as they were called — numbered approximately twenty
bishops, headed by the influential bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. The
presbyter Arius was present and was called upon frequently to put forth
and explain his views — "evocabatur frequenter Arius in concilium" as Rufinus puts it. Others in support of Arianism were Theognis of Nicaea, Mans of Chalcedon, and Menophantus of Ephesus.
The middle group, which represented the majority,
was headed by Eusebius of Caesarea. This moderate Eusebian party was
composed of a variety of groups and hence could be swayed in various
directions.
It was the Arians who produced the first confession
of faith at the Council of Nicaea. This was a logistical error on their
part The creed they produced was conveyed to the council by their
spokesman, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and it was a creed that made their
theological position clear and unambiguous. Their creed met with
manifest disapproval and was, reportedly, torn to pieces. Those who
signed this confession of faith, with the exception of the Egyptians
Theonas and Secundus who remained steadfast, regrouped in the hopes of
presenting at least something that might be accepted. In essence, they
had abandoned the cause of Arius.
The focus then turned to Eusebius of Caesarea and
the moderates. Eusebius of Caesarea proposed an ancient Palestinian
creed, which was in general terms similar to the Nicene. It acknowledged
the divine nature of Christ but avoided the term ομοούσιος; consubstantialis of the same essence.
It appears that Constantine had seen this creed and had approved it.
Eusebius — for safe measure — added to this an anti-Sabellian section
explicitly emphasizing that the Father is truly the Father, the Son
truly the Son, and the Holy Spirit truly the Holy Spirit. According to
Eusebius this confession of faith was unanimously proclaimed "orthodox."
The problem arose because of the suspicion of the
"orthodox" party — it appears that the Arian minority was willing to
accept this confession of faith; if so, then something was wrong with
it. The "orthodox" party insisted on a confession of faith to which no
Arian could honestly subscribe. They insisted on inserting the homoousios,
a term hated by the Arians, a term they considered unscriptural,
Sabellian, and materialistic. We know from Eusebius that the emperor
sided with those demanding the homoousios and that Hosius was the one who suggested this to Constantine. Yet the insertion of the word homoousios did
not settle the matter. It was thought that the Creed of Caesarea
contained expressions, which could be interpreted in an Arian sense.
Hosius of Cordova stepped forth to announce that a
confession of faith would be read by Hermogenes of Caesarea, at that
time a deacon but later a bishop, who was the secretary of the council.
It was a very carefully constructed doctrinal formula, which claimed to
be a revision of the Creed of Caesarea. The input of the Alexandrians
can be seen here, as well as that of Eustathius of Antioch and Macarius
of Jerusalem. But the main person of influence was Hosius — it is St.
Athanasius who writes of Hosius: ουτος εν νικαία πίστιν εξεθετο. The first alteration was replacing απάντων
ορατών (“of all seen things whatsoever”) by πάντων ορατών (“of all seen
things”). The reason for this was to exclude the creation of the Son
and Spirit. The second change was to substitute the word "Son"
for "Logos" at the beginning of the second section so that everything
that followed referred to the Son. The word "Logos" is completely absent
from the Nicene Creed, and nor St. Athanasius neither the Arians
objected to its exclusion. The third change was the extension of θεόν
εκ θεον (“God of God”) to γεννηθέντα εκ τον πατρός μονογενή θεόν εκ
θεού (“begotten of the Father, only begotten God of God”). It appears
that in the final discussions the words τουτ εστίν εκ της ουσίας του πατρός
(“that is of the essence of the Father”) were inserted between μονογενή
and θεον to exclude any Arian interpretation. The fourth change
addressed several expressions, which were considered unsatisfactory, ambiguous, and prone to misinterpretation. The expressions: ζωήν
εκ ζωής· (“life of life”), πρωτότοκον πάσης· κτίσεως· (“the first-born
of every creature”), προ πάντων αιώνων εκ τον πατρός γεγεννημένον
(“begotten of the Father before all ages”) were deleted. In their place was inserted: θεόν άληθινόν εκ θεον άληθινόυ, γεννηθέντα, ου ποιηθέντα, δι οΰ τα πάντα έγένετο (“true God of true God, begotten, not made, but by whom all things became"). Here, however, another insertion was deemed necessary as the discussions continued — after ποιηθέντα (“made”) the words όμοούσιον
τω πατρί (“of the same essence with the Father”) were added, again
because without the addition the text could be interpreted in an Arian
sense. The fifth change was to replace the evasive and indefinite εν άνθρώποις πολιτενσά μενον (“having lived among men") with the definite ένανθρωπήσαντα (“having become incarnate”). Finally, anything, which approached an Arian sense was condemned and excluded from the final creed.
The opposition parties did not simply die; they
debated. The debates became so intensive that the emperor felt it
necessary to participate — ερωτήσεις τοιγαρουν και αποκρίσεις έντευθεν άνεκινουντο, έβασανίζετο ό λόγος της διανοίας των είρημένων, according to Eusebius in Theodoret’s
history (I, 11). From the accounts of St. Athanasius it appears that
the Eusebians continued to make proposals of a conciliatory nature and
to attempt to include certain expressions that could be interpreted in
an Arian sense. But the expressions εκ της ουσίας (“of the essence”) and ομοούσιος (“of the same essence") prevailed in the Nicene Creed.
For the first time a new type of document enters into the history of the Church — the signatures of the bishops to the Acts
and decisions of an Ecumenical Council. The State, the Empire, only a
short time before so hostile to the Church, now supports the Church, now
elevates the doctrinal decisions of the Church to the status of
imperial law. Almost all the bishops signed. It is significant that the
name heading the list is Hosius of Cordova. Next to his signature is
that of the two Roman presbyters, signing in the name of their bishop,
the bishop of Rome. After a day’s reflection Eusebius of Caesarea
signed. Only the two Egyptian bishops, Theonas and Secundus, refused to
sign. They along with Arms were banished to Illyria.
The bishops had deliberated. The emperor had
interacted and participated. But it is clear that the theological
decisions came from within 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 is to be felt. The emperor ordered the books
of Arius to be burned. In his history Socrates relates that anyone found
with Arian books was to be punished by death (I, 9). Moreover, the
emperor declared that henceforth those adhering to Arianism were to be
called "Porphyrians" — that is, they were to be considered on the same
level as the worst enemies of Christ In his letter to the Alexandrian
Church the emperor is convinced that the results of the council were the
work of the Holy Spirit — ο τοις τριακόσιοις ήρεσεν επίσκοποις ουδέν εστίν έτερον ή τον θεού γνώμη, μάλιστα γe οπου το άγιον πνεύμα τοιούτων και τηλικούτων ανδρών ταις διανοίαις έγκειμενον την θείαν βούλησιν έξεφωτισεν. Yet
another form of persecution began the persecution of those unwilling to
subscribe to or accept the decisions of Ecumenical Councils. This is
the first example of civil punishment of heresy. Before the conversion
of the Empire the ultimate penalty for heresy was excommunication. Now
exile and death were added, for any disobedience to the Church was
regarded simultaneously as a crime against the State.
The Age of Constantine is a turning point in
Christian history. But precisely what was the Church’s view of the
Empire before the Empire was christened? Once christened, what was the
gain and what the loss for the Church? What, in essence, was the
"Byzantinization" of the Church?
Among the early Christians there was nothing
anarchical in the attitude toward the Roman Empire. The "divine" origin
of the State and of its authority was formally acknowledged already by
St. Paul, and he himself had no difficulty in appealing to the
protection of Roman magistrates and of Roman law. The positive value and
function of the State were commonly admitted in the Christian circles.
Even the violent invective in the book of Revelation was no exception.
What was denounced there was iniquity and injustice of the actual Rome
but not the principle of political order. Christians could, in full
sincerity and in good faith, protest their political innocence in the
Roman courts and plead their loyalty to the Empire. In fact, early
Christians were devoutly praying for the State, for peace and order, and
even for Caesars themselves. One finds a high appraisal of the Roman
Empire even in those Christian writers of that time who were notorious
for their resistance, as Origen and Tertullian. The theological
"justification" of the Empire originated already in the period of
persecutions. Yet Christian loyalty was, of necessity, a restricted
loyalty. Of course, Christianity was in no sense a seditious plot, and
Christians never intended to overthrow the existing order, although they
did believe that it had ultimately to wither away.
From the Roman point of view, however, Christians
could not fail to appear seditious, not because they were in any sense
mixed in politics, but precisely because they were not. Their political
"indifference" was irritating to the Romans. They kept themselves away
from the concerns of the "commonwealth" at a critical time of its
struggle for existence. Not only did they claim "religious freedom" for
themselves. They also claimed supreme authority for the Church. Although
the Kingdom of God was emphatically "not of this world," it seemed to
be a threat to the omni-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 bound to resist any attempt at
their "integration" into the fabric of the Empire. As Christopher
Dawson has aptly said, "Christianity was the only remaining power in the
world, which could not be absorbed in the gigantic mechanism of the new
servile state." Christians were not a political faction. Yet their
religious allegiance had an immediate "political" connotation. It has
been well observed that monotheism itself was a "political problem" in
the ancient world (Eric Peterson). Christians were bound to claim
"autonomy" for themselves and for the Church. And this was precisely
what the Empire could neither concede nor even understand. Thus, the
clash was inevitable, although it could be delayed. The Church was a
challenge to the Empire, and the Empire was a stumbling block for the
Christians.
After a protracted struggle with the Church, the Roman Empire at last Capitulated.
Constantine, the Caesar, converted and humbly applied for admission
into the Church. The Christian response was a response that was by no
means unanimous. There were many among Christian leaders who were quite
prepared to welcome unreservedly the conversion of the Emperor, the
Caesar, and the prospective conversion of the Empire. But there were not
a few who were apprehensive of the imperial move. To be sure, one could
but rejoice in the cessation of hostilities and in that freedom of
public worship, which now will be legally secured. But the major problem
is not yet solved, and it is a problem of extreme complexity. Indeed,
it was a highly paradoxical problem.
Already Tertullian had raised certain awkward
questions, although in his own time they were no more than rhetorical
questions. Could Caesars accept Christ and believe in Him? Caesars
obviously belonged to "the world." They were an integral part of the
"secular" fabric, necessarii saeculo. Could then a Christian be Caesar? Could then a Christian belong at once to two conflicting orders, the Church and the World? (Apologeticum
21, 24). In the time of Constantine this concept of the "Christian
Caesar" was still a riddle and a puzzle, despite the eloquent effort of
Eusebius of Caesarea to elaborate the idea of the "Christian Empire."
For many Christians there was an inner contradiction in the concept
itself. Caesars were necessarily committed to the cause of "this world."
But the Church was not of this world. The office of Caesars was
intrinsically "secular." Was there really any room for Emperors, as
Emperors, in the structure of the Christian community? It has been
recently suggested that probably Constantine himself was rather uneasy
and uncertain precisely at this very point. It seems that one of the
reasons for which he was delaying his own baptism was precisely his dim
feeling that it was inconvenient to be "Christian" and "Caesar" at the
same time. Constantine’s personal conversion constituted no problem. But
as Emperor he was committed. He had to carry the burden of his exalted
position in the Empire. He was still a "Divine Caesar." As Emperor, he
was heavily involved in the traditions of the Empire, as much as he
actually endeavoured to disentangle himself. The transfer of the
Imperial Residence to a new City, away from the memories of the old
pagan Rome, was a spectacular symbol of this noble effort. Yet the
Empire itself was still much the same as before, with its autocratic
ethos and habits, with all its pagan practices, including the adoration
and apotheosis of Caesars. We have good reasons to trust Constantine’s
personal sincerity. No doubt, he was deeply convinced that Christianity
was the only power, which could quicken the sick body of the Empire and
supply a new principle of cohesion in the time of social disintegration.
But obviously he was unable to abdicate his sovereign authority or to
renounce the world. Indeed, Constantine was firmly convinced that, by
Divine Providence, he was entrusted with a high and holy mission that he
was chosen to re-establish the Empire, and to re-establish it on a
Christian foundation. This conviction, more than any particular
political theory, was the decisive factor in his policy, and in his
actual mode of ruling.
The situation was intensely ambiguous. Had the
Church to accept the Imperial offer and to assume the new task? Was it a
welcome opportunity or rather a dangerous compromise? In fact, the
experience of close cooperation with the Empire has not been altogether
happy and encouraging for Christians, even in the days of Constantine
himself. The Empire did not appear to be an easy or comfortable ally and
partner for the Church. Under Constantine’s successors all the
inconveniences of cooperation became quite evident, even if we ignore
the abortive attempt of Julian to reinstate Paganism. The leaders of the
Church were compelled, time and again, to challenge the persistent
attempts of Caesars to exercise their supreme authority also in
religious matters.
And the victory at the Council of Nicaea is to be
short-lived — Nicaea in a very real sense was the beginning, not the
end, of continuous theological controversy over the nature of the
God-Man and hence over the nature of God and the nature of man.
From The Byzantine Fathers of the Fifth Century, Ch. 10.