History of First Council of Nicaea

I. The First Council, 325 A.D.

1. Character, Membership, and Problems

The first Council of Nice is conspicuous as the starting point for
the great doctrinal controversies of the Church in
the fourth and fifth centuries. Here a union
between the ecclesiastical potency of the councils and
the State was effected, vesting the deliberations of
this body with imperial power. Earlier synods had
been contented with protection against
heretical doctrines; but the Council
of Nice is characterized by the further
step from a defensive position to
positive decisions and minutely elaborated
articles of faith. In the Arian
controversy lay a great obstacle to the realization of
Constantine's idea of a universal empire which was
to be attained by aid of uniformity of divine worship.
Accordingly for the summer of 325 the bishops of
all provinces were summoned to the first ecumenical
council at Nice in Bithynia, a place easily accessible
to the majority of the bishops, especially those of
Asia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace.
The number of members can not be accurately
stated; Athanasius counted 318, Eusebius only 250.
As a matter of course, the oriental bishops formed the
preponderating number; the first rank being held
by the three archbishops Alexander of Alexandria,
Eustathius of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem,
and by Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of
Caesarrea. A special prominence attached to this council
also because the persecutions had just ended, and
it was to be assumed that nearly all of the assembled
fathers had stood forth as witnesses of the faith.
The occident sent not more than five
representatives in equal distribution from the provinces,
Marcus of Calabria from Italy, Cecilian of Carthage
from Africa, Hosius of Cordova from Spain, Nicasius
of Dijon from Gaul, and Domnus of Stridon from
the province of the Danube. These ecclesiastical
dignitaries of course did not travel alone, but each

one with his suite, so that Eusebius speaks of an
almost innumerable host of accompanying priests,
deacons, and acolytes. Among the assistants it
was Athanasius, a young deacon and companion of
Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, who distinguished
himself as the "most vigorous fighter against the
Arians," and similarly Alexander of Constantinople,
a presbyter, as representative of his aged bishop.
The points to be discussed at the synod were:

(1) The Arian question,

(2) the celebration of Easter,

(3) the Meletian schism,

(4) the baptism of heretics, and

(5) the status of the lapsed in the persecution
under Licinius.

2. The Procedure

The council was formally opened May 20, in the
central structure of the imperial palace, busying
itself chiefly with preparatory discussions on the
Arian question, in which Arius, with some adherents,
especially Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nice,
and Maris of Chalcedon, seems to have been the
leading spirit; regular sessions, however, began
only on the arrival of the emperor. After
prescribing the course of the negotiations he entrusted
the mode of procedure to a committee
appointed by himself, consisting in all
probability of the most prominent
participants of that body. It is
undoubtedly chiefly owing to this step on the part of
Constantine that the council, after being in session
for an entire month, promulgated on June 19 the
Nicene Creed (see CONSTANTINOPOLITAN CREED).
At first the Arians and the orthodox showed an
uncompromising front toward each other. The Arians
entrusted the representation of their interests to
Eusebius of Caesarea (q.v.), whose scholarship and
flowery speech made a great impression upon the
emperor. His reading of the confession of the Arians
called forth a storm of resentment among the
opponents; two minorities vividly interested in contrary
opinions opposed each other, but between them
yawned indifference. In their behalf, as well as for
his own sake, Eusebius, after he had ceased to
represent the Arians, appeared as a mediator; and in
asserting that the chief aim to be pursued should be
the establishment of the peace of the Church, he
at the same time agreed with his exalted protector.
He presented a new formula, the baptismal symbol
of his own congregation at Caesarea, by means of
which the differing opinions might be reconciled.
The emperor, who pursued the purely political
intentions of a successful pacification, could desire
no more welcome proposition and immediately
confirmed it by making it his own. In this way he
did not overpower the majority, but most probably
met its wishes; for if the orthodox had really been
able to count on a preponderating majority, even
the predilection of the emperor would not have
hindered them from setting up their own confession
in the manner of that proposed by Bishop Alexander
in his first circular letter. But far from daring
such an attempt, the majority (without resistance)
complied, asserting their rights only in the form of
amending clauses. While such modes of procedure
are more characteristic of minorities than of
majorities, their use by the latter does not necessarily
debar victory, as indeed in this case it did not.
All propositions of the orthodox during the
remainder of the controversy having been accepted,
it is furthermore evident, first: that the Arians of
conviction were in the minority; second: that the
majority (or deciding body) did not possess, and
hence did not assert, convictions of a dogmatic
nature. These are, considered in a general way, the
presuppositions of the world-important decisions of
the Council of Nice.

3. The Symbol

Examining the symbol in detail, it appears that

it contained indeed decisions on the Son of God
which might satisfy all members of the council.
Even Arius found no reason to oppose it from his
standpoint. But for the partisans of
Bishop Alexander the definitions were
too vague; they rendered them more
concise, and if the Nicene Creed be
compared with its model, that of Caesarea, it seems
to have originated in some omissions from the second
article which was the only one in question. To
these omissions corresponded three no less impor-
important additions:

(1) to designate the Son "that is, of
the essence of the Father" was added;

(2) another addition reads " begotten, not made ";

(3) the most
important addition reads "of one substance with
the Father."

Of the third article only the words
"and in the Holy Ghost" were left and then
followed immediately the anathemas. Thus the
neutral baptismal confession of the congregation of
Caesarea, laid before the council by Eusebius, became
the uncompromising anti-Arian symbol of Nice,
the text of which is preserved in a letter of Eusebius
to his congregation, in Athanasius, and elsewhere.
The symbol was finally accepted, although the
anti-Arians or Homoousians were in the minority. The
emperor was intent upon a decisive settlement of
the question; at first he probably had no
predilection for either of the conceptions of the two
contending parties, but perceiving that the original
propositions of Eusebius, which supposedly
furthered peace, effected the very opposite, he may
involuntarily have considered whether he could not
reach his aim more quickly by seeking an agreement
with the anti-Arians. Undoubtedly there were not
wanting attempts at personal mediation, in the first
place on the part of Bishop Hosius of Cordova (q.v.),
one of the most decided Homoousians, and at the
time of the council the confidant of the emperor in
all affairs of the Church. He stands at the head of
the lists of participants, and Athanasius ascribes
to him the actual success of the symbol. But
when it is considered that great men like Eustathius
of Antioch, Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius,
and Marcellus of Ancyra belonged to the anti-Arian
party, it does not seem strange that the
Homoousians, in spite of being in the minority, gained the
final victory. Eusebius of Caesarea, in spite of his
sympathies for Arius, accepted the decisions of the
council, subscribing even the condemnatory clauses
against Arius. The number of persons of prominence
among the opponents was not so considerable;
for after the debates, extending over four weeks,
there were only two adherents of Arius who remained
steadfast, Theonas of Marmarica in Libya, and
Secundus of Ptolemais; of the three others upon whom
Arius might have counted, Maria of Chalcedon
finally subscribed the whole symbol, Eusebius of
Nicomedia and Theognis of Nice at least its positive
part, without the condemnatory clauses against
Arius. The emperor now actually fulfilled his threat,
according to which everybody who refused to sign
had to face exile. Arius, Theonas, Secundus,
Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis were
excommunicated. The works of Arius were confiscated in
order to be burnt. But it soon appeared that even
force could not silence the disputes, and that under
the pressure of such procedure the controversy
on the equality of Christ with God assumed
unthought-of dimensions; for the Council of Nice had
done away with the indifference of the masses to
theological distinctions.

4. Other Problems

After the settlement, on June 19, of the most
important subject of discussion, the question of Easter
was brought up. According to Duchesne
(Revue des questions historiques,
xxviii. 37), who founds his conclusions (1), on the
conciliar letter to the
Alexandrians preserved in Theodoret,
Hist. eccl., I., ix. 12;
Socrates, Hist. eccl., I., ix. 12; (2), on the circular
letter of Constantine to the bishops after the council,
Eusebius, Vita Constantine, III., xviii. 19;
Theodoret, Hist. eccl., I., x. 3 sqq.; (3), on Athanasius,
De Synodo, v.; Epist. ad Afros, ii.; the
oriental churches of Syria, Cilicia, and
Mesopotamia adhered to the Jewish
reckoning of the fourteenth of Nisan,
instead of basing the calculation for Easter on the
equinoctial occurrence after the model of Alexandria
and Rome. The council assumed the task of
regulating these differences in conformity with the usages
of the other churches, because the dependence of
some congregations on a Jewish peculiarity was
offensive. The Council of Nice, however, did not
declare the Alexandrine cycle of Easter as alone
canonical, but gave the bishop of Alexandria the
privilege of announcing annually the date of Easter
to the Roman curia. Although the synod undertook
the regulation of the dating of Easter, it contented
itself with communicating its decision to the
different dioceses, instead of establishing a canon; thus
inviting opposition even on this point in due season.
Then began the proceedings against the Meletian
schism, which, on account of the great popularity of
the movement, took an extremely mild development
and cost its founder only suspension from office, but
no degradation. Finally there followed the
prescription of twenty canons or rules of discipline:

(1) prohibition of self-castration;

(2) establishment
of a minimum term for catechizing;

(3) prohibition
of the presence in the house of a cleric of females who
might bring him under suspicion;

(4) consecration
of a bishop in the presence of at least three provincial
bishops and confirmation by the metropolitan;

(5) provision for two provincial synods to be held
annually;

(6) exceptional position granted to Alex
andria and Rome as episcopal sees;

(7) recognition
of the honorary rights of the see of Jerusalem;

(8)
provision for agreement with the Novatians;

(9-14) provision for mild procedure against the
lapsed during the persecution under Licinius;

(15-16) prohibition of the removal of priests;

(17) prohibition of usury among the clergy;

(18) precedence of bishops and presbyters over deacons in
taking the Eucharist;

(19) declaration of the invalidity of baptism by heretics;

(20) attitude at prayer on Pentecost.

On July 25, 325, the fathers of the council
celebrated the emperor's twentieth anniversary and then
dispersed. In his valedictory address the emperor
again informed his hearers how averse he was to all
dogmatic controversy, and in a circular letter he
announced the accomplished unity of practise by
the whole Church in the matter of the celebration
of Easter. But the illusion of victory did not last,
the emperor experiencing stroke after stroke of
disappointment and misfortune. The continuation
of the synod in 327 questioned every result achieved
in 325. Arius as well as the friends punished with
him and the Meletians regained nearly all rights
which they had lost.