Council of Nicaea

1)

The Christological debate could no longer be contained within the Alexandrian diocese. By the time Bishop
Alexander finally acted against Arius, Arius's doctrine had spread far beyond his own see; it had become a topic
of discussion—and disturbance—for the entire Church. The Church was now a powerful force in the Roman
world, with Emperors Licinius and Constantine I having legalized it in 313 through the Edict of Milan. Emperor
Constantine had taken a personal interest in several ecumenical issues, including the Donatist controversy in
316, and he wanted to bring an end to the Christological dispute. To this end, the emperor sent Hosius, bishop
of Córdoba to investigate and, if possible, resolve the controversy. Hosius was armed with an open letter from
the Emperor: "Wherefore let each one of you, showing consideration for the other, listen to the impartial
exhortation of your fellow-servant." But as the debate continued to rage despite Hosius' efforts, Constantine in
AD 325 took an unprecedented step: he called a council to be composed of church prelates from all parts of the
empire to resolve this issue, possibly at Hosius' recommendation.[15]

All secular dioceses of the empire sent one or more representatives to the council, save for Roman Britain; the
majority of the bishops came from the East. Pope Sylvester I, himself too aged to attend, sent two priests as his
delegates. Arius himself attended the council, as did his bishop, Alexander. Also there were Eusebius of
Caesarea, Eusebius of Nicomedia and the young deacon Athanasius, who would become the champion of the
Trinitarian view ultimately adopted by the council and spend most of his life battling Arianism. Before the main
conclave convened, Hosius initially met with Alexander and his supporters at Nicomedia.[23] The council would
be presided over by the emperor himself, who participated in and even led some of its discussions.[15]

At this First Council of Nicaea twenty-two bishops, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, came as supporters of Arius.
But when some of Arius's writings were read aloud, they are reported to have been denounced as blasphemous
by most participants.[15] Those who upheld the notion that Christ was co-eternal and con-substantial with the
Father were led by the bishop Alexander. Athanasius was not allowed to sit in on the Council since he was only
an arch-deacon. But Athanasius is seen as doing the legwork and concluded (as Bishop Alexander conveyed in
the Athanasian Trinitarian defense and also according to the Nicene Creed adopted at this Council and,[24][25])
that the Son was of the same essence (homoousios) with the Father (or one in essence with the Father), and was
eternally generated from that essence of the Father.[26] Those who instead insisted that the Son of God came
after God the Father in time and substance, were led by Arius the presbyter. For about two months, the two
sides argued and debated,[27] with each appealing to Scripture to justify their respective positions. Arius argued
for the supremacy of God the Father, and maintained that the Son of God was simply the oldest and most
beloved Creature of God, made from nothing, because of being the direct offspring. Arius taught that the pre-
existent Son was God's First Production (the very first thing that God actually ever did in His entire eternal
existence up to that point), before all ages. Thus he insisted that only God the Father had no beginning, and that
the Father alone was infinite and eternal. Arius maintained that the Son had a beginning. Thus, said Arius, only
the Son was directly created and begotten of God; furthermore, there was a time that He had no existence. He
was capable of His own free will, said Arius, and thus "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."[28] Arius
appealed to Scripture, quoting verses such as John 14:28: "the Father is greater than I". And also Colossians
1:15: "the firstborn of all creation." Thus, Arius insisted that the Father's Divinity was greater than the Son's,
and that the Son was under God the Father, and not co-equal or co-eternal with Him.

According to some accounts in the hagiography of Nicholas of Myra, debate at the council became so heated
that at one point, Nicholas struck Arius across the face.[29][30] The majority of the bishops ultimately agreed
upon a creed, known thereafter as the Nicene creed. It included the word homoousios, meaning
"consubstantial", or "one in essence", which was incompatible with Arius' beliefs.[31] On June 19, 325, council
and emperor issued a circular to the churches in and around Alexandria: Arius and two of his unyielding
partisans (Theonas and Secundus)[31] were deposed and exiled to Illyricum, while three other supporters—
Theognis of Nicaea, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Maris of Chalcedon—affixed their signatures solely out of
deference to the emperor. The following is part of the ruling made by the emperor denouncing Arius's teachings
with fervor.

In addition, if any writing composed by Arius should be found, it should be handed over to the flames, so that
not only will the wickedness of his teaching be obliterated, but nothing will be left even to remind anyone of
him. And I hereby make a public order, that if someone should be discovered to have hidden a writing
composed by Arius, and not to have immediately brought it forward and destroyed it by fire, his penalty shall be
death. As soon as he is discovered in this offense, he shall be submitted for capital punishment....."

— Edict by Emperor Constantine against the Arians[32]

2) First Council of Nicaea

Main article: First Council of Nicaea

Bishop Alexander, of Alexandria, taught that Christ was the Divine Son of God, who was equal to the Father by
nature, and in no way inferior to him, sharing the Father's divine nature. However, Presbyter Arius believed this
was inconsistent with the recent decisions against Sabellius at the Synod of Rome. Arius opposed Alexander
and called him a heretic. At subsequent local synods, Alexander's view was upheld, and Arius was condemned
and excommunicated as a heretic.

Arius' friendship with powerful allies, especially Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was influential in Constantine's
Imperial Court, led to the controversy being brought before Constantine. Constantine at first viewed the
controversy as trivial and insisted that they settle their dispute quietly and peacefully. When it became clear that
a peaceful solution was not forthcoming, Constantine summoned all Christian bishops to convene the first
ecumenical council (Nicaea I) at Nicaea. From the beginning of the Arian controversy, due to the influence of
Arian bishops like Eusebius of Nicomedia, Constantine initially favored the Arian position. He saw their views
as being easier for the common Roman to understand, and easier for Roman pagans to accept and convert to.

Two vocal subordinationists were Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia. Of these, Eusebius of
Caesarea was more moderate in his subordinationist views. Although not as extreme as the Arians in his
definition of who Jesus is, he disagreed with the Modalists in equating Jesus with his Father in authority or
person but he was flexible concerning ousia (substance). The Trinitarians also opposed Modalism, but insisted
on the equality of the Son and the Father by nature (though they generally allowed that the Son was relationally
subordinate to the Father as to his authority). For the reasons of him being moderate in the religious and
political spectrum of beliefs, Constantine I turned to Eusebius of Caesarea to try to make peace between the
Arians and the Trinitarians at Nicaea I. [24]

Eusebius of Caesarea wrote, in On the Theology of the Church, that the Nicene Creed is a full expression of
Christian theology, which begins with: "We believe in One God..." Eusebius goes on to explain how initially
the goal was not to expel Arius and his supporters, but to find a Creed on which all of them could agree and
unite. The Arians, led by Arius and Eusebius of Nicomedia, insisted that the Son was "heteroousios" or "of a
different substance/nature" from the Father. The Trinitarians, led by Alexander, his protege Athanasius, and
Hosius of Cordoba insisted that the Arian view was heretical and unacceptable. Eusebius of Caesarea suggested
a compromise wording of a creed, in which the Son would be affirmed as "homoiousios", or "of similar
substance/nature" with the Father. But Alexander and Athanasius saw that this compromise would allow the
Arians to continue to teach their heresy, but stay technically within orthodoxy, and therefore rejected that
wording. Hosius of Cordova suggested the term "homoousios" or "of the same substance/nature" with the
Father. This term was found to be acceptable, though it meant the exclusion of the Arians. But it united most of
those in attendance at Nicaea I. Even the "semi-Arians" such as Eusebius of Caesarea accepted the term and
signed the Nicene Creed.

Constantine, though he initially backed the Arians, supported the decision of the Council in order to unify the
Church and his Empire. He ordered that any bishop, including his friend Eusebius of Nicomedia, who refused to
sign the Creed should be removed from their positions in the Church and exiled from the Empire.

Post-Nicean

Athanasius, while believing in the Monarchy of God the Father in which the Father is the source of the Son,
rejected Arian subordinationism. Constantine, who had been sympathetic to the Arian view from the beginning
of the controversy, ends up rescinding the exiles of Arius and his supporters only a few short years after Nicea.
He also brings Eusebius of Nicomedia in as his personal spiritual advisor, and then turned on Athanasius, who
is not only deposed from his seat as bishop of Alexandria, but also banished from the Roman Empire a total of
five different times.

After the death of Constantine, his sons, Constans I and Constantius II, share joint rule in the Empire. Both sons
begin to actively support the subordinationist views of Arianism, and begin to depose Trinitarian bishops in key
sees throughout the empire and replace them with Arian bishops. This policy begins to change the balance of
power in the Christian Church, as many of the most influential churches in the empire became Arian by the
intervention of Constans I and Constantius II.[25] To this, Saint Jerome lamented about the creed of the Synod of
Ariminum: "The whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian."[26] Ironically, after Nicaea I,
Arianism actually grew in power in the Church.

The deaths of Constans I and Constantius II ended this policy, however the increased power of Arianism in the
Church remained unchanged until the ascension of an Emperor friendly to the Trinitarian view. Theodosius I
called the second ecumenical council, Constantinople I, in 381, 56 years after Nicaea I, to confront the Arian
controversy.[27] Constantinople I once again rejected Arian subordinationism, and affirmed Trinitarianism. In
addition, the Nicene Creed of 325 was amended and expanded to include a more detailed statement about the
Holy Spirit, rejecting an idea which had been advanced by the Arians during the intervening years since Nicea,
termed "Macedonianism", which denied the full deity of the Holy Spirit. The Creed of 381[28] included an
affirmation of the full deity of the Holy Spirit, calling him "the Lord, the giver of Life, who proceeds from the
Father."[29]