THHE PERSECUTION UNDER DIOCLETIAN#

Reorganization of the Empire#

The monarchy during the principate since Augustus had its theoretical basis in the Senate of Rome giving its sanction to imperial power. The real basis was the army, when it gave its recognition of the emperor by acclamation. A religious confirmation came from the practice of apotheosis, the acceptance of the deceased emperor into the number of the gods.

The court protocol of Persia was taken over, emphasizing the distance between the ruler and his subjects. The increased emphasis in the course of time on the divinized emperor passed into divinization during the ruler’s lifetime. Attestation of the ascension of the deceased emperor became routine.

Diocletian (284–305) combined the earlier bases of imperial rule with a reorganization plan. His purpose was to provide an orderly succession to the throne and to offer the top military commanders an assured turn at supreme rule without having to resort to rebellion to attain it. The empire was divided into four regions (prefectures) to be governed by two Augusti assisted by two Caesars. The theory was that after ten years the situation would be reviewed and the Augusti would resign, the two Caesars would become Augusti, and two new Caesars would be appointed.

Under this reorganization plan, Diocletian and Maximian became Augusti and took the names of Jupiter and Hercules. Galerius and Constantius Chlorus were named Caesars with primarily civil administration. Each emperor ruled a prefecture. Each prefecture had its own capital (after 284 Rome was no longer an imperial residence).

The empire was further divided into twelve dioceses and approximately one hundred provinces. The latter number varied as provinces were created, divided, or combined.

DIVISION OF THE EMPIRE UNDER DIOCLETIAN

The Course of the Persecution#

As a prelude to the empire-wide persecution of Christians, Hierocles, governor of Bithynia and later prefect of Egypt, claimed that the empire could survive only if it was united in religion. Drawing on Porphyry’s (c. 232–c. 305) intellectual attack Against the Christians, Hierocles called Christians an “empire in the empire” and insisted on sacrifice to the gods by Christians in the army.

The “Great Persecution” began in 303 at the instigation of Galerius, but with support from Diocletian. Four successive edicts were issued:

1. Christian buildings were to be leveled, Scriptures were burned, and anyone appearing in a court of law had to sacrifice (thus debarring Christians from the judicial system), as did anyone when challenged to do so (thus removing those who would not sacrifice from high office).

2. Governors were ordered to arrest and imprison bishops.

3. Bishops could be released if they sacrificed.

4. Sacrifice to the gods was made obligatory on everyone.

The persecution was more systematic than under Decius, but initially was not so brutal.

A new phase was entered when Diocletian, who took his reforms in the government seriously, pressured a reluctant Maximian to join him in retiring. Galerius and Constantius Chlorus became the new Augusti, and the new Caesars were Severus in Italy and Maximinus Daia in Oriens. Persecution was renewed in the East, and Daia turned to capital punishment. In the west, however, civil war ensued. Maximian supported his son Maxentius in seizing control in Italy, but then attempted unsuccessfully to depose him.

Constantius Chlorus had been mild in persecution, not going beyond a token show of enforcing the first edict of Diocletian, but he died in 306. His troops, in rejection of the new constitutional arrangements of Diocletian, proclaimed his son Constantine as emperor. An ailing Galerius issued an edict of toleration for Christians in 311, asking them to pray for his recovery, but the request (if complied with) did not prevent his death. Licinius, allying himself with Constantine, gained control of the East.

CONSTANTINE THE GREAT#

The conversion and reign of Constantine mark a major turning point in the history of Europe and the Near East. On many topics in Christian history, differentiating pre-Constantinian and post-Constantinian is more than a convenient chronological division for historians. The terms represent both real and symbolic differences.

Interpretation#

As with other great figures of history—whose careers have changed human history or have been bound up with significant changes—Constantine has been subject to various interpretations. Conflicting interpretations were present from the beginning of his rise to power, and these correspond to his family background.

Constantine’s father, Constantius Chlorus, was a Neoplatonist who was tolerant of Christianity. Constantine’s mother was Helena, who came from humble circumstances. She was a Christian and later was known as Saint Helena. Pagan sources say that Constantine, on the death of his father (306), had a vision at a temple of Apollo that was interpreted to mean he would be emperor. Christian sources describe a vision in 312 before the battle of Milvian Bridge that marked his espousal of the Christian religion.

It is possible that we should consider another option, namely that Constantine was both sincere in his conversion and used Christianity for his own purposes. Sometimes one’s faith and convictions prove to be the politically expedient course of action at a given juncture in human events. Constantine’s own understanding of Christianity probably increased with time.

For most believers the favor that Constantine extended to Christianity was the appropriate goal toward which the early growth of Christianity was moving. This goal was the creation of Christendom—a civil society composed mostly of Christians and in which Christianity was the dominant force. Constantine himself did not alone achieve this, and his successors went further in imposing Christianity on the populace and interfering in the affairs of the church.

Other believers have not taken such a favorable view of the “Constantinian church” and have spoken of the union of church and state and developments associated with this as “the fall of the church.” They have done so because of the decline of commitment among church members, the lowered standards of the Christian life, and the introduction of coercion as an aspect of religious profession.

Circumstances certainly were dramatically changed, but if the new situation is thought of as more a decline than progress, “fall” may still not be the most accurate word. One might rather speak of a “slide,” for the growth of the church in the third century had already brought many accommodations with Roman society, and the entanglements with the state steadily increased after Constantine’s time.

Conversion and Favor for Christians#

After the death of his father, Constantine quickly consolidated his hold on the western part of the empire and marched against Maxentius in Italy. In 312, as his troops were camped north of the Tiber River near Rome, Constantine had a “religious experience” in which he was admonished to adopt the Chi Rho monogram (the first two letters of the word Christ in Greek) as the emblem for his troops. Lactantius says the instructions came in a dream. Claiming to repeat a report from Constantine himself, Eusebius says there was both a sign in the sky, brighter than the mid-day sun, and an appearance of Jesus Christ the following night in a dream.

At any rate, Constantine was clearly conscious of some divine mission and of the promise of divine help, and that sense of mission continued to characterize his policies and propaganda. He instructed his soldiers to put the Chi Rho monogram of Christ on their shields, and thereafter this Christogram became an almost ubiquitous Christian symbol, often combined with the letters alpha and omega (the first and last letters of the Greek alphabet), for Christ as the beginning and the end.

Constantine’s smaller army won the battle of Milvian Bridge (Sax Rubra) and he secured control of Rome—and with it the end of opposition in the West. Eusebius interpreted the event in grand biblical terms, comparing the defeat of Maxentius’s army to the destruction of the Egyptians under Pharaoh in the Red Sea.

Whatever the nature of Constantine’s “conversion” and whatever his motives, after 312 he slowly but steadily began to favor Christians and to shift the ideological underpinnings of the empire. Constantine entered into an agreement with Licinius at Milan in 313 extending free exercise of religion to “Christians and all others.” This agreement, the so-called “Edict of Milan,” is known from official letters sent by Licinius to provinces under his control, giving Christians in the East the liberties those in the West already enjoyed under Constantine.

By 320 it was apparent that Constantine and Licinius did not agree. Licinius was more inclined to pagan monotheism, and he began persecution again in the East. Constantine defeated him in 324 and was now the sole ruler of the whole Roman world. Thereafter Constantine dropped the image of himself as a representation of the sun-god and presented himself as representing Jesus Christ, the Sun of Righteousness.

Constantine was uncomfortable with the pagan associations of Rome and the traditions surrounding the Senate, and certain factors drew him to the East as the proper center of the empire: its greater wealth, commerce, culture, and educational opportunities. Consequently, in 330 he founded a new capital, Constantinople (modern Istanbul) on the site of the old Greek city of Byzantium. His rule laid the basis for the orthodox Christian empire known as the Byzantine empire, which would last more than 1,100 years (until 1453).

Constantine showed favor for Christians in various ways, but many of his actions were designed not to offend pagans or were subject to ambiguous interpretation.

• The prayer he composed to be recited by the army, for instance, was religiously neutral between pagan and Christian monotheism.

• The legislation making Sunday a legal holiday gave leisure to Christians for their church assemblies, but was worded as an honor to the sun. (Christians had been meeting on Sunday, their Lord’s day, from the beginning, but the Constantinian legislation made this day a day of rest as well.)

• Constantine employed the Chi Rho as a standard for his troops and placed the emblem on some of his coins, but it could have been seen as one more talisman

Other legislation favoring Christians put them on the same footing with other religions. Privileges of exemption from civil duties and monetary support from the government long held by pagan priests were given to Christian priests.

Other policies gave more recognition to the church. Bishops were given the privilege of adjudicating disputes when the parties referred their cases to them. Their decisions were given the same status as decisions of civil judges, an important step toward setting up separate ecclesiastical courts, and an act that compromised the jurisdiction of the imperial judiciary.

Perhaps the greatest outward show of favor for the church was Constantine’s extensive building program.

Church buildings were built to

• celebrate important sites of sacred history (in Palestine, for example, the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, and the Eleona on the Mount of Olives)

• commemorate the martyrs (in Rome, St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s Outside the Walls to mark the places of their martyrdoms)

• enhance the prestige of the church and of Constantine himself (in Rome the Lateran basilica, now St. John’s, and in the new capital churches dedicated to Christ as the Holy Wisdom and to the Twelve Apostles)

Constantine was later buried in the Twelve Apostles church as a thirteenth apostle - or as a new Christ himself? - among twelve empty sarcophagi representing the apostles.

The emperors had long celebrated their rule with monumental building projects, and Constantine continued this practice, but with the difference it was now church buildings that advertised the majesty and munificence of the emperor. The architectural style adopted was patterned on the imperial basilicas used for audience and reception halls, court rooms, and other affairs of state.

The New Situation in Church-State Relations#

Constantine realized the problems caused by division in the state, so “concord” (or harmony) became the key word of his propaganda and the policies of his reign. He clearly wanted the aid of the Christian God in achieving his goals. There was a long-standing Roman conviction that the welfare of the state depended on right relations with the deity and due performance of religious duties. Constantine’s transfer (or addition) of allegiance to the Christian God did not change these convictions.

Retaining the dignity of pontifex maximus (“high priest” in the religion of Rome), Constantine felt a responsibility for the religious welfare of his subjects. He spoke of himself as “bishop of those (or things) without,” either bishop of those outside the church or bishop of the external affairs of the church.

His son Constantius went further and called himself “bishop of the bishops.”

As a result of the new situation with an emperor supporting and favoring instead of persecuting the church, three major problems thrust themselves on the attention of the church:

1. The competence of the state in church affairs

2. The nature of the church itself

3. The definition of doctrine (what is the orthodox church?).

Church-state relations underwent a paradigm shift, now requiring the definition of the competence of a Christian empire. The church found itself largely unprepared for the change from a persecuted church to a favored church. It was not ready for its responsibilities in a state that, if not Christian, at least supported Christianity.

• Tertullian would have thought a Christian emperor a contradiction in terms, and the way Constantine and many of his successors ruled (Constantine had his wife, Fausta, and son Crispus murdered for political reasons), there may have been some truth in this.

• Eusebius saw the “recognition” of Christianity as an act of God’s providence determining a period of peace and prosperity before the end of the world.

• Other theologians, especially those writing in Latin, took a more sober line, and stressed the responsibilities now placed upon the authorities charged with Rome’s welfare.

The nature of the church itself also required clarification in the new situation. The Donatist schism raised anew the question of the holiness of the church:

• Is the church the church of the pure, or is it a mixed body, a “hospital for sick souls”?

• Can a church of the majority and of a ruling class be a holy church?

Monasticism constituted a new reaction to the changed circumstances. In part responding to the new linking of the church with social status and acceptance, the monks sought to work out the true Christian life with the same intensity that had characterized the times of persecution. Denied literal martyrdom, they attempted a martyrdom of self-denial.

Other changes also resulted from the new condition. Up to Constantine’s time the bishop knew his people, but the sense of local fellowship began to be lost in the rapid increase in membership. The church began to adapt its organization so as to give structure to a real catholicity.

The definition of doctrinal orthodoxy was brought to the forefront by the Trinitarian controversy, sparked by the teachings of Arius. Doctrinal controversy threatened the unity of the church and with it Constantine’s goal of harmony in the empire. The problems of Donatism and Arianism both arose during Constantine’s reign. They raised fundamental questions about the definition of the church and of the deity it worshiped.

Eusebius of Caesarea: The Emperor’s Historian#

Eusebius (c. 260–c. 339) became an heir of Origen’s theology and erudition through the influence of his teacher Pamphilius and access to the latter’s library, built up from Origen’s.

Ordained bishop of Caesarea in Palestine about the year that a temporary peace came to the church (313), Eusebius became actively involved in the intellectual and political issues of his day. He was vitally interested in apologetics, writing two major works (Preparation for the Gospel, a refutation of paganism, and Demonstration of the Gospel, a proof of the gospel from fulfilled prophecy).

Eusebius also was keenly interested in biblical interpretation, writing commentaries on Psalms and Isaiah, as well as preparing a set of tables to identify parallel passages in the Gospels and a list of place names in the Bible with a geographical and historical description.

Involved in the theological issues of the time, Eusebius worked unsuccessfully for unity in the Arian controversy (of which more is said below). Eusebius is especially remembered for his historical work, writing a Church History that collected information from the beginning of the church to his time.

Eusebius is also important for the political theology he developed in his Life of Constantine and Praise of Constantine. Although not as close personally to Constantine as it might appear, he promoted Constantine as God’s appointed messenger to bring peace to the church and healing to the nations.

THE DONATIST SCHISM#

Schisms occurred in Alexandria (prompted by the rigorist position of Melitius, bishop of Lycopolis) and in Rome in the aftermath of the “Great Persecution” initiated under Diocletian, but the Donatist schism in North Africa became the most important.

The Donatists continued the sectarian understanding of the church from pre-Constantinian times, but in many places in North Africa they formed the majority church. The underlying problem was the old issue of laxism versus rigorism in the treatment of those who were thought to have compromised in some way with the governing authorities during the persecution. Only now the issue was complicated by the entrance of the emperor into the decisions, and as the controversy unfolded, social and cultural differences intensified the conflict.

The occasion of the schism in North Africa was the election of Caecilian to succeed Mensurius as bishop of Carthage. A Catholic opponent of the Donatists, Optatus, later charged that the schism came about “by the anger of a disgraced woman, was fed by ambition, and received strength from avarice” (Against the Donatists 1.19). Allowance must be made for the polemical nature of the statement, but we do well to notice the charges, for they show so well the human side of church history.

Lucilla, a wealthy and pious woman, had practiced the custom of kissing the bone of a martyr before taking communion. Mensurius, in an effort to keep the cult of the martyrs under church control and out of private ownership, had forbidden unauthorized honor to those killed in persecution and undue veneration to confessors, and his chief deacon Caecilian had rebuked her for her practice. This took some courage, for she was wealthy, but her practice was extreme, as well as representing a challenge to church authority. The unhappy Lucilla became a focal point of the opposition to the election of Caecilian on the death of Mensurius in 311. Two men who desired to be chosen bishop, failing to obtain their desire, turned against Caecilian.

Another problem was that Mensurius, in order to protect the possessions of the church during the persecution, had entrusted them to some of the older members of the church, who were no longer able (or refused) to return the goods when Caecilian demanded an accounting. A further complication came from the custom for bishops from Numidia to participate in the election and consecration of the bishop of Carthage, yet Caecilian was raised to office before their arrival.

The doctrinal point used to justify the schism was the participation of Felix, bishop of Aptunga, in the consecration of Caecilian. Felix was accused of surrendering copies of the Scriptures to the authorities during the persecution, making him a traditor (“one who handed over” the church’s books).

The critics of Caecilian argued that such a one had in effect denied the faith and so could perform no ecclesiastical functions; therefore the consecration of Caecilian was invalid. The question was raised: What does the moral character of a clergyman have to do with the validity of his actions on behalf of the church?

Later investigations cleared Felix of the charges, but the Donatists questioned the impartiality of the investigations and, indeed, by then the schism was so set that the determination of the facts was beyond objectivity.

On Majorinus’s death in 313, Donatus succeeded him as head of the rival church in Carthage, which he led until 355, a sufficiently long enough time that those in communion with him came to wear his name, the “Donatists.”

Already in 313 the imperial government became involved in the dispute when Constantine made two grants to the Christian clergy that extended to them privileges that belonged to pagan priests: a distribution of money and an exemption from the civic responsibility of collecting taxes. The Donatists claimed the money and the exemptions on the grounds that they were the true church in North Africa. They appealed their case to Constantine, who referred the matter to the bishop of Rome, Miltiades. The latter assembled a small synod, but the results were inconclusive. In contrast to his swift certainty in dealing with military and political matters, Constantine was hesitant in how to deal with church conflicts.

In response to the Donatists’ demand for another trial, a larger synod met at Arles in Gaul in 314. Bishops came from all the territories under Constantine’s control at the time, including three bishops from Britain. Arles had the distinction of being the first church council called by an emperor, and of representing the largest geographical area of any council up to its time. It far exceeded all earlier councils, which primarily represented a province but sometimes also adjoining areas.

In response to the Donatists’ demand for another trial, a larger synod met at Arles in Gaul in 314. Bishops came from all the territories under Constantine’s control at the time, including three bishops from Britain. Arles had the distinction of being the first church council called by an emperor, and of representing the largest geographical area of any council up to its time. It far exceeded all earlier councils, which primarily represented a province but sometimes also adjoining areas.

Among the twenty-two canons adopted at the council were decisions about:

• Determining the date of Easter (since British bishops were not present at Nicaea in 325, the newer method of determining the date arrived at there was not observed in Britain)

• Forbidding Christians to reject military service in peacetime (that is, positively, allowing their participation in police functions)

• Approving Christians to hold local and state offices if they are submissive to their bishop

• Regulating matters of marriage and remarriage

• Forbidding rebaptism of those baptized in the name of the Trinity

• (Although calling for traditores among the clergy to be removed) Upholding ordinations performed by lapsed clergy.

The Council of Arles set a precedent for how the state would deal with ecclesiastical problems, but it also set an unintended example for later councils in failing to bring to an end the problem for which it was called.

In 316 Constantine decided definitively in favor of Caecilian and in 320 directed persecution against the Donatists, but gave this up the following year. The Donatists were missionary-minded and grew. They erected rival buildings, some bigger and better than those of the catholic churches. They appealed to the North African theological tradition of Tertullian and Cyprian and represented themselves as continuing their view of the martyr church.

Disappointed in their earlier appeal to the imperial authorities, the Donatists came to reject the alliance of the church with the government forged by Constantine and his successors. The Donatist church understood itself in terms of the holy assembly of Israel in the midst of her impure enemies and, in keeping with this self-image, interpreted all Scripture as holy law.

The golden age of Donatism came under the successor of Donatus, Parmenian (bishop 362–c. 392). During this time the Catholic literary response appeared in the work Against the Donatists by Optatus of Milevis.

A rival to Parmenian for intellectual leadership among the Donatists was Tyconius, who took a broader view of the church and came out against the practice of rebaptism of those converted from the Catholic church. In opposing Donatist sectarianism he articulated views on the sacraments and the distinction between the visible and the invisible church that were later elaborated by Augustine. Tyconius produced a book of rules of hermeneutics that Augustine employed, but the millennialism expressed in his commentary on Revelation was eventually rejected by Augustine.

The later history of Donatism is so involved with Augustine’s refutation as to be better told in connection with him. Even if Donatism’s real motives were social, the movement raised legitimate theological issues that challenged Augustine’s creative mind.

ARIUS AND THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA#

Background of the Arian Controversy#

The Donatist schism had raised religio-political questions in regard to the nature of the church in the western part of the empire. The teachings of Arius raised similar questions in the eastern part of the empire with regard to the nature of Jesus Christ.

Previously a bishop in council with his presbyters decided questions for the church under his jurisdiction. When it came to disputes between bishops and issues with broader than local implications, the “congregationalism” of the early church left no machinery for their resolution.

Councils of bishops became the characteristic Christian way of dealing with these problems. In the second century, meetings of bishops in a province or region dealt with Montanism and then the Paschal observance.

There still was no means, however, of handling something involving larger areas. The case of Paul of Samosata and the possession of church property in Antioch (third century) had set a precedent for referring some matters to the Roman government. Then came the Donatist appeal to Constantine.

In the early stages of the Donatist controversy, both sides felt it proper for the state to arbitrate, although Constantine initially preferred to throw the question back to the churches. With a “Christian” emperor interested in the affairs of the church, it was natural for church leaders to look to him. Constantine was cautious, but his sons were more open in their attempts to define dogma.

By the beginning of the fourth century the bishop of Alexandria, called papas (“father,” “pope”), had preeminence in all of Egypt and some adjoining territories. Presbyters presided over local churches in Alexandria. Arius was a leading member of the Alexandrian clergy as presbyter of a church in the harbor area. His bishop was Alexander.

The theological background to the early Arian controversy is provided by the two different ways in which the successors of Origen worked out his theology in relation to the Monarchian controversies of the third century. The catholic viewpoint had followed the lines of the Logos doctrine instead of either of the two Monarchian positions (chapter 7). In Greek philosophy God is impassible, and that premise controlled theological speculation among intellectuals. After the Gnostic and Marcionite controversies, no distinction was possible between Creator and Redeemer.

Origen’s theology could be developed either in the direction of emphasizing the unity of nature (this Alexander did) or of emphasizing the subordination to the extent of saying different natures (this Arius, with a penchant for pushing things to their logical conclusions, did). Since the exact relation of the Logos to the supreme God was still not clearly agreed upon, further formulation was needed.

Events Leading to Nicaea#

Arius was a Libyan by birth but received his religious education from Lucian of Antioch (a martyr in 312). He was already a popular preacher in Alexandria when he challenged his bishop Alexander’s teaching that the Father and the Son possess equal eternity.

Arius affirmed, “There was (once) when Christ was not.” Understanding “begetting” as equivalent to “creating,” Arius taught that Jesus Christ was not derived from the substance of the Father, but, as the first and highest of God’s creations, became the instrument of all the rest of creation.

Bishop Alexander secured a condemnation of Arius’s teaching at a synod in Alexandria (317 or 318) that sent a letter to other bishops concerning the exclusion of Arius from fellowship. Arius put his views in writing and appealed to his friends, notably Eusebius, bishop of Nico-media, for support. Both sides circulated conflicting correspondence.

The dispute came to the ears of Constantine, who sent his chief ecclesiastical advisor, Hosius of Cordova, to look into the situation. The issue came to the fore at a synod in Antioch in early 325. The synod condemned the Christology of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, and two others; Eustathius, a strong opponent of Arius, became bishop of Antioch.

A synod was to meet at Ancyra to hear Eusebius’s recantation, but Constantine saw the opportunity of combining this planned gathering with a celebration of his recent victory over Licinius and the approaching twentieth anniversary of his acclamation as emperor, so he invited the bishops to come in May 325 to the royal palace at Nicaea. He offered the assistance of the imperial post in providing transportation to the meeting. Probably around 250 bishops responded.

The Council of Nicaea, 325#

The supporters of Arius offered confessions of faith drawn from scriptural language, but since these did not address the difference of interpretation between Alexander and Arians like Eusebius of Nicomedia regarding the origin of Christ, they were inadequate.

The presence of bishops who showed the injuries sustained during the recent persecutions, now gathered under the favor and in the presence of the Roman emperor, was a moving experience. Constantine called for unity.

The viewpoints on the doctrinal issue represented at the council may be listed as follows:

1. the convinced adherents of Arius’s teaching led by Eusebius of Nicomedia

2. the moderate subordinationists in the tradition of Origen who, although they would not have stated matters as sharply as Arius, did not see his teachings as dangerous, of whom Eusebius of Caesarea may be taken as representative

3. conservatives hostile to new formulas and concerned with unity, many without theological education

4. those who found Arius’s teaching dangerous and wanted to outlaw it, such as Alexander and Hosius

5. the Monarchians, whose views were perceived by many as carrying an implicit Modalism, such as Eustathius of Antioch and Marcellus of Ancyra.

An overwhelming majority of the bishops did not agree with Arius, but it was harder for them to agree on a positive statement of doctrine.

Eusebius of Caesarea submitted the baptismal creed of his church in order to secure his rehabilitation. According to his report of the events, however, it became the basis of the creed approved by the council.

The major concern in Eusebius’s report, and no doubt in the minds of many others, was the addition to the creed of the Greek word homoousios (in Latin, consubstantialis), “of the same substance.”

Eusebius explains the word, “which it has not been our custom to use,” as affirming that the Son of God “bears no resemblance to creatures,” was like the Father “in every way,” and did not derive from any other substance than that of the Father himself.

The council adopted the word homoousios in order to eliminate Arian teaching, as well as to affirm that Jesus Christ was fully God, sharing in some way the same divine nature as the Father.

Homoousios at this time had a looser and more ambiguous sense than it came to acquire as a result of the ensuing theological discussions. A word not found in Scripture was considered necessary because the Arians interpreted every scriptural phrase in accordance with their teaching, but in a way that the majority felt was inconsistent with the intended meaning of Scripture.

The council’s affirmation of the identity of substance between the Father and the Son, if “substance” was understood in a materialistic way, carried dangers either of a tritheistic interpretation, as referring to three entities consisting of a common matter, or a Sabellian (Modalist) interpretation, as referring to identically the same being.

Hence, Eusebius was at pains to remove a materialistic meaning from this word that was plainly troubling to him and, as the subsequent events unfolded, to many others.

Eusebius says that the emperor insisted on the addition of the word homoousios. This is likely the case, but it is questionable whether the initiative lay with him, since many of the bishops themselves did not understand the issues. It may have originated with Hosius, who would have seen it as equivalent consubstantialis; to the Latin term with which he was familiar, with Eustathius, for whom the implication of Monarchianism was perhaps congenial; or with Alexander, for whom its unacceptability to the Arians was sufficient justification.

THE CREED ADOPTED AT NICAEA IN 325

We believe in one God the Father All-sovereign, maker of all things visible and invisible;

and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only-begotten, that is, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, of one substance [homoousion] with the Father, through whom all things were made, things in heaven and things on the earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, and became man, suffered, and rose on the third day, ascended into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead;

and in the Holy Spirit.

And those who say “There was when he was not,”

and, “Before he was begotten he was not,”

and that, “He came into being from what-is-not,”

or those who allege that the Son of God is “of another substance or essence,” or “created,” or “changeable,” or “alterable,”

these the catholic and apostolic church anathematizes.

After making their positive affirmations in the creed, the council anathematized the main errors alleged against the Arians:

1. that “There was when he was not” or “He came to be from nothing”

2. that the Son of God is “created,” or “alterable,” or “mutable.”

In the latter anathema the words hypostasis and ousia (both of which can be translated “substance”) are used interchangeably; later consideration would distinguish these words.

Eusebius had a harder time explaining the statement of anathemas. He took this part of the council’s decision as forbidding the use of these terms not explicitly found in Scripture. Alexander surely understood much more to have been intended.

Other matters came before the assembled bishops.

• They approved the method for determining the date of Easter that would henceforth be observed in Christendom.

• They set policies for treating followers of Novatian, Melitius Antioch, and Paul of Samosata who returned to the church.

The twenty-two canons give us a picture of the institutional life of the church. These canons, along with those approved at other councils, entered into the corpus of canon law for the Greek church.

Athanasius would later observe the difference in wording employed in regard to the creed and in regard to the canons. On the former, the bishops said, “We believe,” for the faith cannot be changed but only confessed; on the latter they said, “We decide,” because matters of discipline, liturgy, and organization allowed for ecclesiastical judgment.

The Importance of Nicaea#

The Council of Nicaea is one of the significant turning points in church history. Three aspects may be highlighted.

1. Nicaea was the first ecumenical (“universal”) council, although it was not so called for another dozen years, and then in a descriptive, not a technical, sense. Such general assemblies of church leaders became the way to deal with dogmatic problems that affected the church universal.

Nicaea was an assembly conscious of its uniqueness, because it was very different in extent from previous councils. It was unprecedented for Rome to send legates to an Eastern council, and although the number of Western bishops was small (the names of only five, including Hosius, plus the two presbyters representing the Roman bishop, are known), their presence gave a consciousness of a truly universal representation.

The bishops had a sense of authority. The unanimity was impressive and felt to be a manifestation of the Spirit’s presence. Although many had to do contortions with their conscience, as did Eusebius of Caesarea, in the end only two Libyan bishops withheld their signatures, and they may have acted for nontheological reasons, either out of desire for independence from Alexandria or out of friendship for Arius. It was wonderful to get 250 bishops together, and even more wonderful to get them to agree.

2. Nicaea served as a symbol of imperial involvement in church affairs. It was different from previous councils because of the personal presence of a formidable new factor, the emperor Constantine. The aura of authority that came from Nicaea resulted from those who bore the marks of persecution now being assembled by the emperor with great publicity and signs of favor.

The age of persecution was over and the age of Christendom—Christianity as a religion favored by government—had begun. In many ways, Nicaea was a “victory” celebration for the church. The banishment of Arius, however, was a reminder that there was a price to pay for imperial involvement, and many in later ages would question the spiritual effects of the political victory. Nonetheless, the alliance of church and state was set on a course that would prevail for most Christians for twelve to fourteen centuries, and that in some places still prevails.

3. Nicaea marked a crucial development in doctrinal history. By adopting a creed backed up by anathemas, it made creeds into something more than confessions of faith. Instead of being summaries of catechetical instruction to be confessed at baptism, as they had been, creeds in the fourth century became formulations of councils. At Nicaea it was not catechumens who needed a creed, but bishops.

The use of nonbiblical language in the Nicene Creed was not so great in significance as many then and since have thought. The problem was safeguarding a biblical thought. Any time sermons are preached or theological treatises are written, words and expressions not in the Bible are used in order to communicate and clarify the biblical message. Although confessions of faith are customarily more privileged forms of discourse, they need not be more restrictive in their terminology. The question is whether the language is true to the meaning and intent of Scripture.

What was new at Nicaea was putting a nonbiblical term in a creed enforced by anathemas. (The preceding Council of Antioch is the first known instance of appending anathemas to a statement of faith.) Instead of being only a confession of faith, the creed of Nicaea became a test of fellowship. The precedent of Nicaea was capable of considerable extension: the First Creed of Sirmium (351) contains twenty-seven anathemas.