THREE MAJOR CHURCH COUNCILS IN THE EARLY

Introduction
The Ecumenical councils in the Early Church History were significant in the
growth and development of Christianity. Early Church History recognised seven
ecumenical councils; the First Council of Nicaea (325), the First Council of
Constantinople (381), the Council of Ephesus (431), the Council of Chalcedon
(451), the Second Council of Constantinople (553), the Third Council of
Constantinople (680–681) and the Second Council of Nicaea (787) that sought a
consent of the Christian orthodox of faith.

The doctrines that govern Christianity were discussed further and in a

more formal way despite the fact that there always synods that used to discuss
Christian matters. The main focus of the councils was on the Triune nature of
God which brought a lot of arguments between theologians from different
theological schools. Different heresies and controversies came up and the
councils fought hard to resolve them. Most of the participants in these councils
were from the West and a few from the East. The decisions and canons that
were passed were to bring the rightful teachings and beliefs of the Catholic
Church.

The First Council of Nicaea (325AD)

The council of Nicaea (325) is the first ecumenical council in the Early Church
History that led to the formation of the Nicene Creed. There were- debates held
in the Christian community about the baptismal confession in the affirmation of
Christian faith in the third century. The Threefold nature (Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit) mentioned in the confession raised questions among theologians
(Alexander and Arius) and their debates were not resolved. A full and detailed
statement about the relation of the Son to the Father was attained in the
Christological controversy in the early fourth century1.
1
F.F Bruce, The Spreading Flame; The Rise and Progress of Christianity from its First Beginnings to the
Conversion of the English, pp. 260.

1
Proceedings of the council
In 318, Arius a preacher from Libya one of Alexander’s presbyters on the deity
of the Father and the deity of the Son became more serious. His teachings of
Christ being neither God nor man were threatening the Christian faith.
Alexander had to oppose his teachings. Alexander, came out strongly against
him at once, suspending him from office after the public inquiry 2 and he
summoned a council at Alexandria in 321 that condemned Arius.

In 324, Constantine was concerned about the peace and doctrinal matters
in church and tried to reconcile the two theologians, but he could not because he
was not a theologian. Upon the suggestions of his ecclesiastical confidant
bishop Hosius of Cordova in Spain, he conveyed a general council of all the
churches from the whole world (Greek oikoummene, “inhabited earth”.3

The council convened at Nicaea in North West Asia Minor on May 20, 325
under Emperor Constantine 1 the Great. The council was attended by 250 to 300
bishops. A few delegates came from the West; Caecilian and two deacons
represented Pope Silvester.4 This was the first ecumenical council of the Church
where representatives were called from churches all over the world. 5 It felt a
new era was beginning. Constantine opened the proceedings on 20 May 325
which lasted for one month. All the bishops present were required to sign the
drafted creed. However, two bishops who were the old friends of Arius, refused

2
J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 231.
3
F.F Bruce, The Spreading Flame, The Rise and Progress of Christianity from its First Beginnings to the
Conversion of the English pp. 304.
4
W. H. C. Frend, The Early Church, first Edition 1982, pp 139.
5
F. F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame; The Rise and Progress of Christianity from its First Beginnings to the
Conversion of the English, pp. 304.

1
to sign and they were excommunicated. Some of the Western bishops led by
Ossius of Cordoba took it for granted.

The bishop of Palestinian Caesarea Eusebius, who had faced the charges
of heresy at Antioch, took over the mediating role. He used his own church’s
baptism confession as a basis of agreement. Arian was supported by Arius
himself, and Alexander, by his own senior deacon and Secretary Athanasius, 6
and some of his fellow bishops. The council did not adopt it as it was, despite its
orthodoxy. They revised it in an anti-Arian sense and promulgated the revised
version as the Creed of Nicaea7 and was made to be known publically.

Unlike other creedal statements, the Creed of the Nicaea was not a baptismal
confession but an expression of ecclesiastical doctrine. 8 The use of the phrase
“of the same essence (Greek homoousios) as the Father” which comes from the
word ousia, meaning, “essence”, “nature”, “being” affirmed that the Son was of
the same nature with God, which was suggested by Constantine himself,
because he wanted everyone to agree; was a question by many about the
wisdom of including it in the Creed.9 This contradicted with what the Arians
taught. Arius and his sympathizers were not happy; they wanted to describe
Christ as “like (Greek homoios) the Father” or”of a like essence (homoiousios)
with the Father”. The insertion of the phrase in the creed was indispensable and
explicitly a way of excluding Arianism.

Effects of the Nicaea council on the churches

6
Dr N.R Needham, 2,000 Years of Christ’s Power; Part One: The Age of The Early Church Fathers.
7
F. F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame; The Rise and Progress of Christianity from its First Beginnings to the
Conversion of the English, pp. 304.
8
Ibid., pp 306.
9
W. H. C. Frend, The Early Church, first Edition 1982, pp. 140.

1
During the Nicaea council, the bishops dealt with the Melitian schism in Egypt
which was called after Melitius a south Egyptian bishop who assumed episcopal
function in Alaxendria during the persecution in the absence of the canonical
bishop. The council could not however resolve it; it continued to affect and
complicate the life of the Egyptian churches since there was no good will.

The council addressed the issues of church discipline, the procedure for
provincial church councils and the consecration and precedence of bishops. This
made Rome to be in Antioch and Alexandria in Italy, Syria, and Egypt
respectively to gain special status as the three leading sees, in accordance with
“ancient custom”; and their bishops were accorded title “patriarch” 10.

The Alexandrian church was commissioned to fix the date of Easter year by
year according to the appropriate lunar calculations, and announce it in advance
to the Christian World. It was to be calculated independently of any Jewish
calculation of 14 Nisan, the Novatianists, and the organisation of the church.
However, Athanasius, who succeeded bishop Alexandria in 328, used the
opportunity of the letters to discuss ecumenical interest of which he dealt with
the canon of scripture, arrangement of the Old Testament where he made them
twenty-two to equate to the 39 in the Protestant Bible11.

The rules drawn up by the Council of Nicaea were accepted in the

churches and this confirmed the precedents that were already established in the
previous councils and it provided a ground for the development of other canon
laws. It was therefore, the resolution of the council, that explained in the Nicene
Creed, that God the Father and God the Son were identical and coeternal hence
declaring the Arian belief as heretical. Hence, as Arius being denounced and
dismissed.

10
F. F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame; The Rise and Progress of Christianity from its First Beginnings to the
Conversion of the English, pp. 307.
11
Ibid; pp 307.

1
The First Council of Constantinople (381 AD)
The Council of Nicaea ideally, did not completely resolve the Arian
controversy; majority of the bishops sympathized with Arius, and Constantine’s
own overriding motive to secure the widest possible measure of agreement 12
biased the decision. In 381, Theodosius summoned a council at Constantinople
which was presided over by Meletius of Antioch and 150 bishops were present.
A new form of the Creed of Nicaea known as the Nicene Creed, was reaffirmed
and extended the teaching of the council of Nicaea in 325. The Creed was
named the creed of Constantinople.

During the first ecumenical council, the third person of the trinity was not
handled. When Athanasius a strong supporter of the Nicene Creed became
bishop of Alexandria in 328, his theological teachings were based on the
doctrine of salvation that set out the understanding of the deity of Christ and the
Holy Spirit. However, his council left a loophole for an Origenist interpretation
of the Homoousios formula. It was seized upon the Syrian bishops and their
allies. A synod of 25 bishops met at Antioch of which bishop Meletius was
present. They acknowledged the Creed of Nicaea but with an attempt to
interpret it in an Origenist manner; “the Son is born of the essence of the Father
and in respect of essence is like Him”.

Those who believed in the deity of the Father, and Son but opposed the Arians,
(Macedonians) could not believe the creed. It was upon this argument that the
Cappadocians brought to the attention the word homoousios to be extended to
the Holy Spirit. The three hypostases in one ousia still remains a question to
many Christians today.

Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia, the leader of Arians, had Arius got out of
exile who later died in 336. He wedged a political war against Athanasius that
he was threatening to supply grain from Egypt to Constantinople and he was
12
J. N. D, Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 237.

1
sent to exile in 335 and returned in 337 after the emperor’s death. Even when he
was in exile, his followers remained noble to him and did not adhere to the
teachings of Arianism. The empire was divided between his sons; Constans in
the West who supported the Nicenes, and Constantius in the East who supported
the Arians.

When Athanasius returned from exile, he fled to Rome where Pope Julius 1,
reviewed his case with Marcellus of Ancyra and declared at a council in 340
that they were deposed wrong13 but the Eastern bishops rejected by calling the
council in 341 and drew up a new creed which left out the word homoousios.
The Sabellian sounding was changed by the Origenists to homoiousios which
meant that the son was of similar essence to the Father. The Nicene could not
agree though the Arians would agree. The disagreements resulted in the
separation of East and West. A council to reconcile them was called at Sardia in
343, instead made the situation worse.

In 353 when Constantius won the battle against Magnentius, Arianism

came back and the Nicene supporters were persecuted. He used harsh ways of
converting Christians to Arianism both in the East and the West. He identified
two key people that would help him and gave them offices (Aestius was made a
bishop without a church, and Eunomius bishop of Cyzicus). The Origenists and
Nicenes were exiled. This awakened the Origenists on their view towards the
divine nature of Christ whereas for Cyril, made him to join Nicene party.

When Constantius died in 361, Julian who was raised in a Christian faith but
abandoned Christianity, ordered the release of the bishops exiled. After his
death, Athanasius was returned back to Alexandria (366) and his determination

13
Dr N.R Needham, 2,000 Years of Christ’s Power; Part One: The Age of The Early Church Fathers, pp211.

1
of disintegrating Arianism was remarkable. His mission was carried by three
theologians (Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory of Nazianzus) all
of Cappadocia. Basil pretended to be an Arian and after the death of his bishop
Eusebius, he was elected as the new bishop. The writings of these theologians
on the Trinity led to the decline of Arianism.

The Cappadocian fathers’ writings and their influence brought about a

final union between the Nicene and the Origenists as they influenced the
acceptance of the word one hyptostatsis and one ousia which the Origenists
were not accepting. There was no agreement and the Nicenes had to separate
from the Origenists.

After the death of the Arian emperor Valens, Gartia who was the Nicene
emperor in the West since 375, appointed Theodosius as the Nicene emperor for
the East. Two years later (380), Theodosius issued an edict that recognised the
Nicene believers as the only ones legally entitled to use the name “Catholic”. 14
They took possession of the church buildings they had lost during the
persuasions under Eusebius.

Decisions of the council

In 381, at the second ecumenical council, held at Constantinople, declared the
Creed of Nicaea as the sole legal religion in the empire. The council of
Constantinople also affirmed that the Holy Spirit was a “person” equal within
the unity of the Godhead to the Father and the Son, “proceeding from the
Father.” This reflected the theological thinking that was going on during the
proceedings of half-century. The three Christian leaders – “the Cappadocians”
(Basil bishop of Cappadocian Caesarea, Gregory bishop of Nyssa, and Gregory
of Nazianzus) maintained the Nicene orthodoxy and were able to remove the

14
Dr N.R Needham, 2,000 Years of Christ’s Power; Part One: The Age of The Early Church Fathers pp 222.

1
difficulties which many Christians of Asia felt in accepting the term
homoousios.15

The Cappadocians’ formulation of the Nicene doctrine excluded the

Sabellian interpretation and there was relief for those who feared that the term
made way for Sabellian conception of God. However, the Cappadocian fathers
themselves were suspected of not being completely Orthodox in the respect of
orthodox Christian doctrine.

After Basil’s acceptance of the Nicaea, he made a final clear division between
the terms ousia (the essence of Godhead shared by the Holy Trinity) and
hypostasis (the identifying quality such as “son ship” or “sanctification”
applicable to its members).16

Due to the increasing misunderstandings between the East and the West, in 371,
Basil wrote to Athanasius with a view of having him act as the intermediary
between the East and West, and also, he was the only one with the authority to
clear up confusion which reigned in the See of Antioch and persuade Paulinus
to retire in favour of Meletius.17

The council condemned the doctrine of Apollinarianism who were not so much
concerned with the relationship between the Father and the Son, but with the
Divine Word. Apollinarius, the bishop of Laodicea upon reading the opening
words of St John’s Gospel, he admitted that the Son was altogether God, but not
man in full sense (like man but not a man) which wanted to deny the reality of
the incarnation.18

Effects of the council

15
Ibid., pp. 311
16
W. H. C. Frend, The Early Church, first Edition 1982, pp. 173
17
Ibid., pp. 174
18
F. F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame; The Rise and Progress of Christianity from its First Beginnings to the
Conversion of the English, pp.310.

1
The council revised and reaffirmed the Creed of Nicaea and that the Holy Spirit
was the same substance with the deity of the Father and the deity of the Son 19.
This marked the climax of the Nicene faith in the Christian church.

The council acknowledged Gregory as Bishop of Constantinople and

declared invalid election of the Egyptian candidate Maximus 20. It also rejected
Maximus and all ordinations he carried out.

The council was shaken up with Gregory’s conflicts of preferring Paulinus be

allowed to succeed Meletius at Antioch, though the Anti-Western spirit over-
ridded. Also, Timothy resigned because Damasus refused to recognize his
position as Bishop.

The Canons which the council published condemned all heresies,

including Arianism, semi-Arianism, and Apollinarianism. This marked the end
of Arianism in the Roman Empire and the council faith was the State religion
except in the East where the Emperor’s will alone, was to be decisive.

One ecclesiastical province was forbidding from interfering in the affairs of

another.

The bishop of Constantinople was given the primacy of honour after the bishop
of Rome, because Constantinople is New Rome.21

Council of Chalcedon (451)

The Council of Chalcedon (451) was the Fourth Ecumenical Council. It was
held in the city of Chalcedon in Asia Minor, opposite Constantinople, to the
East. It was convened by the Eastern Emperor, Marcian, to address the
Eutychian heresy. The first meeting was held October 8, 451, of which 500-600

19
F. F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame; The Rise and Progress of Christianity from its First Beginnings to the
Conversion of the English, pp.311.
20
W. H. C. Frend, The Early Church, first Edition 1982, pp. 176
21
Ibid., pp. 176

1
bishops were present, all of whom were from the East except two bishops from
North Africa and two papal legates, Paschasinus and Boniface. Dioscorus, the
successor of Cyril, who was known as one of the “violent men” 22, presided over
the second council of Ephesus on 1 August 449, which Leo the Grate bishop of
Rome described as a gang of robbers,23. The council declared Monophysite
teachings of the monk Eutyches as orthodox and dismissed Flavia as the
Patriach of Constantinople.

Two years prior to Chalcedon, in August 449, Theodosius II, emperor of

the East, assembled the Latrocinium (“Council of Robbers”) on 8 August in the
Cathedral Church of Ephesus (130 bishops attended)24 to deal with the
difficulties which were arising out of the condemnation of Eutyches at the
synod at Constantinople in November 448 about the title of Mary. Pelagius
from the West who held that Mary be called Theotokos “God-bearer” and
Nestorius from the East called Mary Christotokos “Christ-bearing) that split
God-man into two distinct persons. This synod was dominated by Dioscorus,
Patriarch of Alexandria, who was a strong supporter of Monophysitism.
Eutyches was acquitted of heresy and was reinstated to his monastery. Flavian
and other bishops were deposed, and the Roman legates were insulted.

Proceedings of the council

After the death of Theodosius on 28 July 450, there was anew regime of
Pulcheria and Marcian who favoured Leo. The joint rulers called a council in
the summer of 451 to meet in Chalcedon in October same year. The council met
on 8 October in the church of St. Euphemia in Constantinople. 520 bishops
attended, all from the East except four papal legates (Paschasinus bishop of
Lilybaeum, Bishop Lucentius, the priests Boniface and Basil, and Bishop Julian
of Cos). The imperial officers sat in front of the altar while the bishops on both
22
Ibd., pp. 226
23
F. F. Bruce, The Spreading Flame; The Rise and Progress of Christianity from its First Beginnings to the
Conversion of the English, pp. 313.
24
W. H. C. Frend, The Early Church, first Edition 1982, pp. 229.

1
left and right.25 The officers elicited the agenda and prepared the motions which
were to be decided upon by the assembly.

Dioscoros who was seated on the right, in the midst of the assembly
began to panic together with his supporters as they were being strained when
the acts of the second Ephesus council were being read. Some bishops protested
their innocence and others asked for pardon. They began moving to the left one
by one except Dioscoros who remained stout. This indicated that Egypt would
remain alone.

The Council reversed the decisions of Latrocinium and the Ephesus Council and
condemned Eutyches. It drafted a statement of faith known as the Chalcedonian
Definition, along with a large number of additional pronouncements, all of
which were accepted by the Western Church, except canon 28 which granted
the Bishop of Constantinople the title of patriarch and made his see second only
to Rome.26 Something which the Roman legates vigorously opposed.

Creed: The Definitions of Chalcedon

25
Ibd., pp. 230-231
26
Canon 28, “Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the
canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who
assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the
Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things
concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome.
For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal
city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same
consideration, gave equal privileges (isa presbeia) to the most holy throne of New Rome,
justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys
equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be
magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian
dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are
among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy
Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the
bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the
divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses
should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been
held according to custom and have been reported to him.” “The XXX Canons of the Holy and
Fourth Synods, of Chalcedon A.D. 451,” http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-
14/4chalcedon/canons.htm, October 14, 2003.

1
The definitions of Chalcedon reaffirmed the definitions of Nicaea and
Constantinople, asserting that they provide an adequate definition of the
orthodox faith concerning Christ, but goes further to assert that the two new
errors of Nestorius and Eutyches must be repudiated.

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men
to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete
in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also
of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his
Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his
manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead,
begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten,
for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and
the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without
confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction
of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics
of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and
subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same
Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets
from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us,
and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.27

Effects of the council

The council; “Declared Christ’s Two Natures Unmixed, Unchanged, Undivided,
Inseparable; and Condemned Eutychianism. Chalcedon led the way to
Constance which also opened the way to reformation.
27
Historic Church Documents, “The Definitions of Chalcedon (451),”
http://www.reformed.org/documents/chalcedon.html, October 13, 2003. Retrieved on March 15, 2018.

1
 It led to the religious unity of the Eastern Christians who papacy had tried
to unite but had failed. However, Leo was left with other tasks especially in the
West. He had a successful mission that changed Attila from his invasion of Italy
(452) to uphold the central authorities.

Conclusion
The deity of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is a mystery that is
beyond apprehension. God exists as a triune being and the totality of His
existence is beyond what man can comprehend quoting W.F. Fred, ; ‘the twenty
years of controversy had shown that the nature of Christ the redeemer and
savior could not be expressed adequately in current philosophical terms and
could not be answered in terms of philosophy’ The theologians who stood for
their faith in the struggle and fight for the Christian faith present the
significance of the ecumenical councils in Christian churches today despite the
divisions and different religions that have emerged due to reformation. The
persons of the Godhead are jointly comprehensive of one another, and,
therefore, of the divine essence.

Bibliography

F.F Bruce, The Spreading Flame; The Rise and Progress of Christianity from its
First Beginnings to the Conversion of the English.

J. N. D, Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines.

N.R Needham, 2,000 Years of Christ’s Power; Part One: The Age of The Early
Church Fathers

W. H. C. Frend, The Early Church, first Edition 1982.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/4chalcedon/canons.htm, October 14,

2003.

1
http://www.reformed.org/documents/chalcedon.html, October 13, 2003.
Retrieved on March 15, 2018.