The Council of Nicaea
38:26 Share

Hi, I'm Tristan Hughes, and if you would like the Ancient ad-free, get early access and bonus episodes, sign up to History Hit. With a History Hit subscription, you can also watch hundreds of hours of original documentaries, including my recent documentary all about Petra and the Nabataeans, and enjoy a new release every week. Sign up now by visiting historyhit.com slash subscribe.

Did you know that foreign investors are quietly funding lawsuits in American courts through a practice called third-party litigation funding? Shadowy overseas funders are paying to sue American companies in our courts, and they don't pay a dime in U.S. taxes if there is an award or settlement. They profit tax-free from our legal system, while U.S. companies are tied up in court and American families pay the price to the tune of $5,000 a year. But

But there is a solution. A new proposal before Congress would close this loophole and ensure these foreign investors pay taxes, just like the actual plaintiffs have to.

It's a common sense move that discourages frivolous and abusive lawsuits and redirects resources back into American jobs, innovation, and growth. Only President Trump and congressional Republicans can deliver this win for America and hold these foreign investors accountable. Contact your lawmakers today and demand they take a stand to end foreign-funded litigation abuse.

BetterHelp Online Therapy bought this 30-second ad to remind you right now, wherever you are, to unclench your jaw, relax your shoulders, take a deep breath in and out.

Feels better, right? That's 15 seconds of self-care. Imagine what you could do with more. Visit betterhelp.com slash random podcast for 10% off your first month of therapy. No pressure, just help. But for now, just relax. Work management platforms. Ugh. Endless onboarding, IT bottlenecks, admin requests. But what if things were different? We found love.

Monday.com is different. No lengthy onboarding. Beautiful reports in minutes. Custom workflows you can build on your own. Easy to use, prompt-free AI. Huh. Turns out you can love a work management platform. Monday.com, the first work platform you'll love to use. ♪♪

1700 years ago, an unprecedented council of early Christian bishops gathered at Nicaea, not far from present-day Istanbul. The council had been convened by the Roman Emperor Constantine to address a theological dispute, a schism amongst early Christians that threatened to explode across the empire. Constantine wanted it sorted. At the centre of the council was the issue of Homoousion, this idea that the Father, God,

the Son, who would be Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit were all equal. The two figureheads on opposing sides of this dispute were Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria on one side, and Arius, a member of the clergy on the other. Arius had the idea that there was almost this divine hierarchy, that the Son was subordinate to the Father.

Alexander and his followers believed that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were of equal weight and shared the same divine substance. This dispute was the so-called Arian Controversy. The bishops had gathered at Nicaea to determine which was the correct doctrine and which was heresy. Their decision remains central to Christianity even today. It's the Ancients on History Hit. I'm Tristan Hughes, your host.

Joining me to explain the Council of Nicaea and why this ecumenical council was one of the most important events of early Christianity, I was delighted to interview Dr. Dafydd Daniel, a lecturer in divinity at the University of St. Andrews. We delve into the fascinating details of this early Christian theological dispute, and I really do hope you enjoy. Dafydd, it is a pleasure to have you on the podcast today. Well, thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here.

And it's a special anniversary it feels this year because 2025 is the 1700th anniversary of one of the most pivotal moments in Christian history, the Council of Nicaea. But this isn't just a dry theological debate. It's got power, politics, intense religious rivalry, all set against the backdrop of the Roman Empire's first Christian emperor, Constantine the Great.

So with that established, I mean, let's start with the basics. For listeners who might not be familiar with early Christianity, what was the Council of Nicaea and why does it still matter so much today? So the Council of Nicaea was a church council called by the Emperor Constantine in 325.

It's the first ecumenical council, so worldwide council. In fact, the word ecumenical was coined by Eusebius of Caesarea, one of the early church historians who was there to describe this council worldwide. It's significant because it decides really two of the most fundamental doctrines in Christianity that we've all heard about, the Trinity and the Incarnation.

But also because through that, it really is the beginning of, well, one of two things, depending on your point of view. It's either the beginning of modern Christianity. Christianity is a public, visible religion, civic religion. Or it's the beginning of the corruption of Christianity because it involves this decision of what is orthodox and therefore what is heretical and involves the state's action in that. Is it quite a definitive line that either you go the way that is agreed and that's orthodox or...

or if you don't, and anything else is seen as heresy. Yes. This is where the church council produces this Nicene Creed, something still read out today. This is a foundational text.

Now, it certainly is trying to clearly decide a distinction between orthodoxy and heresy. One of the interesting things is that it's not necessarily entirely clear what Nicaea has decided. These obscure phrases, homoousion, which I'm sure we'll get to, what does that really mean? Is that heretical itself, which was one perspective at the time?

And then even though Nicaea, the council, makes this decision, in the immediate aftermath, really the opposing side, who are the Arians, seem to come to the fore a bit more than the Nicenes. So it's part of a very vibrant struggle or discussion, depending how you want to phrase it, through this period.

Well, we're going to be exploring all of that in detail. But Dafydd, at the beginning, as we kind of explore the background, you also mentioned in passing a figure called Eusebius of Caesarea. Do we have many literary sources for this event in this time in history?

Yeah, it's striking because we don't really. I suppose that's the interesting thing because I think now we'd, certainly I would think of something like a church council of any kind would have all sorts of minutes taken and there'd be all these records and everything else. But that's not the case here. I mean, it goes on for decades.

couple of months, it seems. Maybe it starts on the 20th of May, ends in July in Nicaea 325. Even that's not that clear. Our main sources for it are Eusebius of Caesarea, who was there, and also Athanasius of Alexandria. Of

Obviously, they have their own particular point of view and perspective, which may well interfere with their account and recognition of what's gone on. But it's in their books that we have their account of what went on, but also extracts from some of Constantine's letters, which follow the council, which go out to the church to tell the church what the decisions that have been made. And of course,

other records of, for example, the writings of Arius. And part of the build up to the controversy is hundreds of letters being exchanged all over the place between these various bishops, theologians, and versions of those recorded in those historic accounts, as well as others later on. So there's Theodoretus of Cyrus and a couple of other historians more in the fifth century who also had some access to documents that don't seem to survive and only survive in those histories.

Constantine also wrote other letters to try and prevent the council happening, to try and stop everyone arguing and everyone to calm down. Again, we've got sort of versions of those letters, whether they're how accurate they are is open to debate. Well, let's explore the context as to why this council is happening in 325 AD. Big question, Dafydd. What is happening in the Roman Empire and the church in those years running up to 325? Yeah, okay. So,

In the empire itself, so we're coming out of the so-called crisis of the third century, sort of unsettled period in Roman history, right? So, you know, we've had the plagues, like the Plague of Cyprian, which has wiped out 50% of Alexandria and things like that. And

All these barbarian tribes attacking in the 3rd century lead to unsettled situation. Various people declaring themselves Caesar all the time, right? You know, they win a battle when they're the new emperor. So the crisis of the 3rd century has led to, at the end of that period, the Tetrarchy. So the Tetrarchy system of government has been established by Diocletian.

which has seemed to work sort of fairly well, right? You've got two Augusti, right, two senior emperors, East and West, then these junior Caesars beneath them. And that, of course, means you've got more imperial people closer to the action across the empire to the troubled areas. And that seemed to work fairly well until 306, when the Augustus at that point, the leader of Augustus in the West, Constantius, who is Constantine's father, dies.

That then leads really to set off to civil war in the empire between these rival Augusti and Caesar as they all start fighting each other.

Not least Constantine, of course, but another chap, Maxentius, who was one of the original Augusti, but he's been left out of the equation. And then this other fellow, Licinius, who'd been promoted above both Maxentius and Constantine, much to their consternation. And so they've all been fighting with each other. Maxentius is significant because it leads us to the Battle of Milvian Bridge, which I'm sure we'll come to. That's 312. That's where Constantine gets rid of him, his half-brother.

And then later on, Constantine gets rid of his other half-brother, Licinius, in the Battle of Chrysopolis in 324. So period of civil war and settlement, now we've got this single man, Constantine has become the sole emperor. So a period of settlement has emerged there through periods of unrest.

That's the empire at large. The church, well, the church has also come through really its main periods of persecution. So there's only two really empire-wide persecutions of the church. One of them is Decius in 250s.

It's not aimed at Christianity as such. Decius wants a return to the worship of the ancient gods as that gathers the Christians up into it. As part of the Tetrarchy, however, Diocletian and Galerius do have a concentrated persecution against Christians. This is called the Great Persecution. And that has continued until softly in 311 when Galerius releases an edict of toleration, but finally declares,

with the Edict of Milan, which comes out of Constantine and Licinius before they separate. So it's been a period of unrest, of unrest for the Empire and the Church, and persecution for Christians, which is part of this, does feed into Nicaea, because part of the struggle, sort of internal politics of the Church, and part of Constantine's concern, is the fact that after those periods of persecution, you have certain Christian groups coming

proclaiming to be the true church.

And this is most famously with the Donatists in Africa. I mean, one of Constantine's first acts in 314, so even before he's in towards Nicaea, is to have the Council of Arles, which is to try and quiet these Donatists. So the Donatists oppose people who apostatized during the persecution. They surrendered the Bible, surrendered their faith. Now they want to come back into the church, and the Donatists refusing. And the same thing is happening in Egypt with a chap called Militius. And so the Militians are also this group

that don't necessarily seem suspect in their orthodoxy, unlike Arius and others that we'll come to, but they are claiming to be the real church of the spiritual church, the church of saints. And so again, there's a threat of schism and separation. So already in those immediate decades before the Council of Nicaea, and before we get to the figure of Arius, there are other figures, as you've highlighted there, the Donatists and so on, which are almost a symbol of what's to come, that there are divisions emerging, maybe catalyzed by these persecutions that have

happened in recent history, there are divisions in how people are viewing Christianity and how they should approach it. Yes. Yeah, exactly right. No, exactly right. I mean, the status of Christianity, even as a religion in the empire, has been much debated, right? It's only in that Edict of Milan that Christianity actually becomes officially recognized as a religion. I mean, that's part of a significant stage, right? It's not even viewed as religion at that point.

And yes, as you say, there's unrest about the status of the church, the status of Christianity. Is it a suspect cult? Is it something serious or not? Even before this point, you've had the persecution of Decius in 250s. After that is what's known as the little piece of the church, the sort of 40 years or so between that persecution and the great persecution.

And then we've got this, the Emperor Aurelian, and he is already asked to try and decide a controversy about another heresy, which is still being debated at the time of the Nicene Church, which is known as Sabellianism, with this extraordinary character, Paul of Samosata, who's a bishop of Antioch, who claims the privilege of the Queen Zenobia, who's sort of an ex-

part of Egypt and Syria from the empire. So, yeah, already the empire has been involved in trying to decide what's going on. And of course, like it was back, you know, the earliest record that we have of Christianity even being discussed is Pliny with Trajan, you know, saying he's found these odd people, you know, I've tortured them anyway. Now what should I do with them now? You know, sort of thing.

Yes, he's like, don't go looking for the Christians, but if they do, you can execute them or something like that. They've got a very interesting relationship with the Christians early on. It seems like in regards to the events of the Roman Empire up to the Nicene Creed, some key

events and things to highlight, as you have highlighted already, Dafydd, is at the end of the third century crisis, the Emperor Diocletian comes along, creates the rule of four, the Tetrarchy, those two senior emperors and those two junior emperors. Seems to work for a period of time, but then after Diocletian goes, the next successor is Constantius Chlorus. He dies early on. His son Constantine is proclaimed emperor in 306 AD.

And very quickly, it all starts falling apart and you get those civil wars like Constantine versus Maxentius and so on, ultimately leading to Constantine ditching the Tetrarchy completely and becoming a sole emperor again by the time he gets to the Council of Nicaea. So let's focus on Constantine's career a bit to get more context into his adoption or his relationship with Christianity by that time. Because it seems it's been 13 years or so, hasn't it, by 325 and his...

the beginning of his relationship with Christianity. I feel this is where we probably want to explore the Milvian Bridge and why that's important. It's an extraordinary story, isn't it? And, you know, much debated how much truth there is in this and how it relates to wider sort of political motivations for Christian conversion as well as everything else. But Constantine is about to fight this battle against Maxentius.

And has this vision of a sign in the sky and this line, in this sign, conquer, and later has a dream, a dream of Christ coming to him. This is how it's relayed by Lactantius and Eusebius of Caesarea, both of whom knew Constantine personally. And the sign in question is the Cairo symbol.

The Cairo symbol is just the first two letters of Christos in Greek. It's an X with a big P sticking out the top of the X. And Constantine makes this his symbol. He puts it on his standards, on his shield, and fights with this and wins an extraordinary victory. It's not clear why Maxentius comes out to fight even at such an exposed area. And so because Constantine thanks the Christian god,

you know, dedicates the victory to it, thinks it's come from that and carries on using this symbol. It's said that Licinius lived in great fear of it, you know, at this later battle, Chrysopolis 324. It's sort of pagan symbols of Licinius against this Cairo symbol. So what's his real view of Christianity? I mean, it's clearly...

It seems to have been a monotheist, right? So it seems to have believed in one God and seems like a lot of people in the ancient world too, and not least Christians themselves, have had the view that you may have sort of natural revelation of God and then further revelation of him. So there's no inconsistency to say, well, the sun god is revealed as actually being this other one god, this Christian god.

And then you take Christianity very seriously. As I mentioned, the Council of Viles very early on when he's deciding about Donatist, but St. Peter's Basilica right in Rome, that's 318, starts to build that. Then 330 establishes Constantinople as a new capital. That's sort of festooned with all those Christian buildings. It's a vibrant city.

pluralist sense of religion, isn't it? That religion can appear in different forms as long as it's peaceful. And that the particular religion that you worship in this tape, Christianity for Constantine, he doesn't have to repeal the Edict of Milan, which is about freedom of religious worship and convert to a Christian. That's sort of what I'm trying to get across, I suppose. There seems to be a bit more toleration at that time, doesn't it? And I remember interviewing Professor David Potter, and he was saying how we

with Constantine, it almost seemed like he was hedging his divine bets at times. Patronage to Christians, but also building temples and churches. So doing both things at hand. But as time goes on, as you say, that endures. So by the time we get to 325 AD, does he feel responsibility? Is he the one who calls the council together? Or what do we know about that? Yeah, so he does call the council and seems to preside over it

in some form, interjecting the debate, so far as we can tell. He feels bound to call it, as far as we can tell from the documents we have from the time. It's not that he's very interested, again, back to your point about hedging the bets, not that he's very interested in the theological question that's at issue. In fact, he thinks it's ridiculous, as far as we tell, that you should stop messing around and introducing disorder debate over this sort of minute and obscure, you know, theologians of any age, I suppose, can find something to disagree over.

They need not to bother with that sort of stuff just to keep peace in the church. So his interest definitely in peaceableness, in order. I mean, Eusebius dubs him bishop of those outside the church. So he's not an official churchman, not baptized, of course, as he isn't until he's just before he dies. But he's responsible for those who are believers. Another way of putting it, I suppose, is that what Constantine represents is the laity, right? The voice of the laity coming into

Christian affairs, they should be represented, they should have a sense of it, because you can't allow theologians to entangle things in endless debates, especially when those debates spill over into civic disorder. So is it a case then that Constantine, he hears that there are these divisions emerging in the Christian church, and he's worried about dissent, about trouble within the empire if it's not sorted? Yeah, that's right, that's it. So

Arius is a priest in Alexandria, so just a priest, and he objects to what his bishop, Alexander, is teaching. So he objects to it, and he makes his objections very clear, and then writes to loads of other people to say that this patriarch is a heretic, basically, and should we really be following him? Should we actually maybe organize our own deacons? It seems that some followers of Arius are even sort of ordaining their own deacons and so on. So a threat to that order, that principle of order within the church,

So then both Alexander and Arius are writing all over the place to sort of hundreds of other bishops across Syria, Libya, Egypt, Turkey, in modern day terms, writing to all of them to try and get them on their side. And of course, then they are then appealing to imperial power, imperial authority to help try and decide this debate. And so in the end, Arius is exiled.

In 3, 2, 1, he's thrown out, but he doesn't wish to be thrown out. So he appeals back. And Constantine says, look, can't you just both shake hands and call it a draw or whatever and move on? And they have their own individual synods to try and decide the answer to the question. And that can't decide it. So then finally, Constantine says, right, well, he's going to organize something just to decide this question once and for all. This question is called a disorder through Africa, through Turkey, whatever else. If people are saying that this is something that they're going to disagree about, then we better try and settle the question.

And that's why it's the first ecumenical council. So it seems to be 315 bishops, extraordinary number of people, and that would then include thousands of priests brought in from across the empire.

Only five from the West, interestingly. Most of these are Eastern bishops, only five from the West. But they're all coming in to try and decide this question. If we can decide this question, then maybe everyone can just move on and stop arguing about it. I think Constantine's point seems to be if you want to debate some minute point of theology, then you can. But the idea of then threatening a schism, really, which is what this is, threatening the church become divided into different types of different churches to rival each other, then that's not going to help. It's going to be called battle and disagreement. ♪

Hey, this is Jonathan Fields, host of the Good Life Project podcast. Boost Mobile reminds me of what I love, when someone re-imagines what's possible. They have invested billions in building America's newest 5G network, becoming the country's fourth major carrier. They are doing things differently, offering a $25 monthly unlimited plan that never increases in price, and letting you try their service risk-free for 30 days.

With blazing fast 5G and plans for all the latest devices, they're changing the game. Visit your nearest Boost Mobile store or find them online at boostmobile.com. The Boost Mobile network together with their roaming partners covers 99% of the U.S. population. 5G speeds not available in all areas.

Did you know that foreign investors are quietly funding lawsuits in American courts through a practice called third-party litigation funding? Shadowy overseas funders are paying to sue American companies in our courts, and they don't pay a dime in U.S. taxes if there is an award or settlement. They profit tax-free from our legal system, while U.S. companies are tied up in court and American families pay the price, to the tune of $5,000 a year.

But there is a solution. A new proposal before Congress would close this loophole and ensure these foreign investors pay taxes, just like the actual plaintiffs have to.

It's a common sense move that discourages frivolous and abusive lawsuits and redirects resources back into American jobs, innovation, and growth. Only President Trump and congressional Republicans can deliver this win for America and hold these foreign investors accountable. Contact your lawmakers today and demand they take a stand to end foreign-funded litigation abuse. The old adage goes, it isn't what you say, it's how you say it. Because to truly make an impact, you

you need to set an example. You need to take the lead. You need to adapt to whatever comes your way. And when you're that driven, you drive an equally determined vehicle, the Range Rover Sport. Blending power, poise, and performance, it was designed to make an impact. With a dynamic drive, refined comfort, and innovations like cabin air purification and active noise cancellation,

the Range Rover Sport is built to be as uncompromising as you. Explore Range Rover Sport at rangerover.com slash US slash sport. Out here, we feel things. The sore calves that lead to epic views. The cool waterfall mist during a hot hike. And the breeze that hits just right at the summit.

But hey, don't just listen to us. Experience it for yourself. AllTrails makes it easy to discover the best of the outdoors. With more than 450,000 trails around the world, points of interest along the trail, and offline maps for always-on navigation. Download the free app today and find your next outdoor adventure. ♪

Davith, before we explore the Council of Nicaea, I hope you don't mind if we delve into a bit more detail about what Arius and Alexander were disagreeing about and really get that sorted for us so we can nail that down. And also, I guess, first of all, why it's happening in Alexandria. You mentioned there's a patriarch of Alexandria. So set the scene of Alexandria at this time in Egypt and the strength of Christianity there. And then why?

What is the root of this disagreement that erupts between Arius on one side and Alexander on the other? It's incredibly interesting, isn't it, important to remember that we've got Paul's letters as the earliest documents of the Christian religion. And these are writing to these churches in the Eastern world, right? Ephesus, Corinth in Greece, and so on. So really the Eastern empire, which later will become the Byzantium empire, is the start of Christianity, where Christianity comes from and grows out into the West. So just fewer bishops in the West, fewer Christians in the West,

This really is a thriving Greco-Christian culture in these areas of the world, Asia Minor, Alexandria, and so on. And so later on, we're going to have Jerusalem as an important place, then Constantinople a little bit, a later important place. But at the moment, we've got Antioch in Syria and Alexandria in Egypt, these really key posts in the Christian world. And this is where a concentration of bishops are then across these areas, metropolitan bishops. And then they have their own priests and everything else.

The estimate is really that by 300, 10% of the empire is Christian, so sort of 10 million people. And then by the middle of the fourth century, about half of the empire is Christian. So, you know, growing numbers and large numbers to debate these issues with each other. The actual debate, the actual debate between the two is,

We all know the Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. We've got an issue here then of the Father and the Son. Are they all equal? Are they equal? Is there any differences between them? What's the difference between the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost? Are they the same or different? If you're saying they're really different, then you're saying you've got three gods. So you don't want to have that. You don't want to be a polytheist. So you want to connect them in some way. So how are you going to connect them and bring them together?

Now, Arius' claim is really straightforward semantics, is that the son must be subordinate to the father. Otherwise, it's not a son and it's not a father. So his claim, Arianism, is a form of a particular viewpoint that we call monarchianism, so

So monarchism comes from monarch, right? Monos, one, and then arche, principle, rule. So one principle rule. A belief then that God is one, that God is not just a being, God is being. God is everything. God is all. God is this essence beyond description, a particular substance, a divine substance, a deity, something above all things. He's created a world completely different from it. It's utterly transcendent from it. Now,

The Christian religion then poses a great threat for these Greek philosophically minded figures like Ares and others that you've got this principle of God.

How can you then explain that it becomes incarnate? Arius solves it in interesting ways. So Arius' point is that there's the God, God as substance, God that becomes a father when he begets a son. So Arius' tagline is that there was a time that the son was not. The son is not eternal because he hasn't existed always, unlike God. So what the son is for Arius, in effect, is divine, but not the deity, not the godhead.

It's another level or ranking of divinity between the two. And so it means the Son is the creator of the world, is the mediator of the world, can become incarnate to save the world, but you leave the Father as pure Godhead, if you like, above it. So that allows Ares to solve that problem. So the Son is Jesus, is it? This idea that Jesus wasn't there at the beginning, but he's created by God for his mission on earth and that. Yeah, that's right. So the Son is Jesus. So the Son...

becomes incarnate then as Jesus in the world and then can exist to save it in the world. So, I mean, let's put it in these sort of terms, right? The son is at home with the father in heaven or whatever, right? Now, the son then decides to leave that place and become incarnate as a particular human being.

which is Jesus, and then acts to save it. Well, I mean, one thing I suppose to emphasize about Arianism is that it shouldn't be confused with a later heresy called Sassinianism, which denies the divinity of Jesus. I mean, this is still saying that Jesus is the son of God and is divine. It's just he's a different level of God. He's not the highest God.

So that is Arius' position. So how does that differ then from Alexander's? Yeah, okay. So what's the problem with Arius? Well, Arius is suggesting what's called heteroousio, right? So ousio is substance and hetero is different, that the Father and the Son are different substances, different divine substances.

So one problem there for Alexander is that that seems to return us to polytheism. We've got more than one God, more than one divine substance. So this is where you get then the Homo eusion viewpoint. What that is saying is that the Father and the Son are the same substance. They're equal. Now, what's the problem with saying that? Why is that such a problem? That seems to be okay, right? You say they're the same, they're equal. Well, the

The problem for Arius, why Arius views it as a heresy, is that then what you're saying is that the father becomes incarnate and dies on a cross. And you shouldn't be saying that, right? Because you should be able to distinguish something about these persons. There must be different persons. In Arius' own light, he's actually being the most Christian person

because he's preserving that there's three different persons in the Godhead. Whereas for their opponents, Alexander, they're being really Christians because they're preserving the fact that Christ is fully divine in the same sense as the Father.

That's why they want to push that Homerousion language. Let's now move on to the debate. You've already highlighted how this explodes out of Alexandria. It reaches the Emperor Constantine and he starts getting worried that it will affect concord and harmony in the empire. The creating of this council, and as you've also highlighted, this feels unprecedented. It doesn't feel like this has happened before, has it? When the council is called,

and the people get together, what should we be imagining at Nicaea? What should we be imagining with this council and how it looks? Well, it's a great question because no one's entirely sure. I mean, it's open to our imagination a little bit. And I find it very difficult to imagine. It must be the most extraordinary thing ever. So Constantine pays for it all to bring all of these bishops together. The discussion is in Greek. Constantine, when he speaks, speaks in Latin, it seems to most part.

rather than Greek, although he does understand Greek and occasionally talks in Greek. And he's actively there as well. He's not dictating it from afar. Okay. No, no. Yeah, he's actively there. So he opens the council. So you can imagine these, I mean, in effect, thousands of people gather together in Nicaea. He moves it to Nicaea just so he can attend because that's closer to where he is.

And Eusebius and Athanasius give these strongly glowing descriptions of Constantine opening the debate. Eusebius is describing this sort of transfigured figure, right? Sort of in this glowing gold, opening the discussion. Then what is really heated argument for months between these bishops and others. They are heavily disagreeing. As you alluded to earlier, they're not always clear whether in actual fact they are agreeing rather than disagreeing. There's one great story which seems sadly not to be true.

that Father Christmas himself, St. Nicholas, who maybe was not even actually there, but he was around and was a Nicene, that he was at the council and sort of biffed Arius on the nose. He sort of slapped him across the face for his views, which says... Father Christmas. You wouldn't have imagined it. I know, surely. So yeah, a really heated discussion that...

Each side feels that their view is the orthodoxy, right? Should be the view and that each other view is really in danger of doing something. You know, one view feels it threatens the divinity of Christ and therefore salvation. The other that it really diminishes our idea of what God and the Godhead is.

And then there are even compromises suggested. And according to Eusebius of Caesarea, it's actually Constantine himself who rejects those sorts of compromises. He insists on homoousion. Constantine seemed to prefer that sort of language of clarity, just say, well, this is the point of view and that's it. And then in the end, they all have to sign this creed, sign their agreement to an Isis creed, which only two bishops don't do. Secondus of

Ptolemais and Theonis of Mamaris, I think they are those two, they don't sign. They're the only two who don't sign and they're deposed as a result. Ares is exiled, they're exiled. Then

Constantine at the end, you know, we decided homeoson, that's the end of the debate, we settled it all. And then he issues Ares' work to be burned. You know, you're not meant to support his works, not meant to even own them or have them. This is now the orthodoxy. And is this all written down then, if it was important to then cover this, in the Nicene Creed? Because what is this? And is this almost, as you say, the kind of the confirmation written down of what they've agreed? That's right. Yeah. And so that is the Nicene Creed. So

It is emphasizing the divinity of Jesus as the Son incarnate,

and that the divinity of Jesus is equal with that of the Father, that the God and the Father are one. And so this is where it says, you know, the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, all that sort of language, and begotten, not made. That later on becomes, you know, eternally begotten, to emphasize that God, his Son is also eternal. And then further to emphasize it, you know, of one substance, right? The Son is from the substance of the Father, from this Godhead, that divine substance, but it's also one with that substance.

It's really emphasized the fact that the Son is divine and equal, and therefore Jesus is divine and equal. And so it is that great Arian tagline, there was a time when he was not. So in other words, the Son was born at a certain point, was made. Well, that's anathema. There was not a time when he wasn't and so on. As I say, the Holy Spirit is just mentioned as an aside, right? And the Holy Spirit, so that's still dated to be settled. And then this fundamental question, right? Okay, we're clear now. There's a Trinity. The Son is equal with the Father. They're all divine. They're homoous on the same substance.

How can Christ be both human and divine? I won't go to that now because that's a huge other thing. But when that is decided, this language of homoousion returns. So what does Nicaea settle in itself? It gives great clarity as a substantive statement with a controversial word,

And then it still leaves open many questions how God can be three persons in one. But then part of the point then is that maybe some things just have to be left a mystery, right? Maybe things are not inaccessible to human reasoning and everything else. That's part of the viewpoint here. And that seems to be Constantine's view in his letters. We've got a letter of Alexander's when he's complaining about Arius to another Alexander of Byzantium. And he's saying that Arius is straying into things that are beyond human reason, right? So there's certain mysteries that have to be left there. That might be part of the argument. ♪

Did you know that foreign investors are quietly funding lawsuits in American courts through a practice called third-party litigation funding? Shadowy overseas funders are paying to sue American companies in our courts, and they don't pay a dime in U.S. taxes if there is an award or settlement. They profit tax-free from our legal system, while U.S. companies are tied up in court and American families pay the price to the tune of $5,000 a year. But

But there is a solution. A new proposal before Congress would close this loophole and ensure these foreign investors pay taxes, just like the actual plaintiffs have to.

It's a common sense move that discourages frivolous and abusive lawsuits and redirects resources back into American jobs, innovation, and growth. Only President Trump and congressional Republicans can deliver this win for America and hold these foreign investors accountable. Contact your lawmakers today and demand they take a stand to end foreign-funded litigation abuse.

BetterHelp Online Therapy bought this 30-second ad to remind you right now, wherever you are, to unclench your jaw, relax your shoulders, take a deep breath in and out.

Feels better, right? That's 15 seconds of self-care. Imagine what you could do with more. Visit betterhelp.com slash random podcast for 10% off your first month of therapy. No pressure, just help. But for now, just relax. ♪

So the Council of Nicaea, they ultimately come up with the Nicene Creed and the understanding of homoousion and being three different parts. Is there anything else big that we haven't covered that is achieved at the Council of Nicaea alongside the Nicene Creed and the condemning of Arianism or what Arius believes is heresy? It does do much more than the creed, which is part of why the debate went on for months about a lot of things. I mean, even celibacy of priests is something where the priest can be married.

is something that's being heavily discussed as well. So one thing is the date of Easter. Again, the idea of uniformity. It doesn't work, of course, because East and West still have different dates for Easter following that because they date the spring equinox at different times. But that was the idea that you could move away from the Jewish calendar, but also try and get everyone to agree when they celebrate Easter. Also Sunday establishes the day of rest, one thing that Constantine does. One thing that comes out of the Nicene Council is not just the creed, it's also the canons

This is the beginning of canon law, right? Church law, the first steps of canon law. What they're a lot about is about church structure, organization. How do you organize things? So a lot of these canons are setting rules for how you decide who's going to be a bishop,

It's setting rules that you as a deacon and priest, you have to follow the direction of your particular bishop in your area, that if you're exiled or anathematized in one area of the church, one province, one bishopric, you can't just move next door, right, and then carry on being a priest over there. So a lot of that is laid down as that canon law. You know, I mentioned...

I celebrate a priest. I mean, it's decided that priests can remain married there. They just can't live with any woman that they want to live with. Always an upright character, I think is how they put it. Also about whether eunuchs can be priests and it's decided they can be, but you can't castrate yourself. You know, you can't do that. But if you've already gone through that process, you can become a priest and so on. So those are some of the other things that come out of Nicaea and laid down and sent round to churches. And that's why we have those to survive, right? They're sort of gathered together and they're the things that are sent out and laid down and kept.

I mean, we talk about this as the first ecumenical council

And you see Mr. Caesar describes it in those terms. But, you know, but so after this, and even before this, there were so many synods and, you know, I've mentioned Constantius, the son of Constantius. He tries to have lots of his own councils to go in a more Aryan direction, to reject a Nicaea. They're not then classed anymore as ecumenical councils, right? Because they don't fit this list of what's decided as what is orthodox. But no, Nicaea is doing a lot of different things. And you can see there this laying down of,

Maybe centralization isn't necessarily the right word, but what has the Christian church been? I mean, the earliest churches that survive are from the 230s, these house churches, more informal churches, private gatherings. But now we've got Constantinus building churches, a visible display of

of Christianity. You can see already there's this huge network of bishops. I mean, staggering really how Christianity was already organized in this way, even before Constantine's conversion. And so really the structure was already in place, but now it's being more formularized, right? There's a sort of formal idea of what can we go. You know, once there's a rule, once the rule is decided, you can say, well, look, you're disobeying this rule. We all agreed this, right? We got together, we agreed it. And so let's all follow it.

It does seem as if it's an important moment in the changing relationship between the church and the state, doesn't it? And especially with the Emperor Constantine's presence as well as an overarching figure. I mean, Dafydd, this has been brilliant, but just to wrap it up with the aftermath. So,

Arianism, it doesn't disappear after the council. It doesn't disappear. No, it doesn't disappear. I mean, it has immediate afterlife in that it becomes more successful in the short term because Constantius, Constantine's son, was educated by Eusebius of Nicomedea, who was the great Arian defender at Nicaea. And he's greatly embedded in the imperial court.

And it's part really of exiling all sorts of Nicene people. Athanasius goes, Eustathius of Antioch goes, you know, Marcellus of Ancyra, all these figures who are nice pro-Nicene figures actually get into trouble and lose their seas for a while. And so actually the Arians gain ground. And it seems that Constantius is more interested. And so Jerome has this line later on. He says, the world groaned to wake up and find itself Arian.

that really Arianism was this short-term successor for a while. Then, of course, you've got Julian the Apostate and that sort of false part, and then we go back to Nicene, Emperor Jovian, and then finally Thutisius. I mean, also Arianism has an interesting afterlife in two very different contexts. One I always find really interesting is

I'm going to get his name wrong now, but it's Ulfila, a priest ordained by the Seusebius of Nicomedea. He is the apostle to the Goths. And so the Visigoths and the Vandals who sacked Rome are actually Aryans. They're Aryan Christians at that time. But no, Aryanism survives. And of course, some great figures are in. The most famous Aryan...

Arian really is Isaac Newton. So Isaac Newton is Arian. And he despises Athanasius. He thinks Athanasius was the Antichrist, that Nicaea, and obviously this was the beginning of the end of Christianity, has been destroyed from being a pure biblical religion, where you look at this scripture, what it's conveying to you, to something that is corrupted by an immoral murderer and power-seeking Athanasius away from it. Now, and of course, you know,

He wasn't public about that because of the Test and Corporation Acts. In Britain, from the middle of the 17th century to the middle of the 19th century, they had the Test and Corporation Acts, which meant you had to sign up to not being an Arian, to believing in the Trinity in the Nicene Way, to go to university, well, in Oxford and Cambridge, to have political office, to join the church. And this was to get rid of sort of variant of Arianism, like Unitarianism, which is don't believe in the Trinity at all.

I mean, Samuel Clarke is called Sir Isaac Newton's bulldog because of his argument with Gottfried Leibniz. He's called Arian or semi-Arian. Again, it's this interesting Arianism. We say it's called anti-Trinitarianism. That's what we now call things like Arianism. But of course, they do believe in the Trinity. It's just they don't believe in the equality of the divine figures in the Trinity. That's the thing. They're not...

radical modalists or whatever that don't believe in it, or Unitarians who wouldn't have a trinity. They're a particular type of Christian. So Aeonism, yeah, thrives for a little bit. But of course, Nicaea really has its great victory at what's now known as Second Ecumenical Council, which is the one called by Theodosius in Constantinople in 381. And that's why the Nicene Creed that we have is the Niceno Creed.

Constantinople Creed, because that then goes further into the language of the Son, but also adds in the Holy Spirit and settles that. It's a slightly longer creed, but that's the Nicene orthodoxies combined with that. Now, of course, one last thing I should just mention, what then happens after all this is that a clause is added, which is called the philoque clause, which is to say the Holy Spirit

doesn't just proceed from the Father, it proceeds from the Father and the Son. Because again, it emphasizes the equality, right? The Father and the Son are equal, so the Holy Spirit must come from both. Now, the Eastern Church doesn't like that. So what becomes the schism between East and West where they finally divide in 1054? The schism is over the clause that is added

to the same creed about whether or not the equality of the father and the son is such that the holy ghost also proceeds from both father and son rather than just the father so equality in the trinity and homo rusion you know you can trace its roots back to the debate between arius and alexander the council of nicaea and ultimately the split between east and west it just continues throughout i mean dafeth this has been absolutely well it's been really really interesting and to learn all about this and there's a lot of

deep theological debate as well to get through but I think we succeeded in covering all the main points as well Dafydd it just goes to me to say thank you so much for taking the time to come on the podcast and explain this big anniversary in Christian history okay well thanks very much a real great pleasure to have been here

Well, there you go. There was Dr. Dafydd Daniel explaining the first Council of Nicaea that occurred 1,700 years ago, exploring key parts of the story such as the Arian Controversy, the issue of Homo Ousion, and of course, the Nicene Creed. I hope you enjoyed the episode. Thank you for listening.

Please follow The Ancients on Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. It really helps us and you'll be doing us a big favour. If you leave us a rating as well, we'd really appreciate that. Don't forget you can also listen to us and all of History Hits podcasts ad-free and watch hundreds of TV documentaries when you subscribe at historyhit.com slash subscribe. That's enough from me and I'll see you in the next episode.

Did you know that foreign investors are quietly funding lawsuits in American courts through a practice called third-party litigation funding? Shadowy overseas funders are paying to sue American companies in our courts, and they don't pay a dime in U.S. taxes if there is an award or settlement. They profit tax-free from our legal system, while U.S. companies are tied up in court and American families pay the price to the tune of $5,000 a year. But

But there is a solution. A new proposal before Congress would close this loophole and ensure these foreign investors pay taxes, just like the actual plaintiffs have to. It's a common sense move that discourages frivolous and abusive lawsuits and redirects resources back into American jobs in

Only President Trump and Congressional Republicans can deliver this win for America and hold these foreign investors accountable. Contact your lawmakers today and demand they take a stand to end foreign-funded litigation abuse. Mic check. One, two, recording. Okay.

Hi, I'm Michelle Bernstein, an award-winning chef, restaurateur, and mom. I have a lot on my plate, including my psoriatic arthritis symptoms. That's why I was prescribed Cosentix. It helps me move better.

Cosentix Secukenumab is prescribed for people two years of age and older with active psoriatic arthritis. Don't use if you're allergic to Cosentix. Before starting, get checked for tuberculosis. An increased risk of infections and lowered ability to fight them may occur, like tuberculosis or other serious bacterial, fungal, or viral infections. Some were fatal. Tell your doctor if you have an infection or symptoms like fevers, sweats, chills, muscle aches, or cough.

Learn more at 1-844-COSENTIX or cosentix.com. Ask your rheumatologist about Cosentix.