Identify the first four ecumenical councils of the Church, outlining their main doctrinal and practical work and decisions. Assess their overall importance.

Eusebius of Caesarea, however, expressed doubts about this creed, for example, in its use of the vague, non biblical term homoousios, which be believed to be open to dangerous interpretations such as Monarchianism.  Eusebius, however, was assured that the term meant: “the son bears no likeness to generated creatures, but is likened in every respect solely to the Father who begat him, and that he is not from some reality and substance, but from the Father.”  The council believing it to thoroughly refute Arian belied approved it on 12 June 325 and all but two bishops signed it.  It was then promulgated by the Emperor as law of the Empire.

Twenty canons dealing with the day to day issues of the church were issued, which afford an insight into fourth century church life.  The canons deal with for example, clerical discipline, sects such as the Novations and the Paulines, and also apostisation at the time of the Liceasnus persecution.

It is suggested that from a historical point of view, however, the canons defining the formal structure of the church above local level are the most important.  Canons 4,5,6 and 7 deal with these hiearchal structures and it was decided that the Church structure should follow that of the civil divisions of the empire.  Metropolitans were created in which the bishop had privileges over the bishops of the capitals of the metropolitan.  Alexandria and Antioch, however, in the most famous canon (6) of the council were singled out and given the same primacy of the see of Rome, laying the foundation for the later patriarchs: “Let the ancient customs be maintained in Egypt, in Libya and the Pentapolis so that the bishop of Alexandria has authority over all these territories, since for the bishop of Rome there is a similar practice and the same thing concerning Antioch; and in other provinces, let the prerogatives of the churches (of the capitals) be safeguarded.”  Jerusalem, however, in canon 7 was only given honorary precedence over its metropolitan Caeasarea.

The council also limited the authority of the local bishops by calling regular synods and by assigning to the bishop of the metropolis a veto over the election and ordination of bishops.  It also insisted that no one be made bishop without the participation of at least three other bishops.

The other main issues of the council was a dispute over the date of Easter, the healing of a schism in Egypt.

The dispute over the date of Easter was based on differences which had arisen between various churches through the use of differing methods to calculate it.  By the beginning of the 4th century the majority of the churches had ceased to follow the Jewish custom, although a minority in Antioch continued to follow it.  Slight variations also exited between Rome and Alexandria leading the council of Arles in 314 to suggest that the bishop of Rome indicate the annual date of the Pascha to he churches.  According to the agenda the council was supposed to resolve this problem, however, it does not seem an alternative was agreed upon unless the decree concerning it was lost.  However, there are later references to the Pascha question, for example, in the synodal letter concerning the Council of Nicea sent to the Alexandrians: “We also send you good news of the settlement concerning the holy Pascha … All the brethren in the East who have hitherto followed the Jewish practice will henceforth observe the custom of the Romans…”

The schism in the Church of Alexandria dated back to the Diocletian persecutions. In 305 Meletius bishop of Lycopolis took it upon himself to ordain clergy for the Church of Alexandria in the absence of its bishop Peter who was in hiding.  Peter, however, considering this a usurpation of his authority urged his followers to cease communion with Meletius.  After the persecutions had abated Peter was able to take back control of his church, and proceeded to take a fairly merciful attitude to those who had lapsed during the persecutions.  Meletius set himself against Peter taking a rigorist position which attracted him many adherents. Meletius, however, was deposed through a synod presided by Peter for his transgression of church law, but in 311 following the edict of Galerius he was liberated and returned to Egypt as a glorified confessor and there he continued his schismatic activities leading a group called the martyr church who opposed themselves to the catholic Church.  

No specific decrees were issued on this matter although some may seem to reflect the issues it raised such as the authority of bishops.  However, it is mentioned in a synodal letter to the churches of Egypt, Libya and the Pentapolis.  To heal the schism the council treated Meletius relatively mildly by conferring him the title of honorary bishop, for in light of his disposition he should really have only been accorded the status of layman.  The bishops he had ordained, however, if elected properly could maintain their function under the authority of the bishop of Alexandria as auxiliaries to the legitimate local bishops.  These bishops might also succeed their catholic counterparts through election, although the bishop of Alexandria had to install him and this regulation is reflected in canon 6 where it states: “If anyone become a bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, the great council decrees that such a person is not even a bishop.” 

The Council of Niceae did not solve the theological problems but in stead was the starting point of conflict which was to span half a century, and this was reflected in the Councils which followed it. 

The Council of Constantinople called by Theodosius in 381 was not considered ecumenical due to its dogmatic pronouncements on the Holy Ghost until Chaceldon in 451, and information regarding it is even more scarce than that of Nicea.  It opened in May and was attended by around 150 bishops all of which came from the east. 

The main tasks of the council were of a theological nature and embodied in the first of the Councils four authentic canons the faith of Nicea is reaffirmed emphasising the eventual triumph over Arianism achieved just before the opening of the council: “That the faith of the 318 Fathers who assembled at Nicea in Bithynia is not to be made void, but shall continue established...”  

The main theological task of the council was the affirmation of the full divine nature of the Holy Spirit, against an outcrop of Arianism called Pneumatmachians or Macedonians after its founder Macedonius bishop of Constantinople.  The Macedonians argued based on the evidence of Scripture that the Holy Spirit was not God nor a creature for it is indicates the Holy Spirit is inferior to both the Father and the Son and that there is no evidence for its divinity.  Under the presidency of Gregory of Nazianzus the newly elected bishop of Constantinople the doctrine of the Holy Ghost was discussed and attempts were made to convince the Macedonians to the error of their ways, however, this did not succeed for Eleusius of Cyzicus along with thirty six other Macedonian bishops left the council in protest. 

As a consequence a new credal formula was considered at this council in which anti-Macedonian declaration was inserted to the Nicene Creed: “Who with the Father and the Son is together worshipped and together glorified...”   The Nicaeno-Constantionopolatanum  as this is known was not referred to until the Chalcedon in 451, so some scholars find it difficult in attributing it authorship to Constantinople.  However, this creed was mentioned in the synod of Constantinople in 382 and possibly due to the lower status of the council before before Chalcedon any of its acts were probably placed down in importance.

Ecclesiastical poltitics also played a role in this council as in any other, for Gregory of Nazianzuz was pressurised in to resigning his precidency of the council and also the see of Constantinople due to accusations of his contravention of the 15th Canon of Nicea which prohibited clerical translation, by his exceptance of the see of Constantinople when he was already bishop of Sasima.  Friction was also caused for Gregory when the majority of the Council refused to elect Paulinus bishop of Antioch, who had the support of the west, after the death of his rival Meletius, in order to heal the schism which had ripped the Antiochean church apart, instead a presbyter of Antioch Favian was chosen.  Gregory was replaced by Nectarius as both president and bishop of Constantinople and it was probably the latter who saw to the drawing up of the councils canons and the now lost tome, an explanation of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit and a condemnation of views against it.

Of the four Canons produced by the Council the first also condemns the heresies of for example, Arianism, the Pnematomachians, the Sabellians and also most significantly Apollanarism, which was condemned by the west in 377.

A reaction against Arianism Apollinaris bishop of Laodicea denied that Christ had a rational, human mind, and that Christ’s humanity was only connected to his flesh which the logos infused to become “divine flesh”.  Apollinaris had a tendency to stress the oneness of Christ and mininise his humanity.  This view was strongly opposed in that for example, if Christ was not fully human he would not have been able to redeem mankind.

Emboying some of the practical work of the council canon two renews the Nicean decree that bishops were to confine their activities to their own churches unless invited.  Behind this decree, however, also lies an attempt to terminate the glorification of the see and bishop of Alexandria, and it prepares the way for Canon three in which Constantinople as the “new Rome” and therefore more politically significant was granted precedence although perhaps only honanary at this stage over the sees of Alexandria and Antioch to be second only to Rome.  This implemention of the doctrine of accomodation, however, was a source of increasing hostility between the east and the west for Rome considered it a violation of the custom of Rome and Alexandria as senoir churches based not on their political status but on their early relationshiop with the apostle Peter.  Therefore, although its creed was accepted none of the canons of Constantinople were accepted in the west for another 900 years.

The Council of Ephesus (431) was summoned by Theodosius II on the behalf of Valentinian III in the west, prodominetly to heal a Christological dispute between Nestorius bishop of Constantinople and Cyril bishop of Alexandria .  This dispute was coloured not only by the theological differences ,but also see rivarly and the personalities involved.  Cyril objected to Nestorius’ teaching, which chracteristic of the Antiochene school, emphasised the two natures of Christ especially his humanity, to the extent that this view came close to undermining the substancial union with the Godhead.  Based on this Cyril particularly objected to the Nestorius’ rejection of Mary as Theotokos “Mother of God” and his insistence that Mary should be called Christokos “Mother of Christ”, for as a human Mary could not give birth to God.  Cyril argued instead in his theory of the “communcation of Idioms” that the unity of the flesh and the logos was irreducible therefore Theotokos was correct for in Christ’s close bodily connection to the logos he infact was the logos.  However, to avoid Apollanarism Christ in Cyril’s view also had a human mind.  Cyril requested Pope Celestine I to judge the matter by sending him a critque of Nestorius teaching, and as a consequence the latter was condemned by a Roman Synod in 430.

The primary task of the Council of Ephesus was to solve this dispute, and unlike the two procedding councils the acts were not lost.

Cyril was the most dominant personality at the council for he had a mandate to act on the behalf of the bishop of Rome.  The council was therefore, very biased towards Nestorius and as the latter states: “Who was judge? Cyril! Who was accuser? Cyril! Who was bishop of Rome? Cyril! Cyril was everything.”   To compound the situation without waiting for the arrival of the Roman legate or the Oriental bishops led by John of Antioch, Cyril opened the Council, and in the face of such hostility even after three summonses  Nestorius refused to appear before the Council.  In the course of the opening session extracts from Nestorius’ writings were read and compared with passages of the Fathers of the Church, Cyril’s second letter to Nestorius was also aired and on this basis Nestorius’ teaching was condemned was opposing the faith of Nicea and he was deposed:  “Our Lord Jesus Christ, whom he has blasphemed, decrees through the Holy Synod here present that Nestorius is excluded from the episcopal dignity and every priestly assembly.”

When Nestorius’ supporters arrived John of Antioch who sympathised with Nestorius but not agreeing entirely with his teaching was affronted that Cyril had held the council without them that he procedded to hold a counter-council in which they denounced both Cyril, Memnon bishop of Ephesus and there adherents.  When the papal legates arrived, however, they sided with Cyril agreeing in what he had done, therefore, Cyrils council was declared ecumenical and John’s a ”conventicle of apostasy”.   When the imperial commisioner arrived making no distinction between the councils ackowledged the depostion of Cyril, Memnon and Nestoruis putting all three under house arrest, however, all decisions made by Cyril remained and he was eventually restored to his see, however, Nestorius remained deposed and retired to a monastery near Antioch. 

The Council (Cyrils) did in its precedings manage to issue eight canons six of which dealing with the problems associated with Nestorius, also condemning the theology of Celestius the Pelagian.  In relation to the independence of the Church of Cyprus which was resisting encroachments by Antioch the organisation of provinces was also discussed and embodied in the eighth canon was a decree standing by the independenc of Cyprus and in connection with this it was decreed that ancient arrangement should remain in force that forbidded bishops to try and wield power in any other church than their own.   

After the council attempts were made to restore communion between the sees of Alexandria and Antioch.  The Antiochene bishops were asked to consent to the condemnation and deposition of Nestorius and Cyril was asked to drop the anathemas adopted as part of the councils acts, also the phrase hypostatic union and agree to a compromise confessional formula called the Formula of Reunion.   Cyril agreed in 433, therefore, misunderstanding between the Antiochenes and the Alexandrians was dissipated for a time, and as such this document was considered the final act of the Council itself.

---