Ἀναστάσις—The Rebirth of the Nicene Faith

Jason G. Andersen

After the Council of Nicea in 325, there was much turmoil within the empire in regard to doctrine. Arianism was not completely vanquished until the effects of the Council of Constantinople of 381 became firmly established and after the appointment of a non-Arian Bishop. Between the councils, Julian strove to bring back pagan practices, and Valens fought against the orthodox faith. For example, he divided Basil’s civil province to discipline his stubborn orthodoxy thereby lessening his power, but in turn, Basil appointed his friend, Gregory Nazianzus and brother, Gregory of Nyssa in the newly established sees.

Valens, however, did not last much longer. In 378, he died in battle against the revolting Visigoths. In his place, Emperor Gratian of the western empire appointed Theodosius, a Spaniard. According to both Socrates and Sozomen, he was a capable man and general in the eyes of the people before his appointment.[1] Theodosius swiftly went to work to quell the uprising. “Theodosius was. . . successful against the tribes from the bank of Ister; he defeated them compelling them to sue for peace and, after accepting hostages from them proceeded to Thessalonica.”[2] At this point, Theodosius became deadly ill and “was most gladly baptized by the bishop” because he held to Nicene doctrine. Sozomen tells us that Theodosius grew up with parents who held to Nicene doctrine and this devotion was passed on to him. He heard from the bishop at Thessalonica that further east, especially at Constantinople, there were many divisions among the Church concerning trinitarian doctrine.[3]

Soon after Theodosius’ baptism, Gregory Nazianzus was called upon to revive Nicene faith within the Arian walls of Constantinople. He began to preach Nicene orthodoxy from a small home which was converted into a chapel. It was named ἀναστάσις-resurrection-because his preaching heralded a new call for Nicene orthodoxy to be resurrected in opposition to the Arian faith so deeply entrenched at Constantinople. He preached a series of great sermons on the Trinity which proclaimed essential Nicene truths. Sozomen speaks concerning this saying, “The name Anastasis was given to this church, because, as I believe, the Nicene doctrines which were fallen into disuse in Constantinople, and, so to speak, buried by reason of power of the heterodox, arose from the dead and were again quickened through the discourses of Gregory.”[4]

In 380, Theodosius condemned Arians and called the eastern church back to the faith of Peter, the Roman Church, and bishop Peter of Alexandria (Anthanasius’ brother).[5] He removed the Bishop of Constantinople, Demophilus, from his see and appointed Gregory Nazianzus. Gregory’s appointment as bishop of Constanitinople was met with controversy later on at the coming council, especially by the Alexandrian bishops because he already held the see at Nazianzus. Hearing this, Gregory stepped down not only from his see in Constantinople but also from being the president over the council. Sozomen praises Gregory for his humility in this situation.[6] In place of Gregory, Sozomen and Socrates tell us that Emperor Theodosius appointed an elderly man as bishop, “mild and gentle in his manners, and admirable in his whole course of life.”[7] He was a prætor of the senatorial class and was appointed at the suggestion of Diodorus, Bishop of Tarsus. He was appointed even after it was found out that he was not baptized. Sozomen praises his appointment as being brought about “by divine strength.”[8] Theodosius continued his push for Nicene orthodoxy by forbidding the assembling of non-orthodox groups and taking the churches from the Arians in Constantinople. He called a council of eastern bishops to reassert the orthodox faith. The council convened in May of 381 with 150 bishops attending.

The Council and Its Canons

This council was not immediately considered to be of any prominence until the Council of Chalcedon of 451. There were four canons of the council with an additional two canons which were not part of the proceedings of the council. According to Leo Donald Davis, the 5^th and 6^th canons came from the local council of Constantinople of 382.[9]

The first canon reasserted the Nicene faith saying, “the faith of the 318 fathers who assembled at Nicea in Bithynia is not to be made void, but shall continue to be established.”[10] Among the anathemas of the first canon are the Eunomians, Arians, Sabellians, Marcellians, Photinians, and the Apollinarians.[11] Every one of these heresies were heretical in that they denied part of the orthodox teaching on the trinity. The second canon said that bishops were not to meddle in business outside of their particular region. Davis says that this principle later develops into the principle of accommodation in the eastern church where “the importance of an episcopal see depends on its prominence in civil matters.”[12] For example, the bishop of Alexandria was to use his power only within the area of Alexandria and Egypt. He was not allowed to use his ecclesiastical authority if he were in Antioch unless he was asked to do so by the local bishop. In addition to this, the third canon said, “The bishop of Constantinople should have the next prerogative of honor after the bishop of Rome, because that city was New Rome.”[13] Davis notes how this point has caused tension throughout the Church for “centuries to come.”[14] The final canon denied the appointment of Maximus the Cynic as bishop of Constantinople, nullifying all his ordinations and official acts. Davis summarizes the accomplishments of the canon and says,

Theologically, it had carried on the logic of the Council of Nicea and cautiously applied the Council’s reasoning about the Son’s relation to the Father to the Holy Spirit, though confining its statement to biblical terminology. Administratively, the council continued the eastern practice of accommodating the ecclesiastical organization to the civil organization of the Empire, sowing the seeds of discord among the four great sees of the East and West by the raising the ecclesiastical status of Constantinople to correspond to its civil position as New Rome.[15]

The Creed Traditionally Ascribed to the First Council of Constantinople

We believe in one God, the Father, almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible;

And in the one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance with the father, through Whom all things came into existence, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate from the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary and became man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures and ascended to heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father, and will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, of Whose kingdom there will be no end;

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and life-giver, Who proceeds from the father [and the son], Who with the Father and the son is together worshiped and together glorified, Who spoke through the prophets; in one holy Catholic and apostolic Church. We confess one baptism to the remission of sins; we look forward to the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come. Amen.[16]

This creed is the creed that is accepted by the whole of Christendom as the Nicene Creed, however, this specific rendering is typically ascribed to the Council of Constantinople. According to popular thought, the creed originated at Nicea in 325 and was revised at Constantinople in 381. However, J.N.D. Kelly notes the creed ascribed to Nicea and the creed ascribed to Constantinople are wholly separate creeds.[17] Kelly compares the two creeds by providing the omissions from the Nicene Creed in the Creed of Constantinople and then also provides the additional material not found in the Creed.[18] In addition to these differences, when the creed was read aloud at the Council of Chalcedon, it seems that the fathers were unfamiliar with it whereas at the reading of the true Nicean creed brought a raucous applause.[19] This shows a discontinuity that is hard to reconcile if they were the same document.

Kelly goes on to suggest that the Creed of Constantinople was probably a local baptismal creed from the east which was drawn up during the council and accepted as authoritative at the Council of Chalcedon.[20] The problem that arises from the confusion is that the creed is certainly not the Nicene Creed, but the fathers of Constantinople did not want to replace the venerated Nicene Creed. For Kelly, the Creed of Constantinople is a reassertion of the Nicene Creed “in the shape of the Creed of Constantinople.”[21] It may not be the Nicene Creed, but its theological implications surely do not disagree with it.

The council of Constantinople is an important turning point in the Church where Arianism was finally vanquished and Nicene orthodoxy was upheld. To the chagrin of many today, there is not the sense of urgency of the Church being lost as there was at this time. There are many lessons to be learned by this period of history.

Bibliography

Davis, Leo Donald. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1983.

Kelly, J.N.D., Early Christian Creeds. New York: Longman, 1972.

Schaff, Philip and Henry Wace. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Volume II, Socrates and Sozomenus: Church Histories. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952.

Cairns, Earle E. Christianity Through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

---

[1] Sozomen VII. 4, Socrates V. 2, Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Volume II, Socrates and Sozomenus: Church Histories (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952) 119, 378.

[2] Sozomen VII. 4, Ibid., 378

[3] Sozomen VII. 4, Schaff, 378.

[4] Sozomen VII. 5, Schaff, 379.

[5] Leo Donald Davis, The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology (Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1983), 119.

[6] Sozomen VII. 6, Schaff, 380.

[7] Socrates V. 8, Schaff, 121.

[8] Sozomen VII. 8, Schaff, 381.

[9] Davis, 126.

[10]Ibid., 126.

[11] Ibid., 126, 7.

[12] Ibid., 127.

[13] Socrates V. 8, Schaff, 121.

[14] Davis, 128; See also Earle E. Cairns. Christianity Through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996) 151.

[15] Ibid., 129.

[16] J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (New York: Longman, 1972), 297, 98.

[17] Ibid., 296 ff.

[18] Ibid., 302, 303.

[19] Ibid., 316.

[20] Ibid., 296 ff.

[21] Davis, 123.