Introduction
The inspiration for this article really came from Russell Dewhurst’s reviewFootnote 1 of The Cambridge Companion to the Council of Nicaea.Footnote 2 He suggested that someone might look at the continuities in Anglican Canons with the twenty canons of the Council of Nicaea. For those who want an up-to-date introduction to the study of the Council of Nicaea, that volume edited by Young Richard Kim is indispensable and I have learnt from its 420-odd pages in preparing this piece. In the subsequent pages of this issue of the Journal, Morag Ellis KC concentrates on the relevance of the Nicene Canons for clergy discipline, not least today. Her article also includes (as an annex) a helpful summary of the twenty Nicene canons, grouped thematically.Footnote 3 Although I shall touch on the disciplinary canons, this article limits itself to strictly canonical material, whereas Ellis’ paper explores issues to do with the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003 and Clergy Conduct Measure 2025.
Church of England ecclesiastical law is composed of canons, Synodical Measures and Acts of Parliament. The latter two can bind the laity but not the canons.Footnote 4 So a comparison with the Nicene Canons is not straightforward.Footnote 5 Fundamental to my research has been the reading and re-reading of the Nicene canons themselves as well as more than a glance at the canons of the other early councils. For this, Norman Tanner’s Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils Volume I in Greek, Latin and English has been my constant companion.Footnote 6
The historical context
With that preamble, I begin with Robert Mortimer, a distinguished canonist of an earlier generation and a Church of England bishop who wrote, ‘Canon Law may be said to have begun at the Council of Nicaea in the year 325’.Footnote 7 However, he immediately qualifies this by acknowledging that there were earlier councils that had also passed canons. He cites both Cyprian’s North African councils and ‘[t]he famous council of Arles in 314 which was attended by two delegates from England’.Footnote 8 So I want to begin by putting the Nicene canons into their historical context.
We can start with Bishop Mortimer’s reference to the Council of Arles. Many readers will know the Roman city in Provence a little better than Iznik in Turkey – Nicaea. At least 15 councils were held in Arles between 314 and 1275. It was a popular synodical watering place. Before the Nicene canons, Arles passed 22 canons dealing with abuses resulting from persecution. This was to do with the lapsed who later wanted to return to the Church, in particularly what to do with lapsed clergy and bishops. This was essentially the same pastoral and disciplinary issue which generated several North African Councils under Cyprian which similarly promulged canons. But the most interesting thing about Arles is that it was convoked not by bishops but by the Emperor Constantine. Although not yet himself actually baptised, Constantine not only tolerated Christianity but was also concerned for the unity of the Church.
The reasons for this were probably as much political as ecclesiastical. He wanted a united Roman Empire and therefore needed a united Catholic Church. Arles in 314 attempted to deal with the Donatist schism in North Africa, that is those (large numbers) who went out of communion with the Catholic Church because it was perceived as being too soft in dealing with the lapsed; it also forbade deacons to celebrate the eucharist (a sure sign some were doing so!); that bishops dissenting from orthodoxy would be exiled by imperial power; and that ‘the unworthiness of the ministers … hinders not the effect of the sacrament’ (to use the anachronistic formula of the Articles).Footnote 9 This last was against the Cyprianic view that lapsed ministers could not effect valid sacraments, including ordination. Arles was therefore no insignificant synod.
Why, therefore, did the Nicene canons become so important as opposed to the similarly ‘Constantinian’ canons of Arles 11 years before? Part of the answer is that Arles was a largely Western council: Italy, Gaul, Britain, and North Africa. Constantine had been proclaimed Emperor at York in 306 but only became the senior Augusti in the West after defeating his rival Maxentius in 312.Footnote 10 In 313, Constantine agreed with his Eastern co-emperor Licinius on religious freedom in the Edict of Milan. Licinius was the Eastern Emperor, Constantine the Western; they had inherited the Diocletian principle of a division of the vast empire into several parts. This was the political scene as the rigorist Donatists in North Africa appealed to Constantine against Catholic laxity. Constantine delegated the question to a commission of bishops and then to the Council of Arles. This, however, could only have relevance to the Western part of the Empire. But when in 324, after the battle of Crysopolis, Constantine became sole Emperor of the East as well as the West, a new doctrinal crisis challenged the unity of the Church and Empire. This was the Arian controversy about the relationship of Jesus Christ to God the Father. Athanasius of Alexandria championed what later became the Nicene orthodoxy of the Creed against his fellow Alexandrine, Arius.
All this is the historical background to the key question of why was Nicaea and its 20 canons traditionally regarded as the first ‘ecumenical’ or ‘general’ council? The answer (partially) is that although Constantine convoked Arles 11 years before Nicaea, by 325 he was sole Emperor, and so he was able to enforce Nicaea’s canons and orthodoxy on the whole Empire East as well as West. Ecumenical (οικουμενε) meant the whole inhabited or civilized world. For Constantine this meant the Roman Empire East and West. So Nicaea was the first General or Ecumenical Council and its canons carried this additional important weight: they were universal.
Constantine knew what he was doing. At Arles, he tried to achieve the unity of the Church and Empire. He had influence in Arles, the city had sided with him against his western rival Maxentius and with victory Constantine rewarded the city. He built the Baths of Constantine at Arles and had a residence there, although he did not personally attend the Council. But the Council at Arles did not end the Donatist schism. So when the Arian controversy arose Constantine wanted to ensure that what became Nicaea was more effective than Arles.
Originally convoked for Ancyra (Ankara), Constantine reconvened it at Nicaea, only a short distance from Nicomedia (the Provincial capital); and at Nicaea he had a personal residence and the city was well defended with military walls. There is evidence for Constantine himself arguing that the climate of Nicaea was better than Ancyra in mid Anatolia; that it was easier for the bishops to reach and was close to the imperial court at Nicomedia. It has been argued that one reason may also have been the Bishop of Ancyra’s very vocal opposition to the teaching of Arius. Did Constantine want more neutral ground to achieve ecclesiastical peace? But the argument that Nicaea would be easier for Eastern and Western bishops to attend is certainly also strong.Footnote 11
I caveated the above explanation as being a partial answer to the new authority of Nicaea. My caution is because Nicaea’s reception did go outside the Empire on the merits of its creed and canons alone. Both the Armenian Church and the Church of the East (the later so-called Nestorian Church) accepted the council of Nicaea, although they were in the Persian Empire. Indeed, a bishop Aristakes, the second son of Saint Gregory the Illuminator, who brought Christianity to the Armenian people, actually attended Nicaea and brought both Creed and Canons back to Armenia.Footnote 12 The Church of the East, however, was forgotten at Nicaea – was never in fact invited, because invitations came in the Imperial Mails which did not of course extend into the Persian Empire. The Church of the East did not even know of the Council of Nicaea until 411 when, at least officially, it accepted its creed in the form of the Nicaeno-Constantinopolitan Creed; the form of the Nicene Creed we have today.Footnote 13
In summary, the Nicene Creed and canons were the first general or ecumenical, council of the Church by reason of their general, universal, ecumenical convocation, promulgation and enforcement, although neither immediately nor without serious dispute, their merits also gained them even wider authority than the Roman Empire, East and West.
The twenty canons of Nicaea
Now to the twenty Nicaean Canons themselves. The first thing to note is that there was no systematic, single code of canon law for a very, very long time. Canons were collated but not systematised. The Latin Code of 1917 was the first strictly universal code. Unitl then there had been collections: wonderfully depicted by Gratian in the 12th century when he described his own collection as a Concordantia Discordantium Canonum, which itself became authoritative. A concordance, a harmony, of disconcordant canons. For this Dante placed Gratian in Paradise!Footnote 14 Earlier collections of canons for centuries before gave supreme authority to the Nicene Canons. They were usually the first in such collections.
Even so there were disputes as to the authority of the Canons of Nicaea in their Latin translation. A North African priest, Apiarius, had been degraded and excommunicated. He appealed to Rome; the Pope heard the appeal but the African Church disputed Rome’s right to adjudicate it. The Papal response was that this was in accordance with the Canons of Nicaea and the Pope sent a version of the canons to prove it.Footnote 15 The African bishops looked at their own copy brought back by Caecilian, bishop of Carthage, from Nicaea in 325. In this version no such appellate canon appeared; they therefore checked their version with Constantinople and Alexandria. This confirmed the North African position. In fact the appellate canon came from a council at Serdica (Sophia) in 341. This turned out to be a double council – Eastern and Western bishops never actually met, so certainly not ecumenical. It was the Western section which gave provision for a Court of Appeal, not unreasonably because the Bishop of Rome was the natural person in the West to hear any supra-provincial matter. The point of this story is not to take sides between East and West on the appellate jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, it is rather to note that for both sides the Nicene canons were regarded as having supreme authority.Footnote 16 This also illustrates how later conciliar canons were ‘tacked on’ to earlier ones, thus making the legal historians’ task delightfully complex!
Physical fitness for ministry
Canon 1 of Nicaea deals, somewhat surprisingly to modern ears, with mutilation. Clergy who had been castrated for medical reasons, ‘or by barbarians’, might remain among the clergy, but those who had mutilated themselves were to be excluded. The distinguished theologian and ascetic Origen had apparently mutilated himself, misunderstanding Matthew 9.12 in a literal sense. He is not explicitly mentioned in the Canon, but nevertheless the canon suggests some clergy had made themselves eunuchs. In one form or another this prohibition continued. So in the 1983 Latin code canon 1041§5 continues a long tradition of canons dealing with irregularity for the reception of Holy Orders, including mutilation. This was not explicitly covered in the 1603/4 canons of the Church of England, although canons 34 and 35 covered the ‘quality’ and examination of those to be ordained. However, the current canon C4 paragraph 2 prohibits admission to orders for those suffering from ‘any physical or mental infirmity’ which would, in the opinion of the bishop, prevent them from ministry. The draft Canon LV of the Canon Law revision Report 1947 became the current canon without revision and it annotates earlier sources.Footnote 17
Criteria for ordination
Canon 2 of Nicaea prohibits ordination immediately after baptism after a short catechumenate, quoting Timothy 3.6–7 on the danger of too swift preferment. Our canon C3 paragraphs 5–7 prohibit the ordination of deacons under 23 years, priests under 24 years or being ordained deacon and priest on the same day – although a faculty from the Archbishop allows dispensation. Bishops have to be ‘at least thirty years of age’ by canon C2 paragraph 4. Interestingly canon 32 of 1603/4 had similar provision and explicitly cited ‘the judgement of the ancient Fathers and the practice of the primitive Church’. While the practice of promotion through the three orders of deacon, priest and bishop came some time after Nicaea, the Nicene prohibition of hasty promotion seems a wise canonical caution in today’s church, where at least in some places over-hasty ordination after a ‘conversion’ experience in, say, a student congregation, without a full Anglican enculturation, leads to serious problems that most bishops eventually become only too aware of.
Staying with the theme of ordination, canon 9 of Nicaea prohibits ordination without examination. This was soon emphasised in the West (e.g. by Pope Siricuis (384–99)) although by then the context in the West had already become focused on the ordinand’s marital status. Canons 34 and 35 of 1603/4 ultimately derive from Nicaea canon 9 and of course the present canons C6 and C7.
Women living with clergy
Canon 3 of Nicaea concerns ‘women who have been brought in to live with the clergy’. This was not intended to cover mothers, sisters, aunts or ‘any person who is above suspicion’. Although it did not explicitly say so, this canon did not include a prohibition on the marriage of priests. It appears from the Greek wording (ουνειςακτοι) that it was the practice of two ascetics being together which was being abused. Married clergy only became explicitly prohibited in the West from Lateran II in 1139, although Lateran I had explicitly repeated the ambiguous Nicene canon 3 after local western councils had also forbidden marriage to those in subdeacon’s orders or above. Although there is no obviously equivalent canon in the Church of England, the Clergy Discipline Measure 2003, its predecessor and successor, do make behaviour unbecoming to a cleric a disciplinary offence.Footnote 18 In this sense Nicaea canon 3 lives on. This canon also illustrates how canons develop and actually change in differing circumstances. In the West it became a prohibition for the marriage of clergy while in the East the tradition of married clergy continued. The reason Orthodox bishops are not married is not because of Nicaea but because they are chosen from the monastic orders.
Canons 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Nicaea I shall deal with later as they are inter-related and of fundamental ecclesiological importance.
Cathars
Canon 8 of Nicaea dealt with the Cathars. Earlier councils at Ancyra, New Caesaria and elsewhere had also tackled this problem. The Cathars here are not the later mediaeval Albigensians condemned by Lateran IV, preached against by the Dominicans and burnt by the Inquisition. The Nicene Cathars were, however, like their later Western namesakes, hyper-ascetics; καθαρος means ‘the pure one’. A Roman presbyter called Novatius led a schism which excluded those who had lapsed in persecution and, interestingly, also refused communion to those who had contracted a second marriage. The canon was generous and flexible in that it permitted their clergy to come into the Catholic Church without reordination but under the Catholic bishop. Cathar bishops were to be as presbyters, unless the Catholic bishop allowed them episcopal honour although only as a ‘country bishop’ (chorepiscopus). The Church of England canons A8 (schisms), B43, and B44 (ecumenical relations) are a distant echo of Nicene flexibility but the phenomenon of groups refusing communion with the wider church on moral grounds has a closer parallel with contemporary Anglican schism. I note Nicaea’s gentle way of receiving the Cathars back but they did have to accept the discipline of the Catholic Church.
Schismatics
Canon 19 of Nicaea also deals with schismatics but in a different way. The Paulinists (followers of Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch, 263) were to be rebaptised, and re-ordained in contrast to the Novitianists of canon 8. Why the different treatment? I suspect because the Paulinists had a heretical understanding of Christ which was thought to be adoptionist – the Word descending on the man Jesus. So, interestingly, Nicaea was stricter in terms of what it judged to be a matter of faith in Christ than in matters of ecclesiological order or morals.
Deaconesses are also mentioned here as not having received the ‘imposition of hands’. There is divergence here between those who understood this to mean that deaconesses were not in what later came to be known as Holy Orders and those who understood this to be a peculiarity of the Paulinists. I take the latter view as this canon is very specifically titled ‘the followers of Paul of Samosata who came over’ and says ‘we refer to deaconesses who have been granted this status, for they do not receive the imposition of hands’.Footnote 19 They are to be numbered among the laity. In the Church of England deaconesses did receive the imposition of hands but were still canonically regarded as laity (Canon D1 pararaph 5). One reason for thinking the Nicaean canon 19 only applied to Paulinists is that the later history of women deacons/deaconesses, especially in the East right up to mid-Byzantine times included the imposition of hands and their ordination differed substantially from the giving of minor orders.
Lapsed Christians subsequently ordained
Canons 10, 11, 12 and 14 of Nicaea decree that lapsed Christians subsequently ordained, even in the ignorance of their sponsors, are to be deposed; laity who repent of their apostacy can be re-admitted to communion, although only after twelve years penance. Similarly, those who quit military service to become Christians (the canon speaks of casting off their military belts) but who then returned to the army. The background to this is that the Eastern Emperor Licinius, despite the Edict of Milan, had insisted that the military should offer pagan sacrifices. Some under Constantine later thought it acceptable to return to military service. Penance here was thirteen years in all but the bishop could shorten this period if he judged the penitent to be sincere. As the British Army has Church Parade rather than pagan sacrifice we do not find such canons! Nor indeed is this canon developed in the tradition of the post-Constantinian Church, although the gladiatorial profession remained banned. Here we see the principle of desuetude appearing. Such canons no longer had any pastoral application because persecution had ceased. Patriarch Bartholomew has written on the subject of the mutability of canon law in changing times and cultures.Footnote 20
Those who seek communion at the point of death
Canon 13 of Nicaea concerns those who seek communion at the point of death. Here Nicaea references an already existing custom of generosity described by Nicaea itself as ‘ancient canon law’. This has been regularly repeated in East and West (e.g. canon 921 of the 1983 Latin Code). The Church of England code of 1603/4 at canon 67 similarly enjoins the minister to visit the dangerously sick and to comfort them ‘according to the Order of the Communion Book’. The Book of Common Prayer of course includes both The Visitation of the Sick, (including provision for private confession and absolution), and The Communion of the Sick (with provision for viaticum). Fuller provision today is found in canon B37 paragraph 2 and in Common Worship.
Wandering clerics
Canons 15 and 16 of Nicaea deal with ‘wandering’ clerics who move from city to city. The canons do not speculate on why but the allure of richer churches may have been one reason or where presbyters or deacons had quarrelled with their bishop. I am reminded of Chaucer’s ‘povre Persoun of a Toun’ (poor Parson of a Town) who did not run up to St Paul’s for a rich sinecure. Previous collections of canons also included such prohibition. Nor are bishops to ‘steal away’ those of another church without the permission of their bishop. From this developed the doctrine of ‘incardination’ in one’s home diocese. By the time of the Council of Chalcedon in 451 the word ‘Title’ had become common and in the mediaeval and later Anglican tradition this was developed further in canons 33 and 34 of 1603/4 and canon C5 today. Both the 17th century and present canons have provision for Letters Dimissory, a formal letter of release from one diocese to another without which a bishop may not ordain a person from another diocese. The 1603/4 canon 33 on Titles began ‘It hath been long provided by many decrees of the ancient Fathers …’. Both this and canon C5 are a conscious echo of Nicaea.
Usury
Canon 17 of Nicaea forbids clerics to practice usury. Usury was forbidden for many centuries in both East and West. There were still extensive canons against usury at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274 (canons 26, 27, and 28). This is an interesting example of where the Church has changed its mindFootnote 21 although this canon is specifically about clerics practising usury.
There is an echo of this, although no more perhaps, in the older English canons which touch on the ‘behaviour’ of the minister and more specifically in the current canons on their trade or occupation (canon C26 paragraph 2 and canon C28). The bishop could grant a licence today permitting a minister to engage in a trade or any other occupation if after consulting with the PCC it is deemed such an occupation is acceptable. In the case of a usuary, I wouldn’t!
Liturgical order
Canons 18 and 20 of Nicaea deal with liturgical order. Deacons should not usurp the role of presbyters/priests; this may just be about liturgical precedence or (remember the Council of Arles) deacons actually celebrating the eucharist.Footnote 22 By reason of the generally probationary diaconate in Anglicanism and in the wider Catholic Church this is hardly a problem today. But the rubrics of both BCP and Common Worship do reflect the ‘order’ Nicaea commends. It is also to be remembered that Archdeacons were still in diaconal orders at this time and no doubt some, as officers of the bishop, were claiming liturgical prerogatives. Also dioceses often had only seven deacons and were thus an elite. As to the laity, Nicaea castigates those who kneel during the liturgy on Sundays during the Easter/Pentecost season. Whether this prohibition was effective or not can be doubted: as with the various postures in today’s church there was obvious diversity. Recall also the controversy between the Puritans and supporters of the Prayer Book over kneeling for communion, and today the various postures for worship. If I were promulgating a canon on this matter I would prohibit squatting. Stand or kneel for liturgical prayer. Sit for meditation.
Other matters ‘settled’ at Nicaea
With the exception of canons 4 to 7, that concludes our comparison of the Nicene Canons. But there was a further significant disciplinary decision made at Nicaea. As well as the addition of the ομοουσιον (same in being, same in essence) clause in the creed, the heretic Arius was condemned in a letter to the Egyptian Church. Clergy ordained by the Arians would have to be re-ordained with ‘a more spiritual’ ordination if otherwise acceptable. Note again a matter of faith is more important than order. They would still, however, remain subordinate. This did not immediately resolve the issue.
Also, and more relevant for today, Nicaea settled the dispute as to the date of Easter. The Syrian Churches had adopted a semitic calculation based on the lunar cycle: ‘the fourteenth day of the moon’, which was also the Jewish calculation for the Passover. Elsewhere Easter, although also following the lunar calendar, was always on the Sunday between days 16–22 of the cycle. Nicaea decided for the Sunday celebration of Easter. We inherit that decision in the Church of England’s canons and liturgy. See the fulsome list of the future dates of Easter in Common Worship and the ever-fascinating tables in the Book of Common Prayer on finding the date of Easter, I quote: ‘find the letter for the year in the uppermost line, and the Golden number or Prime in the Golden Number’, etc. My 1968 edition of the Book of Common Prayer goes up until 2105! A fixed Easter is quite separate from the issue of a ‘common’ Easter (East and West both keep Easter on a Sunday but their lunar calculations are usually different, although in 2025 happily coinciding). Also quite distinct is the entirely modern question of convenience: ‘a fixed Easter’. The Churches are today in favour of a common, although not a fixed Easter.
Canons 4–7: faith, order and ecumenism today
Finally, to canons 4–7 of Nicaea. These are in my estimation among the most important canons, not least in terms of faith and order questions relevant to ecumenism in general and especially to the Anglican dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox. Canon 4 stipulates at least three bishops for the confirmation and ordination of a bishop, although ideally all the bishops of a province. Canon 5 deals with communication between diocese and the non-admission of those excommunicated by other bishops. Consequently, enquiry needs to be made by synods twice a year in each province. The title of canon 6 speaks of forms of primacy for certain churches, but it actually deals with the responsibilities of the metropolitan of the province. Recognition is given to the sees of Alexandria, Antioch and Rome as well as preserving the prerogatives of other provinces. In canon 7 Jerusalem is given honour but it still came under the Metropolitan of Caesarea.
In these canons we have a description of diocesan episcopacy, synodality, metropolitical authority, primatial honour and a certain supra-metropolitical authority. Alexander Ross in A Still More Excellent Way Footnote 23 spells out the distinction between primacy and metropolitical authority. Primacy historically is honorific; metropolitical jurisdiction is more significant and he traces the modern Anglican rise of the Primates with a critical eye. Current Anglican Communion structures give us both a multi-provincial pattern (e.g. England, Ireland, Canada and Australia) but also Churches where there is only a single national Province. Here the term Primate is used but essentially such primacy is really metropolitical. The Latin Code is clear that Primacy is strictly honorific (canon 438). Since Trent, Rome has downplayed metropolitical authority in favour of Papal jurisdiction; in the current Code Metropolitans exercise wider jurisdiction only when initiated and authorised by the Pope (canon 436).
But this general picture of decline did not apply to the Metropolitan’s judicial power as the normal appeal from a judicial act by a provincial bishop to the Metropolitan of the Province. So, canons 435–438 are tempered by canon 1438§1. Although canons 435–438 have not changed there are also more recent developments to note. Pope Francis’ Moto Proprio Vos Estis Lux Mundi (2019 and made permanent in 2023) gives Metropolitans a significant role in initiating proceedings against a bishop in his province. Footnote 24 Canon lawyers have commented on the importance of this development. As in the Anglican Communion this may reflect the disciplinary exigencies of the safeguarding crisis. For the Orthodox, the Metropolitan has always been eccelsiologically very important, although national synods have occasionally tempered this.
The Church of England – and much wider Anglican canon law – shows the extent of metropolitical jurisdiction in real continuity with Nicaea. The old canons 92–108 cover metropolitical jurisdiction and the modern canons dealing with the Ecclesiastical Courts are similarly instructive. Metropolitans have appellate jurisdiction through their archiepiscopal courts in canons G1–G3 but canon G5 gives the right of visitation to archbishops (as well as bishops and archdeacons). The initiating metropolitical power of visitation has been vigorously manifested in England in recent years, especially in connection with safeguarding. This is also true in Australia.Footnote 25
Nicaea did not invent metropolitical jurisdiction but it enhanced its exercise. The modern Anglican ‘Gratian’, The Principles of Canon Law Common to the Churches of the Anglican Communion Footnote 26 reminds us that ‘diocese(s) are to associate in provinces in accord with ancient usages of the church’ (principle 20.1) and ‘visitation enables the exercise of a supervisory jurisdiction’ (principle 23.1). A diocese is not an independent unit of the Church. A diocese is led by its bishop and it relates to the other dioceses of the province through the bishop. But the bishops must communicate with each other and seek consensus through synods led by the metropolitan who can take an initiative when and where necessary. Nicaea gives both metropolitical jurisdiction and synods. Many years ago Henry Chadwick stressed the ecclesiological significance of these canons, especially canon 6.Footnote 27
I would argue that, taken as a whole, these ecclesiological canons are indeed highly significant. Bishops are not self-appointed, or even simply elected by the diocese. The wider province must confirm an election and the metropolitan bishop confirms this. The custom of having a minimum of three bishops for an episcopal consecration was not originally about validity but to demonstrate the consensus of the province. Synods are also a necessity; episcopacy and synodality go together. But at Nicaea there is more than this. As well as the proper authority of ordinary provinces three other sees are spoken of: Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, and their authority too is to be continued. This means that there are three ecclesiological levels endorsed by Nicaea: the local diocese, the province, and a wider than provincial authority – quasi-global authority. Eventually this was recognised in the East as the Pentarchy, the ancient Patriarchates of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.Footnote 28
The Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission (ARCIC) statement Walking Together on the Way Footnote 29 discerned three levels in exploring synodality: the local, the regional and the universal. This analysis was supported by the work of the Roman Catholic Orthodox Dialogue which also recognised the local, regional and wider levels of authority. Patriarch Bartholomew was part of this dialogue as also was Cardinal Ratzinger (as he then was). Anglicans currently struggle with a wider than provincial or national authority in terms of whether such a level could have binding authority. The failure, or at least the stalling, of the Anglican Covenant proposals illustrates this tension.
Nevertheless, Nicaea’s three levels remain and can be examined comparatively in terms of the law of all the churches. Here the work of the Ecumenical Christian Law Panel is highly relevant; so also the work of the Colloquium of Anglican and Roman Catholic Canon Lawyers. It is not accidental that the papers of the Colloquium which met in 2024 examined precisely the three levels of synodality emerging at Nicaea: local, regional and universal.Footnote 30
Conclusion
Nicaea therefore still has much to give us and Anglicanism is indebted to, and is in real continuity with, its canons. I also believe that any structural form of Christian unity (and ultimately if you believe in the visible Church it must have some structure) these canons will remain relevant and prescient. Indeed the Nicene Canons, as Bishop Robert Mortimer said, began the story of canon law and it has continued in the Anglican tradition, diversified through English legal history. But as Patriarch Bartholmew has often said, the study of canon law must continue to be pursued ecumenically.Footnote 31 Ecumenical study of the ecclesiological canons of Nicaea is not an optional extra but at the very heart of the search for the unity of the Church of Christ prayed for in his High Priestly Prayer in St John’s Gospel (John 17.20–24).
Acknowledgements
This article is a lightly edited version of a paper delivered at the Ecclesiastical Law Society’s conference, Nicaea Received: 1700 Years of Canons, Councils, and Ecumenism, convened at Chichester Cathedral in June 2025.
