In the sixth month of the sixteenth year of his reign, … Constantine assembled the holy council of bishops.1 Even the place selected for the council, the city of Nicaea in Bithynia which was named after the word meaning victory, was appropriate to the occasion. As soon as the imperial order had become well known, everyone hurried eagerly to Nicaea as if competing in a race. They were encouraged to do so by their anticipation of a happy outcome for the conference, their hope for enjoying peace, and their desire to observe the strange new marvel of so admirable an emperor. Now when they had all assembled, it appeared obvious that this proceeding was the work of God, in that men were here brought together who had been so widely separated, not merely in outlook but also personally by their different regions, cities, and ethnicities. Now gathered within the walls of a single city, they formed, as it were, a vast garland of priests, composed of a variety of the loveliest flowers.2

At this council, the number of bishops exceeded two hundred and fifty, while no one could calculate all their accompanying priests, deacons and many other attendants.3 Constantine also commanded Arius to come to be judged for his statements and inquiries by the three hundred and eighteen bishops who assembled there.4

So the most eminent of the ministers of God in all the churches which have filled Europe, Africa, and Asia, were brought together. And one house of worship, as it was opened wide by God, contained on the same occasion both Syrians and Cilicians, Phoenicians, Arabs and Palestinians, and in addition to these, Egyptians, Thebans, Libyans, and those who came from Mesopotamia. A Persian bishop was also present at this council, and Scythians were at the assembly as well. Also Pontus, Galatia, Pamphylia, Cappadocia, Asia and Phrygia sent those people who were most distinguished among them. In addition, Thracians and Macedonians, Achaians and Epirotes, and others who lived even further away … took their seats among the rest.5

The following were the occupants of the apostolic sees who participated in this conference: Macarius of Jerusalem, Eustathius who already presided over the church of Antioch-on-the-Orontes, and Alexander of Alexandria near Lake Mareotis.6 Even the highly celebrated Hosius of Spain himself sat in the council with many others, acting, together with the Roman priests Vito and Vincentius, in the place of Bishop Silvester of great Rome,7 who was unable to attend on account of extreme old age.8 Metrophanes, the bishop of the current capital city [Constantinople], was absent due to his old age, but his priests were present to represent him. One of those priests was Alexander, who became bishop of that city after him.9

Constantine was the only emperor over the centuries to assemble for Christ such a crown for the bond of peace. He dedicated it to his Savior as a thank-offering worthy of God for his victory over his enemies, appointing this gathering among us in imitation of the Apostle’s own assembly. For among them, it is said, were gathered “devout men of every nation under heaven; Parthians, Medes and Elamites, and residents of Mesopotamia, Judaea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the regions of Libya around Cyrene, visitors from Rome (both Jews and proselytes), Cretans and Arabs” [Acts 2:5, 9-11]. That congregation, however, was inferior, because not all of them were ministers of God.10

Some of these ministers of God were notable for their wisdom, some for the strictness of their life and patient endurance [of persecution], and others adorned themselves with all of these distinguished characteristics. Some were venerable because of their advanced age, others were conspicuous for their youth and vigorous minds, and others had only recently entered their ministerial career. For all these the emperor arranged for an abundant supply of daily food to be provided.11 That is Eusebius’ account of those who met on this occasion. The emperor, when he had completed the festal celebration of this triumph over Licinius, also came in person to Nicaea.12

Therefore there were also in those times many men who were shining lights in the churches of the Lord, and many of these were at this council.13 Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, as was said before, supported the opinion of Arius, together with Theognis and Maris; of these the former was bishop of Nicaea, and the latter of Chalcedon in Bithynia. These were powerfully opposed by Athanasius, a deacon of the Alexandrian church, who was highly esteemed by his bishop Alexander. This resulted in jealousy against him, as will be seen later.14 Athanasius was acknowledged by all to have had his share in the choir of those holy men… and was a most excellent helper to him [Alexander].15 Basileus, the bishop of Amaseia, and Melitius, the bishop of Sebastopolis, were present along with the other high priests of God.16

During this time many individuals were richly endowed with apostolic gifts, and many, like the holy apostle, bore the marks of the Lord Jesus Christ in their bodies. Jacob, bishop of Antioch, a city of Mygdonia (which is called Nisibis by the Syrians and Assyrians), raised the dead and restored them to life. He also performed many other wonders…. Paul, bishop of Neocaesarea, a fortress situated on the banks of the Euphrates, had suffered from the frantic rage of Licinius. He had been deprived of the use of both hands by the application of a red-hot iron, so that the nerves which allow the  muscles to move had been stretched out and deadened.17

And there was at the synod another man from among the choir of confessors18 by the name of Paphnutius, an Egyptian,19 a man of God. He was one of those whose right eyes Maximian the emperor had gouged out and whose left leg he had hamstrung when he committed them to the mines. In him there was so much grace from God that he performed signs in no way inferior to those done of old by the apostles. For by word alone he routed demons, by prayer he healed various ill people, and by petitioning God he granted sight to the blind. He also brought the paralyzed to natural soundness, making their members to function healthily. The emperor held him in great honor and frequently invited him to the palace and would kiss his empty eye socket, so much piety did Constantine have!

Moreover, Spyridon, a certain Cypriot20 who was eminent in the Lord, had placed his experience from youth up as a shepherd in the service of the flock of Christ. He was known for leading a prophetic way of life. In fact, although governing the church, he did not cease tending his own sheep. … So indeed in those times the church was still adorned by such holy men, many of whom were present at the synod in Nicaea.21

I have heard moreover concerning Eutychian, a devout person who flourished about the same time, who also belonged to the Novatian church, yet was venerated for the performance of similar miracles. I shall unequivocally state my authority for this narrative, nor will I attempt to conceal it, even though I give offense to some parties. It was Auxanon, a very aged priest of the Novatian church, who when quite a youth accompanied Acesius [of Constantinople] to the council at Nicaea and related to me what I have said concerning him. His life extended from that period to the reign of Theodosius the Younger, and when I was a mere youth he recounted to me the acts of Eutychian, extolling the divine grace which was manifested in him.22

In short, the council looked like an assembled army of martyrs. Yet this holy and celebrated gathering was not entirely free of opposition; there were some, though so few they were easy to count, who appeared safe, like dangerous shallows, but who in reality secretly supported the blasphemy of Arius.23 Many of the laity who were skilled in the art of reasoning were also present. Each one was eager to advocate the cause of his own party.24

Previous: The Calling of the Council

Next: Philosophic Debates Preceding the Council

Back to The Council of Nicaea According to the Sources

Last updated 12-19-2024 by JSW

  1. ACH 2.37.28.
  2. Eus. LC 3.6
  3. Eus. LC 3.8.
  4. [1] Ruf. CH 10.1. While in his Life of Constantine (3.8) Eusebius gives the number of bishops as more than 250, Eustathius of Antioch recalled there being about 270 (Theod. 1.81). Gel. CH f.11, Soc. CH 1.8.9, and ACH 2.5.6 all inflate the number of participants, stating that the number of bishops was “exceeding three hundred while the number of presbyters, deacons, and others who attended them was almost impossible to count;” yet they all then continue to quote about the geographical variety of the bishops from the third book of Eus. LC, i.e. from where he gives the smaller number! Rufinus’s 318 appears to be echoing Athanasius who used the number in his Ad Afros (2) about AD 369. Already a decade earlier (359), Hilary of Poitiers in his De Synodis (86) had used this number of the Nicene fathers, musing that he thought it a sacred number “for with such a number Abraham overcame the wicked kings [Gen. 14:14], and was blessed by Him who is a type of the eternal priesthood” (NPNF2 9:27). The number would later receive a spiritual interpretation, because when written in Greek (τιη), it consists of the cross-shaped tau, followed by iota and eta, the first two letters of the name Jesus (so Ambrose, De Fide 1, prol. 35). Thus by the end of the century  the bishops of Nicaea were being seen as having “rescued” the church from Arius. By then the number 318 was assumed by everyone (Theod. 1.11.1b). However, the sources also agree that 17 Arians were present, and ACT then parses the numbers by saying that of the 318 bishops gathered, 300 embraced the sound doctrine and 17 remained in their Arian teaching (2.7.42-43).
  5. Eus. LC 3.7.a1; this section and the following two from Eusebius are cited verbatim by Gel. CH f.11 and Soc. CH 1.8.5-12, and in shortened form by ACH 2.5.3-8.
  6. Soz. CH 1.17.2.
  7. [1] Soc. CH 1.13.12,Soz, CH 1.17.2 and the lists of subscriptions to the Creed all mention Vito and Vincentius as the Roman priests sent to represent the bishop of Rome, Silvester. Gelasius, followed by ACH, includes Hosius as a representative of the Roman bishop. This is repeated when they provide a fuller list the participants (see Gel. CH f.14 = ACH 2.38.1-14, p. 33 below).
  8. Soz. CH 1.17.2 who mistakenly names the Roman bishop as Julius.
  9. Gelasius CH f.11 = ACH2.5.3-4.
  10. Eus. LC 3.7.
  11. Eus. LC 3.9.
  12. Soc. CH 1.8.12
  13. Ruf. CH 10.5.
  14. Soc. CH 1.8.13.
  15. Gel. CH f.12.
  16. Phil. CH 1.8.
  17. Theod. CH 1.7.3-7.
  18. In this period the word confessor designated a Christian who had experienced but survived imprisonment, torture, or other severe suffering during the persecutions.
  19. Socrates alone says he was a bishop in Upper Thebes (CH 1.8.12 and 1.11.1).
  20. While the text of Gelasius is somewhat ambiguous, Rufinus (10.5), Socrates (1.12.1) and ACH (2.10.1) all state that Spiridon was a bishop, with Socrates specifying his see as the city of Trimithos in Cyprus.
  21. Gel. CH f.12 = ACH 2.9.1-10.1, 11.7.
  22. Soc. CH 1.13.1-3
  23. Theod. CH 1.7.3-7.
  24. Soc. CH 1.8.13.

No Responses yet