At this time, while the council was still in session, Eusebius, surnamed Pamphilus, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, after listening attentively for a short time and carefully considering whether he ought to receive this definition of the faith, finally consented to it and subscribed to it with all the rest. He also sent to the people under his oversight [in Caesarea] a copy of the Creed, with an explanation of the word homoousios, so that no one would suspect his motives on account of his previous hesitation. Here is what was written by Eusebius in his own words:[1]

Beloved, since rumors usually travel faster than accurate information, you have probably learned from other sources what happened concerning the church’s faith at the general[2] council assembled at Nicaea. As we do not want the facts to be misrepresented by such reports, we have been obliged to transmit to you, first, the formula of faith which we ourselves [i.e. Eusebius] presented, and next, a second one which the assembled fathers put forth with some additions to our words. Our own letter, which was read in the presence of our most pious emperor and declared to be good and free from objectionable statements, reads as follows:

We now repeat for you our faith, which we have received from the bishops who preceded us when we were first instructed and received the washing [of baptism], which we have also come to know from the divine Scriptures; as we believed and taught it in the priesthood, and in the episcopate itself, and as we also believe at the present time:

“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Only-begotten Son, first-born of every creature, begotten from the Father before all the ages, by whom also all things were made; who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. And we believe also in one Holy Spirit.

“We believe each of these to be and to exist—the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Spirit truly Holy Spirit—as also our Lord said when he sent forth his disciples to preach, ‘Go teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit’ [Matt. 28:19]. Concerning which things, we confidently affirm that this is what we maintain, how we think, and what we have held up to present, and that we will maintain this faith unto death, anathematizing every ungodly heresy. We testify that we have ever thought these things from our hearts and souls, from earliest memory, and now think and confess the truth before God Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ. We are able to provide evidence that will assure you that even in times past we have believed and preached this same faith.”

There was nothing to contradict in this statement of faith which we put forward. In fact, our most pious emperor, before anyone else, testified that it was comprised of most orthodox statements. He even confessed that such were his own sentiments, and he advised all present to agree to it, and to subscribe and agree with its articles, with the insertion of the single word homoousios. He [Constantine] gave his interpretation of this word, saying that “the Son was not homoousios according to what we experience in our bodies, as if the Son had come to be by a dividing or breaking off from the Father. For his nature could not be subjected to any bodily experiences, as it does not consist of matter, but exists in a spiritual realm and has no body. Therefore such things must be thought of in divine, unspeakable concepts.” Such were the theological remarks of our most wise and most pious emperor. But they [the council] were intent on adding the word homoousios and so drew up the following statement:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, homoousios with the Father, by whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, and will come to judge the living and the dead; and [we believe] in the Holy Spirit. But those who say, “Once he did not exist,” and “He did not exist before he was begotten,” and “He came to be from nothing,” or those who pretend that the Son of God is “of another subsistence or being,” or “created,” or “alterable,” or “changeable,” these the catholic church anathematizes.

As this formula was being debated, we made sure to inquire in what sense they introduced “from the essence of the Father,” and “homoousios with the Father.” Through intense questioning and explaining, the meaning of the words was examined closely. They explained that the phrase “of the same being as” indicated that the Son is truly from the Father but not a part of him. We felt we could agree to this word when used in this sense, to teach, as it did, that the Son was from the Father but not a part of his essence. On this account we agreed to the sense ourselves, without even denying the term homoousios since maintaining peace was our goal, provided we did not depart from the orthodox understanding.

In the same way we also accepted the phrase “begotten, not made,” since the council asserted that “made” was a term used to designate other creatures which came to be through the Son, to whom the Son had no similarity. So according to their reasoning, he was not something made that resembled the things which came to exist through him, but was of an essence which is too high to be put on the same level as anything which was made. The divine sayings teach us that his essence was begotten from the Father, and that the mode of his being begotten is inexpressible and unable to be conceived by any nature which has had a beginning of its existence.

So when we considered it, we found that there are grounds for saying that the Son is homoousios with the Father; not like human bodies, nor like mortal beings, for he is not “of the same being as” by dividing his essence, or by cutting something off, or by having something done to him, or being altered, or by changing the Father’s essence and power (since the Father’s nature has no beginning to its existence, and therefore none of those descriptions apply to it). “Homoousios with the Father” suggests that the Son of God bears no resemblance to the creatures who came into being, but that he is in every way similar to his Father alone who begat him, and that he is not of any other subsistence and essence, but from the Father.

It also seemed good for us to agree to this term, since we were aware that even among the ancients, some learned and eminent bishops and writers have used the term homoousios in their theological teaching concerning the Father and Son. 

So much then for the Creed which was composed at the council.  All of us agreed to it , not without some questioning, but according to a specific sense brought up in the presence of the most pious emperor himself and qualified by the considerations mentioned above. As far as the condemnation they attached to the end of the Creed, it did not cause us pain because it forbid the use of words not found in Scripture, from which almost all the confusion and disorder in the church have come. Since no divinely inspired Scripture has used the phrases, “out of nothing,” and “once he was not,” and the rest which follow, there appeared no ground for using or teaching them. We think that this was a good decision, since it has never been our custom to use these terms.[3]

Additionally, it did not seem out of place to condemn the statement “Before he was begotten he did not exist,” because everyone confesses that the Son of God existed before he was begotten according to the flesh. At this point in the discussion, our most pious emperor maintained that the Son existed before all ages even according to his divinely inspired begetting, since even before the act of begetting was performed, in potentiality he was with the Father, even before he was begotten by him, since the Father is always Father, just as he is always King and always Savior; he has the potentiality to be all things, and remains exactly the same forever.[4]

We deemed it necessary for us, beloved, to inform you of the care which has characterized both our examination of and unanimity in these things, that on justifiable grounds we resisted to the last moment the introduction of certain objectionable expressions as long as these were not acceptable. We received them without dispute, when, on mature deliberation as we examined the sense of the words, they appeared to agree with what we had originally proposed as a sound confession of faith.[5]

Such was the letter addressed by Eusebius Pamphilus to the Christians at Caesarea in Palestine.[6]

Previous: The Council’s Debates and the Creed

Next: Condemnations for Those Who did not Subscribe

Back to The Council of Nicaea According to the Sources

Last updated: 12-19-2024 by JSW

[1] Soc. CH 1.8.34.

[2] The sources repeatedly describe the Nicene meeting as the “great” (μεγάλη) council. While this certainly refers to the large number of participants, it also seems to be emphasizing that this was not a local or provincial council, but one that tried to include participants from the entire church. Therefore we have consistently translated this as “general” council.

[3] Soc. CH 1.8.35-53 = Theod. CH 1.12.1-15 = Gel. f.13c = ACH 2.35.1-16 = Ath. Dec. 33.1-15.

[4] Gel. f.13c = Theod. CH 1.12.16-17 = ACH 2.35.16-17 = Ath. Dec. 33.16. For some reason Socrates omits this paragraph.

[5] Soc. CH 1.8.54 = Theod. CH 1.12.18 = Gel. f.13c = ACH 2.35.18 = Ath. Dec. 33.17.

[6] Soc. CH 1.8.55.

No Responses yet