In Constantine’s twentieth year the council meeting was dissolved, and each returned to his own parish, as we said before.

I must add here only the following, which in my mind is not merely incidental but really quite relevant: the names of the bishops whom all the bishops jointly dispatched to the provinces throughout the world, who sent out letters from the council and the praiseworthy emperor to all the holy churches of God under heaven detailing the decisions of the council, to the glory of God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, and the Holy Spirit. Amen.[1]

Hosius, bishop of Cordova, for the holy churches of God in Rome, Spain, all Italy, and the other provinces beyond me [to the west][2] as far as the ocean, through the Roman priests Vito and Vincentius accompanying him. Alexander of Alexandria, with Athanasius, then archdeacon, for the churches in all Egypt, Libya, the Pentapolis, and the neighboring regions up to the provinces of India. Macarius of Jerusalem, with Eusebius Pamphilus, bishop of Caesarea, for the churches in Palestine, Arabia, and Phoenicia. Eustathius of great Antioch, for the churches in Coele-Syria, all Mesopotamia, and both Cilicias. John the Persian, for the churches in all Persia and Greater India. Leontius of Caesarea in Cappadocia, which is the ornament of our Lord’s church, for the churches in Cappadocia itself, Galatia, Diopontus, Paphlagonia, Pontus Polemoniacus, and Lesser and Greater Armenia. Theonas of Cyzicus, for the churches in Asia, the Hellespont, Lydia, and Caria, through his subordinate bishops Eutychius of Smyrna and Marinus of Troas. Alexander of Thessalonica, through his subordinates, for the churches in Macedonia Prima and Secunda along with Greece, all of Europe, both Scythias, and all the churches in Illyricum, Thessaly, and Achaea. Nunechius of Laodicea, for the churches in Phrygia Prima and Secunda. Protogenes, the admirable bishop of Sardica, for the churches in Dacia, Calabria, Dardania, and the neighboring regions. Caecilian of Carthage, for the holy churches of God in all the provinces of Africa, Numidia, and both Mauritanias. Pistus of Marcianopolis, for the churches in Mysia, the provinces of Athens and Gaul, and their neighboring cities. Alexander of Constantinople, then still a priest but later granted the bishopric of the local church, together with Paul, then still a lector, Alexander’s secretary, for the churches on all the islands of the Cyclades.

All these holy apostolic men delivered the decisions of the holy, general, ecumenical council of Nicaea to all the holy churches of God under heaven and brought them to all parts of the world, as this book has just shown.[3]

Athanasius, his fellow combatant, the champion of the truth, who succeeded the celebrated Alexander in the episcopate, added the following [much later] in a letter addressed to the Africans.[4]

The letters are sufficient which were written by our beloved fellow minister Damasus, bishop of Great Rome, and the large number of bishops who assembled along with him. Equally so are those of the other councils which were held, both in Gaul and in Italy, concerning the sound faith which Christ gave us, the apostles preached, and the fathers have handed down, those who met at Nicaea from all this world of ours. For a great stir was made at that time about the Arian heresy, in order that those who had fallen into it might be reclaimed, while its inventors might be clearly identified. The whole world has long ago agreed to [the decisions of] that council, and now, after many other councils have been held, all men have accordingly been put in mind of it, both in Dalmatia and Dardania, Macedonia, Epirus and Greece, Crete and the other islands, Sicily, Cyprus, Pamphylia, Lycia and Isauria, all Egypt and the Libyas, and most of the Arabians—they have all come to know it and marveled at those who signed it, inasmuch as even if there were left among them any bitterness springing up from the root of the Arians (we mean Auxentius, Ursacius, Valens and their fellows), by these letters they have been cut off and isolated. The confession agreed upon at Nicaea was, we say once more, sufficient and enough by itself for the subversion of all irreligious heresy and for the security and furtherance of the doctrine of the church. But since we have heard that certain people who wish to oppose it are now attempting to cite a council supposedly held at Ariminum and are eagerly striving that it should prevail rather than the other [Nicaea], we think it worthwhile to write and remind you not to endure anything of the sort; this is nothing else but a second growth of the Arian heresy. For what else are they wishing for, those who reject the council held against that heresy (namely the one at Nicaea), if not that the cause of Arius should win out? What then do such men deserve but to be called Arians and to share thepunishment of the Arians? For they were not afraid of God who says, “Do not remove the eternal boundaries which your fathers placed” [Prov. 22:28], and “He that speaks against father or mother, let him be put to death” [Exod. 21:17]. They were not standing in awe of their fathers who declared that those who held the opposite of their [Arian] confession should be anathema.

For this was why an ecumenical council was held at Nicaea, 318 bishops assembling to discuss the faith on account of the Arian heresy. This was done so that local councils would no more be held on the subject of the faith, but that, even if held, they should not remain in force. For what does that [Nicene] council lack, that anyone should seek to improve on it? Dear friends, it is full of piety and has filled the whole world with it. Indians have acknowledged it, and all Christians of other barbarous nations.[5] Those who often have made attempts against it have labored in vain. For already the men we refer to have held ten or more councils, changing their position at each one—taking away some things from earlier decisions and making changes and additions in later ones. And so far they have gained nothing by writing, erasing, and using force, not knowing that “every plant that the Heavenly Father has not planted shall be plucked up” [Matt. 15:13]. But “the word of the Lord,” which came through the ecumenical council at Nicaea, “abides forever” [1 Pet. 1:25]. For if one compares number with number, those who met at Nicaea are more than those at local councils, inasmuch as the whole is greater than the part. But if a man wishes to discern the reason for the council at Nicaea, and that of the large number subsequently held by these men, he will find that while there was a reasonable cause for the former, the others were convened by force, by reason of hatred and contention. For the former [Nicene] council was summoned because of the Arian heresy, and because of Easter (i.e. because those in Syria, Cilicia and Mesopotamia differed from us and kept the festival at the same season as the Jews). But thanks to the Lord, harmony has resulted not only in regard to the faith, but also in regard to that sacred festival. And that was the reason for the council at Nicaea. But the subsequent ones were without number and were all planned in opposition to the ecumenical council.

When this is pointed out, who will accept those men who cite the council of Ariminum or any other against the Nicene council? …. [The majority of the bishops called to meet at Ariminum said it was not necessary and that] no one should seek anything beyond what had been agreed upon by the fathers at Nicaea, nor cite any council save that one. This they [the Arians] suppress, but they make much of what was done by violence in Thrace, thus showing that they are dissemblers of the Arian heresy and not citizens of the sound faith. And again, if a man were to examine and compare the general council itself and those held by these people, he would discover the piety of the one and the folly of the others. The men who assembled at Nicaea did so not after being deposed, and they confessed that the Son was of the essence of the Father. But these others, after being deposed again and again, and deposed once more at Ariminum itself, ventured to write that it ought not be said that the Son had the same essence or subsistence. This enables us to see, brothers, that the men of Nicaea breathe the spirit of Scripture, in that God says in Exodus, “I am that I am” [Exod. 3:14], and through Jeremiah, “Who is in his substance and has seen his word” [Jer. 23:18], and just below, “if they had stood in my subsistence and heard my words” [Jer. 23:22]. Now subsistence is essence, and means nothing else but very being, which Jeremiah calls existence, in the words, “and they heard not the voice of existence” [LXX Jer. 9:9]. For subsistence, and essence, is existence; for it is, or in other words exists. Perceiving this, Paul also wrote to the Hebrews, “who being the brightness of his glory and the express image of his subsistence” [Heb. 1:3]. But the others, who think they know the Scriptures and call themselves wise, and do not choose to speak of subsistence in God (for thus they wrote at Ariminum and at other councils of theirs), were surely deposed justly, saying as they did, like the fool did in his heart, “God is not” [Ps. 14:1]. And again the fathers taught at Nicaea that the Son and Word is not a creature, nor made, having read “all things were made through him” [John 1:3], and “in him were all things created” and “come together” [Col. 1:16-17]. Meanwhile these men, Arians rather than Christians, in their other councils have ventured to call him a creature, and one of the things that are made, things of which he himself is the creator and maker. For if “through him all things were made” and he too is a creature, he would be the creator of himself. And how can what is being created create, or he that is creating be created?

The bishops convened in [the Nicene] council to refute the unholy assertions invented by the Arians, that the Son was created out of what was nonexistent, that he is a creature and created being, that there was a period in which he was not, and that he is changeable by nature. In accordance with the holy Scriptures, they agreed to write that the Son is by nature only-begotten of God, Word, Power, and sole Wisdom of the Father; that he is, as John said, “the true God” [John 17:3], and, as Paul has written, “the brightness of the glory, and the express image of the person of the Father” [Heb. 1:3]. The followers of Eusebius [of Nicomedia], drawn in by their own vile doctrine, then began to say to each another, “Let us agree, because we are also of God. ‘There is but one God, by whom are all things,’ and ‘Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new, and all things are of God.’” They also gave particular attention to what is contained in The Shepherd: “Believe above all that there is one God, who created and fashioned all things, and made them to be out of that which is not.”[6]

But the bishops saw through their evil design and unholy fraud and gave a clearer explanation to the words “of God,” writing that the Son is “of the substance of God.” While the creatures, which do not in any way derive their existence of or from themselves, are said to be “of God,” only the Son is said to be “of the substance of the Father.” This is unique to the only-begotten Son, the true Word of the Father. This is the reason why the bishops wrote that he is “of the substance of the Father.” So the Arians, who seemed few in number, were again interrogated by the bishops to see if they confessed that the Son is not a creature, but Power, and sole Wisdom, and the eternal unchangeable image of the Father, and that he is very God. But the Eusebians were noticed nodding to each other, saying, “These things apply to us as well. For it is said that we are ‘the image and glory of God,’ [1 Cor. 11:7] and ‘We are always alive’ [2 Cor. 4:11].” There are also many powers, they said, “for it is written, ‘All the power of God went out of the land of Egypt’ [Exod. 12:41]. The worm and the locust are said to be ‘a great power’ [Joel 2:25]. And elsewhere it is written, ‘The God of powers is with us, the God of Jacob is our helper’ [Ps. 46:7]. To which may be added that we are God’s own not naturally, but because the Son called us ‘brothers.’ The declaration that Christ is ‘the true God’ does not distress us, for the one who came into being is true.” This was the corrupt opinion of the Arians.

But at that time the bishops, when they discovered the deceitfulness of these men, collected from Scripture those passages which say of Christ that he is the glory, the fountain, the stream, and the express image of the person, and they quoted the following words: “In your light we shall see light” [Ps. 36:9], and likewise, “I and the Father are one” [John 10:30]. Then, with still greater clearness, they briefly declared that the Son is homoousios with the Father; for this, indeed, is the meaning of the passages which have been quoted. The complaint of the Arians, that these precise words are not to be found in Scripture, is proved groundless by their own practice, for their own unholy assertions are not taken from Scripture either (for it is not written that the Son comes from what was not, and that there was a time when he was not); yet they complain about being condemned by expressions which, though not actually in Scripture, are in accordance with true religion.

They themselves, on the other hand, as though they had found their words on a dunghill, uttered things that truly came from worldly thinking. The bishops, on the other hand, did not find their expressions for themselves, but received their testimony from the fathers and wrote accordingly. Indeed, there were bishops of old, nearly one hundred and thirty years ago, both of the great city of Rome and of our own city, who condemned those who asserted that the Son is a creature and that he is not homoousios with the Father. Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, was acquainted with these facts. He at one time favored the Arian heresy, but later signed the confession of faith of the Council of Nicaea. He wrote to the people of his diocese, maintaining that the word homoousios was used by illustrious bishops and learned writers as a term for expressing the divinity of the Father and of the Son. …

… For this Council of Nicaea is in truth a proscription of every heresy. It also upsets those who blaspheme the Holy Spirit and call him a creature. For the fathers, after speaking of faith in the Son, immediately added, “And we believe in the Holy Spirit,” in order that by perfectly and fully confessing faith in the Holy Trinity they might make known the exact form of the faith of Christ and the teaching of the catholic church. For it is made clear both among you and among all, and no Christian can doubt this point, that our faith is not in the creature but in one God, Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son, and in one Holy Spirit, one God, known in the holy and perfect Trinity. Because we are baptized into the Trinity and united in this deity, we believe that we have also inherited the kingdom of heaven in Christ Jesus our Lord, through whom be glory and power to the Father for ever and ever. Amen.[7]

Eustathius, the famous bishop of Antioch (who has already been mentioned) when explaining the text in Proverbs, “The Lord created me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old” [Prov. 8:22], wrote against them [the Arians], and refuted their blasphemy:

I will now walk through in further detail how these different events occurred. What happened then? When the largest council was summoned at Nicaea, about two hundred and seventy bishops were convened. There were, however, so many assembled that I cannot state their exact number, nor have I taken any great trouble to find out. When they began to investigate the nature of the faith, the formulation of Eusebius [of Nicomedia] was brought forward. It contained undisguised evidence of his blasphemy. Its public reading caused the audience great grief because it departed from the faith while bringing permanent shame on its author. 

After the Eusebian gang had been clearly convicted and their unholy writing had been torn up in the presence of everyone, some of them, under the pretense of preserving peace, joined in silencing all the ablest speakers. The Ariomaniacs,[8] afraid that they would be ejected from the church by a council of so many bishops, sprang forward to anathematize and condemn the doctrines which had been condemned, and they unanimously signed the confession of faith. 

Thus they retained possession of their episcopal seats through the most shameful deception, even though they should have been dismissed. They continue, sometimes secretly, and sometimes openly, to patronize the condemned doctrines, plotting against the truth with various arguments. Wholly committed to sowing these wicked weeds, they shrink from the scrutiny of the intelligent, avoid the observant, and attack the preachers of godliness. But we do not believe that these atheists can in this way ever overcome the Deity. For though they “gird themselves” they “shall be broken in pieces” [Isaiah 8:9], in accordance with the solemn prophecy of Isaiah. 

These are the words of the great Eustathius.[9]

————————–

If anyone condemns the faith confessed at this council of Nicaea as false, we will be unaffected by it and not believe Sabinus the Macedonian, who calls all those who came together there ignoramuses and simpletons.[10]

Previous: Constantine Spreads the Decisions of the Council

Next: Sources Used

Back to The Council of Nicaea According to the Sources

Last updated: 12-19-2024 by JSW

[1] ACH 2.37.31.

[2] The phrase “beyond me”, referring in the context to the western half of the Roman Empire, may have been added by the writer of the ACH who appears to have been from Asia Minor, making the comment more appropriate than if it came from Gelasius writing in Palestine.

[3] Gel. CH f.14 = ACH 2.38.1-14.

[4] Theodoret cites only a portion of the letter. The entire letter survives in the corpus of Athanasius’s writings as Letter to the Bishops of Africa (LBA). The mention of Damasus and his council allows us to date the letter between his accession in 366 and before Athanasius’s death in 369. It is usually dated to 369, i.e. 44 years after the council. Athanasius’s authorship has also been questioned by D.M. Gwynn, The Eusebians: The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction of the ‘Arian Controversy’ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), p.15, n.12. Theodoret, writing c. 450, certainly believed Athanasius was the author.

[5] Barbarian was the term used to refer to peoples who did not speak Greek or Latin.

[6] Shepherd of Hermas, 26.1

[7] Ath. LBA 1-2, 4-6, 11. A shortened version is found in Theod. CH 1.8.7-18.

[8] This derogatory term was used to describe Eusebius of Nicomedia and others considered to be supporters of ideas similar to those of Arius in the decades that followed. It is commonly thought to have been coined by Athanasius who uses it some 60 times in his writings. If, however, this writing of Eustathius was penned before he was deposed by a council in 330, as it appears to be, this would be the earliest surviving use of that term.

[9] Theod. CH 1.7.18-8.6.

[10] Soc. CH 1.8.24.

No Responses yet