The council of bishops spent many days considering the question of faith. The council met each day, and did not dare to make any easy or thoughtless decisions.[1] There were some among its members, as we have said several times, who agreed with the monstrous doctrine of Arius and opposed the majority of holy bishops, the champions of the truth.[2] There were seventeen of them: Eusebius of Nicomedia, … Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, Theodore of Heraclea in Thrace, Menophantus of Ephesus, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Narcissus of Neronias (which is now called Irenopolis) in Cilicia Secunda, Theonas of Marmarica, Secundus of Ptolemais in Egypt, and with them eight others who had mixed themselves in with that company of three hundred holy men, as if they were actually orthodox yet opposing the apostolic doctrine by advocating for Arius.[3] However, the supporters of Arius had barely begun to speak, when they were condemned, and one differed from another. Then, embarrassed on account of their heresy, they remained silent, and by their silence confessed the disgrace which came upon their false doctrine. In response to this, the other bishops rejected their invented terms. In opposition to them, they set forth the sound and ecclesiastical faith.[4] The bishops held long consultations, and after summoning Arius before them they made an accurate test of his propositions. They were intently on their guard not to come to a vote on either side. [5]

Our excellent, holy fathers, however, protecting themselves with the weapon of truth, boldly preached the clear, blameless faith. There were also many confessors among them who resisted those who willingly adopted the vile doctrine of Arius.[6]

Although each party put forth many arguments and, at the beginning, the debate grew very violent, the emperor listened to everything with patient attention, quietly and attentively considering whatever was put forth. He partially supported the statements which were made on either side, and gradually softened the severity of those who belligerently opposed each other, placating each side with his mildness and persuasiveness. He addressed them in the Greek language (he was not unacquainted with it). He was at once courteous and endearing, persuading some, winning over others with a plea, and applauding those who spoke well, until at length he reduced them all to oneness of mind and opinion on all the disputed points, so that they all agreed to hold the same faith, and to celebrate the festival of salvation on the same day.[7]

The Syrians submitted,[8] and the fathers pronounced the Arian heresy to be the forerunner of Antichrist, and drew up a suitable formula against it.[9] So after the discussion had reached broad agreement, it seemed to everyone that the word homoousios must be enshrined as a definition in the church’s confession of faith, that is, that the Son should be confessed as also of the same being as the Father.[10] This was proclaimed most strongly by all consenting to it.[11] Eusebius [of Caesarea] clearly testifies that the aforesaid term homoousios is not a new one, nor the invention of the fathers assembled at the council, but that, from the very first it has been handed down from father to son. He states that all those then assembled unanimously received the creed then published.[12] All the holy bishops assembled at Nicaea affirmed this faith. The assembled holy priests and confessors, the praiseworthy, God-loving emperor, and the whole multitude of believers who were gathered there gladly accepted the confession of faith.[13]

All the bishops unanimously summarized the content of the orthodox faith briefly to accommodate the simplicity of the multitude of faithful people. They formulated the symbol of the catholic faith in writing as follows: 

The exposition of the catholic apostolic faith, presented by the council of Nicaea under the God-loving Emperor Constantine, during the consulate of the illustrious men Paulinus and Julian, in the year 636 after Alexander [the Great], on the 19th of June, 13 days before the Kalends of July, in Nicaea, capital of Bithynia:[14]

“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, the only-begotten of the Father, that is of the substance of the Father; God from God and Light from Light; true God from true God; begotten, not made, homoousios with the Father; by whom all things were made, both those in heaven and on earth; who for the sake of us men, and on account of our salvation, descended, became incarnate, and was made man; suffered, arose again the third day, and ascended into the heavens and will come again to judge the living and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Spirit. The holy catholic and apostolic church anathematizes those who say, ‘There was a time when he was not,’ and ‘He was not before he was begotten’ and ‘He was made from that which did not exist,’ and those who assert that he is of a different substance or essence than the Father, or that the Son of God was created, or is susceptible to change.”[15] 

This creed was recognized and affirmed by the three hundred and eighteen [bishops]; and because they were, as Eusebius says, unanimous in expression and sentiment, they signed it.[16] Those points also which were agreed to by all of them were committed to writing and received the signature of each member.[17]

Previous: Imperial Impartiality

Next: Eusebius of Caesarea’s Creed and Letter

Back to The Council of Nicaea According to the Sources

Last updated: 12-19-2024 by JSW

[1] Ruf. CH 10.2.

[2] Gel. CH f.12c = AHC 2.8.8.

[3] ACH 2.7.43. After mentioning Arius himself, Jerome (Luc 20)lists among the heretics “Euzoius the deacon, who succeeded Eudoxius as bishop of Antioch, and Achillas, the reader. These three who were clerics of the Church of Alexandria were the originators of the heresy.”

[4] Ath. Dec. 3. See Appendix 2 which contains Ath. Decr. 19-20, Athanasius’s later summary and commentary on the debate about the nature of the Son. Appendix 3 has a shorter account found in ACH  2.11.12-12.7 that includes a speech of Hosius of Cordoba.

[5] Soz. CH 1.17.6. If the opening phrase refers to the time appointed for the council, this section belongs here. It may also refer to the time during the council appointed for voting on the matter.

[6] Gel. CH f.12c = ACH 2.8.8.

[7] Eus. LC 3.13b. Here is a good example of Eusebius’s hyperbolic and hagiographical descriptions of Constantine and his role at the council.

[8] Although Arius was himself from Egypt, many of his supporters were from northern Palestine and Syria.

[9] Ath. Syn. 5.

[10] Gel. CH f.12f = ACH 2.25.3.

[11] Ruf. CH 10.5.

[12] Theod. CH 1.13. Eusebius of Caesarea mentions the previous use of homoousios towards the end of his letter to his home church (see part 7).

[13] ACH 2.25.4.

[14] ACH 2.26.4.

[15] Soc. CH 1.8.29-30 = Ruf. CH 10.6 = Ath. Decr.  37b = ACH 2.27.2-6. Interestingly, Sozomen (CH 1.20.3) opts not to print the text of the Creed saying that “some pious friends, who understood such matters, recommended that these truths ought to be spoken of and heard by the initiated and their initiators only; I agreed with their advice. It is not unlikely that some of the uninitiated may read this book. While I have concealed the portion of material that I ought to keep silent about, I have not altogether left the reader ignorant of the opinions held by the council.” Many in the early church limited access to Holy Scripture and other catechetical documents as they did not want them to be misused by the ignorant, used by opponents, or scorned by pagans. This seems an odd decision, however, as Sozomen is writing 115 years after the council, by which time the Creed had been expanded by the council of 381 and read into the minutes of the council of 431.

[16] Soc. CH 1.8.31. Numerous manuscripts (in Greek, Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Arabic and Armenian!) have preserved lists of the signatories at Nicaea. See Appendix 4. The lists have c. 225-230 bishops listed. The number 318 became the “official” tradition soon afterwards, perhaps based on the 318 men in Gen. 14:14 whom Abraham took to rescue Lot from captivity, a story that may have been applied metaphorically to the council’s rescue of the church from Arianism.

[17] Eus. LC 3.13. For the list of subscriptions, see Appendix 4.

No Responses yet