The emperor deferred to this ruling. He regarded the unanimity of the conference to be a divine approval and he declared that anyone who rebelled against it would be immediately sent into banishment as guilty of trying to overthrow the divine definitions.[1] And everyone confirmed it wholeheartedly, except for some seventeen in number[2] who apostatized together with Arius in saying that the Son had been created externally by God from some non-existent substances and that he was not born from the divinity itself.[3] Yet eleven of these feared that the God-loving emperor and the multitude of bishops of the council would banish them. So they subscribed with their hand to the homoousios, hypocritically and not out of conviction. The leader of this deceit was Eusebius of Nicomedia, who showed support for both opinions until his death, just as Eustathius of Antioch, Eusebius Pamphili [of Caesarea], Athanasius the Great, and all writers who report the events of the council and describe that in his hypocrisy he seemed to favor our opinion but actually fought for the opponents’ faction.[4] Nevertheless, at the urging of Constantine’s sister Constantina,[5] they agreed to the synodical resolutions.[6] They subscribed, and after this change of mind they kept quiet and retired.[7]

Only five would not accept the Creed, objecting to the term homoousios: these were Eusebius bishop of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, Theonas of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemaïs. “For,” they said, “something that is homoousios comes from something else either by partition, derivation or germination (by germination, as a shoot from roots; by derivation as children from their parents; by division, as two or three pieces of gold from a mass), and the Son is from the Father by none of these modes.” Therefore, they declared themselves unable to assent to this creed. Those, then, who scoffed at the term homoousios would also not subscribe to the deposition of Arius. 

The council excommunicated Arius and his adherents and prohibited his entering Alexandria. The words in which his opinions were couched were likewise condemned, and also a work he had written on the subject and entitled Thalia.[8] The emperor punished Arius with exile and dispatched edicts to the bishops and people of every country, denouncing him and his adherents as ungodly and commanding that their books should be destroyed, in order that no remembrance of him or of the doctrine which he had taught might remain. Whoever was found hiding his writings and who did not burn them immediately on the accusation would undergo the penalty of death and suffer capital punishment. The emperor wrote letters to every city against Arius and those who had received his doctrines. He further commanded Eusebius [of Nicomedia] and Theognis to leave the cities in which they were bishops. He addressed himself in particular to the church of Nicomedia, urging it to adhere to the faith which had been set forth by the council, to elect orthodox bishops, to obey them, and to let the past fall into oblivion. He threatened with punishment those who should venture to speak well of the exiled bishops or to adopt their sentiments. In these and in other letters, he made clear his resentment against Eusebius, because he had previously adopted the opinions of the tyrant and had engaged in his plots. In accord with the imperial edicts, Eusebius and Theognis were expelled from the churches which they held, and Amphion received that of Nicomedia, and Chrestus that of Nicaea.[9] Eusebius and Theognis, however, a short time after their banishment, delivered a written declaration that they had changed their opinion and agreed with the faith about the Son’s homoousios with the Father.[10] Once again resorting to their usual tricks, Eusebius and Theognis found in the emperor’s kindness an opportunity for deception, so they kept trying to reverse the decision and regain their former power.[11]

Previous: Eusebius of Caesarea’s Creed and Letter

Next: Other Work of the Council: The Canons

Back to The Council of Nicaea According to the Sources

Last updated: 12-19-2024 by JSW

[1] Soz. CH 1.20.2.

[2]For the names, see above page 16.

[3] Gel. CH f.12f = ACH 2.25.5.

[4] ACH 2.27.12-13.

[5] More accurately Constantia; Philostorgius misspells it as Constantina; this was the name of the daughter of Constantine.

[6] Phil. CH 1.9.

[7] Ath. Decr. 18.1.

[8] Soz. CH 1.21.3.

[9] Soz. CH 1.21.4-5.

[10] Soc. CH 1.8.31-33.

[11] ACH 2.33.6.

No Responses yet