There was not only unity in the confession of faith, but also a general agreement as to the time for the celebration of the feast of salvation [i.e. Easter].[1] For before this time another very dangerous disorder had existed and long afflicted the church, i.e the difference in respect to the festival of Easter. For while one party asserted that they ought to adhere to the Jewish custom, the other affirmed that they should observe the exact date of the event, without following the authority of those who were in error and strangers to gospel grace [i.e. the Jews]. Accordingly, the people in different areas were divided over this, and the sacred observances of religion were confused for a long period. It went so far that the diversity of opinion concerning the time for celebrating one and the same festival caused the greatest disagreement between those who kept it. Some troubled themselves with fasting and austerities, while others devoted their time to festive relaxation. No one seemed to be capable of devising a remedy for this bad situation, for the two sides of the controversy continued to be equally balanced. Healing these differences was an easy task to God Almighty alone, and Constantine appeared to be the only one on earth capable of being his agent in achieving this. For as soon as he was made acquainted with the facts which I have described and perceived that his letter to the Alexandrian Christians had failed to produce its due effect, he at once put his mind to work and declared that he must forcefully prosecute this war also against the secret adversary who was disturbing the peace of the church.[2]

The emperor’s diligence induces me to mention another circumstance that expresses his mind and serves to show how much he desired peace. For aiming at ecclesiastical harmony, he summoned to the council Acesius also, a bishop of the sect of Novatians. Now, when the declaration of faith had been written out and subscribed by the council, the emperor asked Acesius whether he would also agree to this creed and to the settlement concerning the day on which Easter should be observed. He replied, “The council has determined nothing new, my prince: for now, and even from the beginning, yes from the times of the apostles, I received by tradition the definition of the faith and the time of the celebration of Easter.”

Thereupon the emperor further asked him, “Why then are you separating yourself from fellowship with the rest of the church?”  He then related what had taken place during the persecution under Decius, and referred to the rigidness of that harsh canon which declares that it is not right for people who after baptism have committed a sin which the sacred Scriptures call “a sin unto death” to be considered worthy of participation in the sacraments; that they should indeed be exhorted to repentance, but were not to expect remission from the priest, but from God, who is able and has authority to forgive sins. When Acesius had said this, the emperor replied to him, “Take a ladder, Acesius, and climb alone into heaven.” Neither Eusebius Pamphilus nor any other has ever mentioned these things, but I heard them from a very old man who was in no way by no means inclined to lies and who simply stated in the course of his account what had taken place in the council.[3]

Zealous of reforming the life of those who were involved with the work of the church, the council enacted laws which were called ‘canons.’[4] They composed twenty canons for the church at that same council of Nicaea, which I also saw fit to include in this book[5]: 

1. On those who made themselves eunuchs or were made so by others: If anyone has been castrated either surgically due to illness or by barbarians[6], he is allowed to remain among the clergy. But if anyone on the list of clergy has castrated himself when in perfect health, it is good for him to leave the ministry. From now on, no such person should be elevated to the clergy. But since this applies only to those who willfully castrate themselves, if anyone has been made a eunuch by barbarians or by his master, and is otherwise fit for office, church law allows him to enter the clergy.

2. On those ordained immediately after baptism: It has happened that men recently converted to the faith from heathenism, after a short period of instruction, have been immediately brought to the spiritual bath [baptism] and then promoted to the priesthood or even a bishopric as soon as they have been baptized. Whether this has been done because of a lack of ministers or simply from impatience, it is contrary to church law. Therefore we have determined that this should not be done in the future. A catechumen needs more time for a longer trial after baptism. The apostolic saying is clear, “He must not be a recent convert, or he may become blinded and fall into judgment and the Devil’s snare” [1 Tim 3:6]. If as time goes on the man is discovered to have committed some sensual sin and is convicted by two or three witnesses, he must leave the clergy. Anyone who violates these enactments will imperil his own position among the clergy, as a person who presumes to disobey the general council.

3. On women living with clergy: The general council has stringently forbidden any bishop, priest, deacon, or any of the clergy to have a woman living with him, except a mother, sister, aunt, or some such person who is beyond all suspicion.

4. On the number of bishops required for a bishop’s ordination: The most proper thing is for a bishop to be consecrated by all the bishops in his particular province. If this proves impossible, either because there is not enough time or the distance to be traveled is too great, at least three bishops should meet together, and the absent bishops communicate their approval in writing. Only then should the consecration take place. But in every province the ratification of the consecration should be left to the metropolitan bishop.

5. That the excommunicated are not to be received by others, and on twice-a-year councils: As for the clergy and laity in the various provinces who have been excommunicated, the bishops should observe the provision of the canon which states that someone excommunicated by one bishop is not to be readmitted by another. Nevertheless, he should investigate to see if the excommunication has come about from excessive strictness, contentiousness, or any other ungracious attitude on the part of the excommunicating bishop.

So that these matters may be duly investigated, we decree that in every province councils shall be held twice a year, so that when all the bishops of the province are assembled together, all such questions may be thoroughly examined by them. In this way, everyone can mutually agree that those who have offended their bishop have been excommunicated justly, unless it seems proper to the general assembly of bishops to pronounce a milder sentence on them. The first of these councils should be held before Lent, (that the pure gift may be offered to God after all bitterness has been put away), and the second in the autumn.

6. On cities of the first rank, and those consecrated bishop without the consent of the metropolitan: Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis continue to be practiced, i.e., that the bishop of Alexandria has jurisdiction over them all, since a similar arrangement is the custom for the bishop of Rome. Likewise let the churches in Antioch and the other provinces retain their privileges. It should be understood everywhere that if anyone is consecrated as bishop without the consent of the metropolitan bishop, this general council has declared he should not remain a bishop. Also, if two or three bishops are inclined to be contentious and oppose a consecration that was duly approved by the majority in accord with church law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

7. On the bishop of Aelia: Since custom and ancient tradition have directed that the bishop of Jerusalem should be honored, let him, after giving due dignity to the metropolitan, have the second place of honor.[7]

8. On those who call themselves Cathars: As for the so-called Cathars,[8] if they return to the catholic and apostolic church, the general and holy council decrees that any of them who are ordained may remain among the clergy. But it will first be necessary for them to acknowledge in writing that they will observe and follow the teachings of the catholic and apostolic church. In particular they must commune with those who have been married twice, and with those who have lapsed in persecution but have had a period of penance arranged for them and a date of restoration determined, so that in all things they will follow the teachings of the catholic church. In any region where all the clergy are of this type, whether in villages or in cities, they should maintain their current rank. But if they are reinstated in the catholic church in an area where there is already a catholic bishop or priest, it is obvious that the existing bishop of the church must continue to hold the rank of bishop, and the one who was named bishop by the so-called Cathars must take the rank of priest (unless the bishop agrees to allow him to share in the honor of the title of bishop). Or, if this does not prove satisfactory, then the bishop may provide for him a place as country bishop (chorepiscopus) or priest. This way he can remain a member of the clergy without there being two bishops in the city.

9. On those ordained as priests without proper examination: If any priests have been promoted without a proper examination, or if during their examination they confessed crimes but were nevertheless ordained notwithstanding their confession, church law does not allow for such things, for the catholic church requires that which is blameless.

10. On those who denied the faith in persecution yet were appointed clergy: If some have lapsed, but then have been ordained through the ignorance of the bishops who ordained them (or even with their previous knowledge), it must not influence the decision of the church. When such men are discovered, they must be deposed.

11. On those among the laity who denied the faith without compulsion: As for those who transgressed without being compelled to do so—without the seizure of their property, without danger, or the like, such as happened during the tyranny of Licinius—the council declares that they should be dealt with mercifully, though they in no way deserve it. If they truly repent, they will spend three years among the hearers, seven years as prostrators, and then for an additional two years they should join with the congregation in prayers, but without receiving the eucharist.

12. On those who renounced the world and then returned to it: As for those who were called by grace and at first enthusiastically threw away their military uniforms, but then later returned like dogs to their own vomit (so that some regained their military positions through bribes and gifts), let these spend three years as hearers and ten years as prostrators. But in all such cases it is necessary to carefully examine their intentions and their repentance. If they give evidence of their conversions by their actions (and not mere pretense), with fear, tears, perseverance, and good works, then they may properly join the assembly in prayers once they have fulfilled their appointed time as hearers. Beyond that, the bishop may make an even more lenient (philanthropion) decision concerning them. But those must fulfill the entire time period who take the matter with indifference and who think the prescribed form of entering the church is sufficient for their readmission.

13. On those who seek the sacrament when dying: As for those who are dying, the ancient church law is still to be maintained, namely that any man who is at the point of death must not be deprived of the most indispensable final eucharist. But if anyone is restored to health again after receiving communion when his death was thought imminent, let him remain among those who commune in prayers only. But in general, and in the case of any dying person, let the bishop, after making examination, give the eucharist to whoever asks to receive it.

14. On lapsed catechumens: Concerning catechumens who have lapsed, the holy and general council has decreed that, after they have passed just three years as hearers, they shall again pray with the catechumens.

15. On clergy who move from one city to another: Because of the great disturbances and disagreements that have occurred of late, we decree that the custom which prevails in certain places must be totally done away with: neither bishop, priest, nor deacon shall move from city to city. And if anyone, after this decree of the holy council, shall attempt such a thing or continue in any such course of action, his actions shall be utterly void and he must return to the church where he was consecrated bishop or priest.

16. Of those clergy who do not remain in the churches to which they were assigned: Churches ought not to receive priests, deacons, or other clergy who without the fear of God and in disregard for church law recklessly abandon their own churches. Such men should be encouraged by all available means to re-join their own parishes. If they will not return, they must be excommunicated. The ordination will be void if anyone dares to secretly ordain a man who belongs to another church without the consent of his bishop whose jurisdiction the latter has left, even if he had previously been enrolled on the list of clergy.

17. On clergy lending money with interest: Many clergymen, being covetousness and desirous for gain, have forgotten the divine Scripture which says, “He does not lend to them at interest” (Ezek. 18:8), and when lending money ask for one percent of the total as monthly interest. The holy and general council thinks it just that if, after this decree, anyone is found to receive usury, secretly or otherwise, such as by demanding repayment of 150% [of the original amount], or by using any other scheme at all for the sake of dirty profit, he shall be deposed from the clergy and his name stricken from the list.

18. That deacons not give the eucharist to bishops nor be seated ahead of them: It has come to the knowledge of the holy and general council that in some districts and cities, deacons are administering the eucharist to the priests, even though neither church law nor custom permits that those who have no right to offer it should give the body of Christ to those who can offer it. It has also become known to us that certain deacons now handle the eucharist even before the bishops. Let all such practices be abolished, and let the deacons remain within their own boundaries, knowing that they are the servants of the bishop and at a lower rank than the priests. Let them receive the eucharist according to their rank, after the priests, and let either the bishop or the priest administer it to them. Furthermore, do not let the deacons sit among the priests, for that is contrary to canon and order. And if, after this decree, anyone shall refuse to obey, let him be deposed from the diaconate.

19. On the followers of Paul of Samosata: Concerning the followers of Paul of Samosata who have sought refuge in the catholic church, it has been decreed that they must by all means be rebaptized. If any of them in past time were on the list of their clergy and are found blameless and without reproach, let them be rebaptized and ordained by the bishop of the catholic church. But if the examination should show that they are unfit, they ought to be deposed. Similar treatment should be given in the case of their deaconesses, and generally in the case of those who have been enrolled among their clergy. We mean by deaconesses those who have assumed the habit but who, since they have not had hands laid upon them, are to be numbered only among the laity.

20. On not kneeling on the Lord’s Day and the days of Pentecost: There are certain persons who kneel for prayer on the Lord’s Day and in the days of Pentecost.[9] But so that all things may be uniformly observed everywhere, it seems good to the holy council that prayers should be made to God while standing during those times.

The same holy assembly wrote these twenty laws regulating church government in the presence of the God-loving, praiseworthy Emperor Constantine.[10]

Previous: Condemnations for Those Who did not Subscribe

Next: The Council Deals with the Melitians and Other Matters

Back to The Council of Nicaea According to the Sources

Last updated: 12-19-2024 by JSW

[1] Soc. CH 1.8.23.

[2] Eus. LC 3.5

[3] Soc. CH 1.10.1-5. Socrates states that he did not find this story in Eusebius or other accounts of the council, but somewhat shorter forms appear in Soz. CH 1.22.1-3 and ACH 2.30.1-5.

[4] Soz. CH 1.23.1. The canons are found in full form in ACH  2.32.1-20 and in abbreviated form in Ruf. CH 10.6. In addition they are found in numerous other Greek and Latin manuscripts of the Councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451), etc. We give a translation from the standard critical edition of the conciliar canons by J. Alberigo et al., Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta (Basel: Herder, 1962), 5-15. See also the study of the various Latin translations by C.H. Turner, ed. Ecclesiae Occidentalis Monumenta Iuris Antiquissima. Tome 1. Fascicle 1, Part 2 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1904), pp. 103-280.

[5] ACH 2.31.10.

[6] Barbarian was the term used of peoples who did not speak Greek or Latin, here probably referring to the Gothic and Germanic tribes making incursions into Roman territory.

[7] Caesarea (Maritima), the bishopric where Eusebius held office, was the metropolitan diocese in Palestine. Jerusalem, although so famous in biblical history, had never recovered in size from its destruction by the Romans, and so its importance was only honorary, as this canon indicates.

[8] Cathari, “the pure ones”, was a name used by the sect that developed from the schism in the Roman church by Novatian in 251. Novatian disagreed with allowing lapsed Christians back into the fellowship of the church. His followers maintained separate congregations in Rome and elsewhere for several centuries. Their strict teachings also did not allow for a second marriage. The Novatian schism which started at Rome was similar to the Donatist schism in North Africa and the Melitian schism in Egypt. The latter was discussed at length at the Council of Nicaea (see section 10 below), but since there were so few western bishops present at the council, it is puzzling that the only canon to deal with these schisms mentions the Novatian “Cathars”.

[9] The Lord’s Day is Sunday. The days of Pentecost are the fifty days between Easter and Pentecost.

[10] ACH 2.32.21.

No Responses yet