The Ancient Sources

While minutes or proceedings were most likely recorded at the Council of Nicaea, none survive.¹ However, we do have accounts and reminiscences of three of the participants—Constantine, Eusebius of Caesarea, and Athanasius of Alexandria.² In addition, we have accounts of various lengths preserved in the works of seven ancient Christian historians who wrote in the century and a half following the council.³ What follows is an attempt to take those early accounts and weave them into a single coherent narrative of the council.

Ten letters of Constantine survive that involve the events leading up to the council and its aftermath, Of the three letters of Constantine that are most relevant, one calls the bishops to the meeting at Nicaea, and two report on the results of the gathering. The first is preserved only in a Syriac translation. His letter on the date of Easter is preserved in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Life of Constantine as well as by the church historians Socrates and Theodoret, and by the Anonymous Church History. The imperial letter directed to the church in Alexandria is found in Athanasius’s On the Nicene Definition (de Decretis) as well as in the church histories of Socrates and the Anonymous Church History.

Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesarea Maritima (in Palestine) was a key participant at the Council of Nicaea, and there he met Constantine for the first time. He had already finished writing his famous Church History a decade before the council, so it has nothing to say about Nicaea. However, he soon began work on a eulogistic Life of Constantine which included his detailed memories of the council and the emperor’s role in it. This work, left unfinished at his death in 339, shows Eusebius’s firm conviction that God had raised up the emperor both to bring peace to the persecuted church and to be a unifying secular leader for it, and this has caused scholars to be judicious in evaluating his version of Constantine’s participation, acts and sentiments while at the council.

A substantial letter of Eusebius written during the council and addressed to his home congregation of Caesarea also survives, although not directly in his own corpus. Rather, it is quoted by the third participant, Athanasius, in his On the Nicene Definition, as well as in the church histories of Gelasius, Socrates, Theodoret and the Anonymous Church History. At a council five months before Nicaea, Eusebius had expressed views similar to those of Arius and been provisionally excommunicated. His letter tries to explain his actions at the council. It includes Eusebius’s own creed, presented at the council but rejected, and the creed adopted by the council. Although he signed the creed, Eusebius remained somewhat skeptical of the Nicene Christology, and so his subsequent writings rarely mention the council.

The third eyewitness was Athanasius of Alexandria who went to the council as a young member of the delegation of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria. Reminiscences of the council appear in several of his works over the following decades, most notably his tract On the Decrees of Nicaea (de Decretis) of c. 350-356, in On the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia (de Synodis) of c. 360, and in his Letter to the Bishops of Africa (ad Afros) of c. 369. Since he was an important but controversial figure in the ongoing debate about the divinity of the Logos, many scholars are also skeptical about his account of the council. However, even though our three eyewitnesses are so different from each other—the emperor, the bishop sympathizing somewhat with Arius’s teaching, and the strong proponent of Nicene theology—their accounts of the council for the most part hang together, and this is a strong reason for accepting their general account of the proceedings.

About 390 Gelasius of Caesareadescribed the council in his Church History which was intended to take up the story of the church where Eusebius had left off. ⁴ Unfortunately, his history has not survived except in fragments preserved in other later histories. For instance, just a decade after his account was written, Rufinus of Aquileia, when translating Eusebius’s Church History into Latin, used Gelasius’s work to extend the story through the council of Nicaea. Rufinus’s history was in turn used a generation later by Philostorgius who, sympathetic to the Arian position, included some information and documents from their point of view. Only fragments of his work survive along with an epitome preserved by the ninth-century scholar and patriarch of Constantinople, Photius.

In the middle third of the fifth century, several other important “continuators” of Eusebius penned histories of the fourth-century church. About 439, Socrates Scholasticus used Gelasius and Rufinus, and then also obtained writings of Athanasius, all of which he incorporated into his account of the council. He then became the primary source for Sozomen’s Church History, written only a couple years later. Theodoret in his Church History, written in mid-century, “tends to combine different sources into one narrative and to paraphrase, shorten, and embellish these….”⁵ These three histories were read widely throughout the Middle Ages and are still important sources for our understanding of fourth-century church history.

Finally, a quarter century later, an anonymous author, seemingly from Mysia, used the preceding authors as sources but did so with a “penchant for rhetorical elaboration.”⁶ Although writing a full century and a half after the council, his work, known as the Anonymous Church History (or sometimes as Pseudo-Gelasius), deserves more notice than it has received until recently.

Early Source by Abbreviation

Abbrev.		CPG/CPL	Date
ACH	Anonymous Church History (pseudo-Gelasius)	6034	c.476
Ath. LBA	Athanasius, Letter to the Bishops of Africa (ad Afros)	2133	369
Ath. ND	Athanasius, On the Nicene Definition (de Decretis)	2120	350-356
Ath. Syn	Athanasius, On the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia (de Synodis)	2128	359-362
Eus. LC	Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of Constantine	3496	337
Gel. CH	Gelasius of Caesarea, Church History	3521	c.390
Phil. CH	Philostorgius, Church History	6032	425-433
Ruf. CH	Rufinus of Aquileia, Church History	403?	c.403
Soc. CH	Socrates, Church History	6028	c. 439
Soz. CH	Sozomen, Church History	6030	440-443
Theod. CH	Theodoret, Church History	6222	449-450

Early Sources by Date

Date	Abbrev.		CPG/CPL
337-339	Eus. LC	Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of Constantine	3496
350-356	Ath. ND	Athanasius, On the Nicene Definition (de Decretis)	2120
359-362	Ath. Syn	Athanasius, On the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia (de Synodis)	2128
369	Ath. LBA	Athanasius, Letter to the Bishops of Africa (ad Afros)	2133
c.390	Gel. CH	Gelasius of Caesarea, Church History	3521
c.403	Ruf. CH	Rufinus of Aquileia, Church History	403?
425-433	Phil. CH	Philostorgius, Church History	6032
c. 439	Soc. CH	Socrates, Church History	6028
440-443	Soz. CH	Sozomen, Church History	6030
449-450	Theod. CH	Theodoret, Church History	6222
c.476	ACH	Anonymous Church History (pseudo-Gelasius)	6034

The Council in its Historical Context

Two hundred and fifty years after Pentecost, the Christian church had spread to all the major and minor cities of the Roman Empire, throughout the Middle East, and to India. Christians in most urban areas made up no more than 5% of the population, and probably considerably less in the countryside. In a few areas—Anatolia, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, for example—the percentage may have been a bit higher. Growth was gradual, but steady. During this period, the church had grown less Jewish in its ethnic make-up and had become predominantly Greek-speaking within the Roman Empire. It had spread into the Middle East in the Syriac language, up the Nile in Coptic, and into North Africa, Gaul, and Italy in Latin. Christian letters and literature existed in all of these languages, and adherents were to be found at all levels of society.

Christians did not take part in civic religious rituals, did not attend the theatre or gladiatorial or wild beast fights, and spent a considerable amount of their free time in each other’s company. All this made them the target of many rumors and much speculation. And since the imperial government had early on made it clear that their local groups (collegia) were not to be legally recognized, they also became easy scapegoats in their communities. Nero found this a convenient excuse when he rounded up and executed Christians in Italy in AD 64, blaming them for the great fire in Rome. Anyone who became upset by a Christian neighbor could report them to the government, and a trial and execution often followed. But the government as a whole did not go hunting for Christians again until the mid-third century. With the empire reeling from inflation and military setbacks, emperor Decius (249-251) ordered everyone to perform pagan sacrifices “for the safety of the empire.” Christian leaders were singled out for compliance, and those that refused were executed. After his brief rule, formal persecution died away until Emperor Valerian (253-260) renewed it in the last years of his reign (257-260)

Despite these setbacks, the church continued to grow. Following these persecutions, imperial edicts confirmed some restitution to Christians whose property had been seized, as well as the restoration of church buildings. This confirms for us the fact that, despite the lack of any official standing as a group, the church had their own church buildings and cemeteries by this period. By the third century the church’s organizational structure was also becoming more uniform. The Christians within a city would have a single head called the bishop, priests to oversee worship at a number of worship locations, and deacons who assisted with the church’s charitable work in the community. In some rural areas a chorepiscopos, i.e. a country bishop, would serve. The bishop of one of the older and larger cities of a region would serve as a regional leader. By the fourth century the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch in Syria, Rome (and eventually the new eastern capital of Constantinople) would be called patriarchs and would have oversight to varying extents over larger areas. The clergy within a city would meet regularly to discuss their work, and bishops within a region would likewise meet in council. While this originally took place ad hoc when special problems arose, these eventually became regularly scheduled meetings, called “councils” in Latin, and “synods” in Greek.

Before becoming a member of the church through baptism, adults were required to undergo study of the church’s beliefs and teachings. This catechetical study varied from place to place, but often involved learning the meaning of short summaries of Christian teaching. These summaries which we now call baptismal creeds were to ensure that new members adhered to the common faith of the community. Already in the second century, however, some teachers and communities began deviating from accepted teaching and left (or were expelled from) the larger church. They set up opposition communities that claimed the priority for their own teaching. The Montanists, Marcionites, and various Gnostic groups were among the groups who separated themselves already in the second century.

The Decian persecution was at the root of another separation from the church, this time in the city of Rome. Some Christians who had caved under the pressure to perform sacrifices later repented and wished to be re-admitted to the church. The leaders of the Roman church discussed the issue with the famous bishop of Carthage, Cyprian, concluding that those who were truly repentant should be welcomed back into the church. When Fabian, the bishop of Rome, was martyred in early 251, a priest name Cornelius was elected to replace him who was known for his acceptance of this policy. This caused a rival priest named Novatian to be elected by his own supporters as a rival, objecting to the policy of leniency towards the lapsed and promising to limit church membership to those who had remained pure (catharos in Greek). When the majority supported Cornelius, Novatian and his party formed their own opposition church, calling themselves the Pure Ones (Cathari); their opponents called them Novatians after their leader. About this time the members who remained in the larger church began referring to themselves as members of the catholic (meaning universal or general) church. Soon small groups of Novatians formed in various parts of the empire.

The third century in general was a time of crisis within the Roman Empire as there was a long succession of incompetent and short-lived emperors, a steady succession of economic crises, and invasions threatening almost all their borders. Finally, a competent man named Diocletian came to power and sought to deal with the problems by a total reorganization of the government. In 294 he divided the rule between two emperors each with the title of Augustus, and each with an assistant called a Caesar. With one Augustus and one Caesar in power in the West, and the other two in the East, the military and economic situation was stabilized. The system was to continue after Diocletian retired from office in 305, but very quickly the harmony of the rulers fell into disarray. When the Augustus in the West, Constantius, died in Britain in 305, his army declared his son Constantine to be his replacement. In the eight years that followed, Constantine fought his way to power over the entire western half of the empire, ending in the capture of Rome itself in late 312.

By that time, Constantine had become a believer in the Christian God and went into battle with a Christian symbol on the banners of his legions. After entering Rome, he met with leaders of the church and donated some imperial property to the bishop. By this time he also had in his retinue the well-known Spanish bishop, Hosius of Cordoba, as his personal chaplain. He soon issued orders for the restoration of Christian property seized during the persecutions as well as other restitution.

 Meanwhile a new schism had begun in the church in Carthage, the capital city of northwest Africa. When Caecilian was elected bishop of Carthage in 311, rivals held a council and declared that his consecration had not been performed in a valid way. Having failed to oust the popular Caecilian, they went into schism, led by the rival claimant Donatus. When Constantine came to control Africa after his victory at the Milvian Bridge in October 312,  the schismatics appealed their case to the emperor in April 313, asking that Caecilian be examined for improper conduct. The emperor ordered ten bishops from each side of the dispute to appear in Rome where the Roman bishop together with three bishops from Gaul would hear the case. The Roman bishop Miltiades included ten Italian bishops to take part in the hearing, making into an ecclesiastical council as well. This joint council and judicial hearing exonerated Caecilian.

The latter and his followers, soon to be known as Donatists, re-submitted their case to the emperor who then had a second hearing for them in Arles in 314, this time in the emperor’s own presence. Again the decision went against the Donatists. Constantine tried several additional times to heal the schism, until finally in frustration he ordered the Donatist churches to be confiscated. As so often happens, repression brought new life and followers to the Donatists. By 336, the Donatists could convene a council with 270 bishops in attendance!

Although in 313 Constantine married his half-sister Constantia to Licinius the eastern Augustus, within a couple years the two were at war. Over the following decade Constantine won territory in a series of battles, each followed by a short-lived ceasefire. In 324 all-out war ended with Licinius’s surrender and Constantine became ruler of the entire Roman Empire. Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea and budding author of church history, saw God’s hand in all that Constantine did. Constantine for his part also seems to have seen his empire and the Christian church as linked in their destiny. This was one reason he continued to trouble himself in trying to keep the church united and seeking to end the Donatist schism.

While Constantine was conquering the East, however, a further schism was developing in Egypt. There a bishop named Melitius had intervened to ordain clergy while the patriarch, Peter, was in hiding during the last persecution. As with the Novatians is Rome and the Donatists in North Africa, a schismatic Egyptian “Church of the Martyrs” evolved during this period, becoming known as the Melitian church. Besides the issue about if and how lapsed Christians could be re-admitted to the church, the issue of the authority of the bishop of Alexandria as patriarch over the Egyptian church was also involved. The Egyptian situation was further complicated when a priest began challenging the bishop of Alexandria who succeeded Peter, Alexander, on his teachings about the divinity of Christ. Arius taught that it only stood to reason that if Jesus was the Son of God, there was a time when he was not the Son, a time when he had not yet been begotten, and therefore he was neither eternal nor equal to the Father in his divinity. This “logical” approach to Christology found favor with a number of other church leaders and teachers in the eastern Empire, and soon the controversy reached the ears of Constantine. Again Constantine tried to broker a peace, sending a letter to Alexander and Arius calling for unity. When this did not bear fruit, however, he again sought to solve the problem with an examination before church leaders. Perhaps it was at the instigation of his advisor, Bishop Hosius, that he decided that a small gathering of important officials, or even a regional gathering, would not be sufficient to deal with the complex issues. Therefore the idea was born of a “great” or “general” council that would include bishops from across the inhabited world (Greek oikoumene).

This was the genesis of the first “ecumenical” council. We begin our narrative from the sources with Constantine’s attempt via letter to patch up the growing Arian controversy.

Next: The Calling of the Council

Back to The Council of Nicaea According to the Sources

Last updated 12-31-2024 by JSW

---

1. About AD 380, St. Jerome wrote “If we read the acts and the names of the bishops of the Council of Nicaea, we find that…” (Dialogue against the Luciferians, 20)
2. We also have the brief reminiscence of Eustathius of Antioch at the end of part 13 below.
3. St. Jerome is the earliest non-participant to record some details about the council in his Dialogue against the Luciferians (17, 20, 27), but we learn little new from his brief references, so we have not included him in our list.
4. The fragments have been collected by M. Wallraff, J. Stutz, and N. Marinides in Gelasius of Caesaria, Ecclesiastical History: The Extant Fragments With an Appendix containing the Fragments from Dogmatic Writings. GCS N.F. 25 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2018).
5. Ibid., xli. The introduction to this edition of Gelasius’s CH (especially pp. xix-l) gives a fine summary of all these early authors and their interconnectedness.
6. Ibid., p. xlviii.

No Responses yet