The Council of Nicaea and Its Creed

Such was the wise and admirable counsel the emperor’s letter contained. But the evil had grown too strong both for the emperor’s appeals and for the authority of the man who carried his letter. Neither Alexander nor Arius was softened by it, and among the people there was ceaseless strife and uproar. Besides this, another local cause of unrest had already been troubling the churches: the dispute about the Passover, which was carried on only in the regions of the East. It arose because some wanted to keep the feast more in line with the custom of the Jews, while others preferred the way it was kept by Christians in general throughout the world. This difference did not break their communion with one another, though it could not help spoiling their shared joy. So when the emperor saw the church thrown into turmoil by both of these causes, he called a general council, summoning all the bishops by letter to meet him at Nicaea in Bithynia. The bishops gathered accordingly from the various provinces and cities. Eusebius Pamphilus writes about them, word for word, in the third book of his Life of Constantine: [a]

“So the most eminent of God’s ministers from all the churches that filled Europe, Africa and Asia were brought together. A single sacred building, enlarged as it were by God, held at one time Syrians and Cilicians, Phoenicians, Arabs and Palestinians, and besides these, Egyptians, Thebans, Libyans, and men who came from Mesopotamia. A Persian bishop was also present at this synod, and the Scythian was not missing from the gathering. Pontus and Galatia, Pamphylia, Cappadocia, Asia and Phrygia sent the most distinguished men among them. Thracians and Macedonians, Achaeans and men of Epirus met there too, and even those who lived still farther off than these; and the most celebrated of the Spaniards himself took his seat among the rest. The bishop of the imperial city was absent because of his age, but some of his presbyters were present and took his place. “Such a crown, bound together as a bond of peace, the emperor Constantine alone has ever dedicated to Christ his Savior, as a thank offering worthy of God for his victory over his enemies. He gathered this assembly among us in imitation of the assembly of the apostles. For at that gathering, it is said, there were ‘devout men from every nation under heaven: Parthians, Medes and Elamites, and those who lived in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the part of Libya toward Cyrene, visitors from Rome too, both Jews and proselytes, with Cretans and Arabs.’ That gathering, however, fell short of this one in one respect: not all who were present were ministers of God. In this assembly the bishops numbered more than three hundred, while the presbyters, deacons, acolytes and others who attended them were almost past counting. “Some of these ministers of God stood out for their wisdom, some for the strictness of their life and their patient endurance of persecution, and others combined all these marks of distinction in themselves. Some were venerable for their great age, others stood out for their youth and vigor of mind, and others had only recently begun their ministry. For all of them the emperor ordered a plentiful supply of food to be provided every day.” [d]

That is Eusebius’s account of those who met on this occasion. The emperor, having finished the festive celebration of his triumph over Licinius, also came in person to Nicaea. [j]

Among the bishops were two of extraordinary fame: Paphnutius, bishop of Upper Thebes, and Spyridon, bishop of Cyprus. Why I have singled out these two men I will explain later. Many lay people were also present who were practiced in the art of reasoning, each eager to argue the cause of his own party. Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, as I said before, supported the opinion of Arius, together with Theognis and Maris. Of these two, Theognis was bishop of Nicaea, and Maris of Chalcedon in Bithynia. They were powerfully opposed by Athanasius, a deacon of the church of Alexandria, whom Alexander his bishop held in high esteem, and who was much envied for that reason, as will be seen later. Now shortly before the bishops all assembled together, the disputants held preliminary contests of logic before the crowds. Many were drawn in by the interest of their debates, until one of the laity, a confessor and a man of plain, unschooled mind, rebuked these reasoners. He told them that Christ and his apostles did not teach us logic, technical skill or empty subtleties, but simplicity of mind, which is kept safe by faith and good works. At these words everyone present admired the speaker and agreed that he was right, and the disputants themselves, having heard his plain statement of the truth, became more moderate. In this way the disturbance stirred up by these logical debates was quieted for the time. [k]

On the next day all the bishops were gathered in one place. The emperor arrived soon after, and on entering he stood in their midst and would not take his seat until the bishops bowed to show that they wished him to sit. Such was the respect and reverence the emperor had for these men. When a silence fitting the occasion had fallen, the emperor spoke to them from his seat, urging them to harmony and unity, and begged each of them to lay aside every private grudge. For several of them had brought accusations against one another, and many had even presented petitions to the emperor the day before. But he turned their attention to the business before them, for which they had been assembled, and ordered these petitions to be burned, remarking only that “Christ commands the one who wishes to be forgiven to forgive his brother.” Then, having pressed hard for harmony and peace to be kept, he gave his approval once more to their plan of examining the questions in dispute more closely. But it is worth hearing what Eusebius says on this subject in the third book of his Life of Constantine. His words are these: [l]

“Each party brought forward a variety of topics, and much controversy was stirred up from the very start. The emperor listened to all of it with patient attention, weighing whatever was put forward carefully and impartially. He partly supported the statements made on either side and gradually softened the sharpness of those who were quarreling with one another, winning each over by his mildness and friendliness. He spoke to them in Greek, for he was not unfamiliar with that language, and so he was both engaging and persuasive. Some he convinced, others he won over by entreaty, and those who spoke well he praised. “So, urging all of them toward unanimity, he at last succeeded in bringing them to a common mind and to agreement in opinion on all the disputed points. As a result there was not only unity in the confession of faith but also general agreement about the time for celebrating the feast of salvation. And the doctrines that had thus won common consent were confirmed by each man’s signature.” [m]

This, in his own words, is the testimony Eusebius has left in writing about these things. It was not out of place for us to use it; we have treated what he says as an authority and brought it in here for the sake of this history’s accuracy. We have done it with this aim too: if anyone should condemn the faith professed at this council of Nicaea as mistaken, we might be unmoved by it, and put no confidence in Sabinus the Macedonian, who calls all those who gathered there ignoramuses and simpletons. For this Sabinus, bishop of the Macedonians at Heraclea in Thrace, made a collection of the decrees published by various synods of bishops, and in it he treats the members of the Council of Nicaea above all with contempt and mockery. He does not see that in doing so he accuses Eusebius himself of ignorance, though Eusebius made the same confession after the most careful scrutiny. In fact some things Sabinus has deliberately passed over, others he has twisted, and on everything he has put a construction that favors his own views. Yet he praises Eusebius Pamphilus as a trustworthy witness and commends the emperor as capable in stating Christian doctrine, while he still brands the faith declared at Nicaea as set forth by ignorant men who had no understanding of the matter. So he willingly despises the words of a man he himself declares to be a wise and truthful witness. For Eusebius states that of the ministers of God present at the Synod of Nicaea, some stood out for the word of wisdom and others for the strictness of their life, and that the emperor himself, being present and leading them all toward unanimity, established unity of judgment and agreement of opinion among them. We will say more of Sabinus as occasion requires. But the agreed statement of faith, approved with loud acclamation at the great council of Nicaea, is this: [n]

“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, begotten of the Father as his only Son, that is, from the substance of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God; begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father; through whom all things were made, both those in heaven and those on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down, became incarnate, and was made man; suffered, rose again on the third day, ascended into the heavens, and will come again to judge the living and the dead. And we believe in the Holy Spirit. “But 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 what did not exist’; and those who claim that he is of another substance or essence than the Father, or that he was created, or is subject to change.” [o]

This creed was recognized and accepted by three hundred and eighteen bishops; and being, as Eusebius says, unanimous in expression and in mind, they signed it. Only five would not accept it, objecting to the term homoousios, “of one substance.” These were Eusebius bishop of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, Theonas of Marmarica, and Secundus of Ptolemais. “For,” they said, “a thing is homoousios with another when it comes from that other by division, by derivation, or by budding: by budding, as a shoot from the roots; by derivation, as children from their parents; by division, as two or three gold vessels from one lump. But the Son is from the Father in none of these ways.” Therefore they declared that they could not agree to this creed. So, having mocked the word homoousios, they would not sign the deposition of Arius. Upon this the synod anathematized Arius and all who held his opinions, and at the same time forbade him to enter Alexandria. An edict of the emperor also sent Arius himself into exile, together with Eusebius and Theognis and their followers. Eusebius and Theognis, however, a short time after their banishment, handed in a written declaration that they had changed their minds and agreed with the faith that the Son is of one substance with the Father, as we will show as we go on.

At this time, while the synod was in session, Eusebius surnamed Pamphilus, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, who had held back for a short while, considering carefully whether he ought to accept this definition of the faith, at last agreed to it and signed it with all the rest. He also sent the people in his charge a copy of the creed, with an explanation of the word homoousios, so that no one might question his motives because of his earlier hesitation. What Eusebius wrote was as follows, in his own words:

“You have probably heard something already, beloved, of what was done at the great council gathered at Nicaea concerning the faith of the church, since rumor generally runs ahead of an accurate account of what has really happened. But so that you do not form a wrong judgment of the matter from such reports alone, we have thought it necessary to send you, first, the statement of the faith that we ourselves put forward in writing, and then a second, which has been published, made up of ours with certain additions to its wording. The declaration of faith we put forward, which seemed to win everyone’s approval when it was read in the presence of our most devout emperor, ran as follows:

“‘As we received it from the bishops who came before us, both in our instruction in the truth and when we were baptized; as we have also learned it ourselves from the sacred Scriptures; and as we have both believed and taught while serving as presbyter and in the office of bishop itself, so now we believe, and we present to you this plain statement of our faith. It is this: [r] “‘We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, the only Son, born before all creation, begotten of God the Father before all ages, through whom also all things were made; who for our salvation became incarnate and lived among men; who suffered and rose again on the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. We believe also in one Holy Spirit. “‘We believe that each of these exists and subsists: that the Father is truly Father, the Son truly Son, and the Holy Spirit truly Holy Spirit; just as our Lord also said when he sent out his disciples to preach the gospel, “Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” We hold firmly to the truth of these doctrines and declare our full confidence in them. This has been our mind until now, and this we will hold until death; and in unshaken loyalty to this faith we anathematize every godless heresy. “‘In the presence of God Almighty and of our Lord Jesus Christ we testify that this is what we have believed and thought from our heart and soul ever since we came to know ourselves, and that we now think and speak what is wholly in keeping with the truth. We are ready, moreover, to prove to you by undeniable evidence, and to convince you, that this is what we believed and preached in time past.’ [s]

“When this statement of faith was put forward, there seemed to be no ground for objecting to it. In fact our most devout emperor himself was the first to declare that it was entirely correct and that he himself held the views it contained. He urged everyone present to assent to it and to sign these very articles, so agreeing in one united confession, with the insertion, however, of the single word homoousios, ‘of one substance.’ “The emperor himself explained that this word did not point to bodily qualities or conditions, and so did not mean that the Son subsisted from the Father either by division or by being cut off from him. For, he said, a nature that is immaterial and without a body cannot possibly be subject to anything bodily; so our understanding of such things can only be expressed in divine and mysterious terms. Such was the philosophical view of the subject taken by our most wise and devout sovereign. And the bishops, on account of the word homoousios, drew up this formula of faith:

“The Creed. [u] “‘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, begotten of the Father as his only Son, that is, from the substance of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God; begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father; through whom all things were made, both those in heaven and those on earth; who for us men and for our salvation came down, became incarnate, was made man, suffered, and rose again on the third day; he ascended into the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead. And we believe in the Holy Spirit. “‘But those who say, “There was a time when he was not,” or “He did not exist before he was begotten,” or “He was made from nothing,” or who claim that “He is of another substance or essence than the Father,” or that the Son of God is created, or changeable, or subject to alteration, all these the catholic and apostolic church of God anathematizes.’

“When they had put forward this statement of faith, we did not neglect to look into the exact sense of the phrases ‘from the substance of the Father’ and ‘of one substance with the Father.’ Questions were therefore raised and answers given, and the meaning of these terms was clearly defined. It was generally agreed that ‘from the substance’ simply means that the Son is indeed from the Father, but does not exist as a part of the Father. It seemed right to us to assent to this understanding of the sacred doctrine, which teaches that the Son is from the Father but is not a part of his substance. So we ourselves agreed to this interpretation, and we do not quarrel with the word homoousios, keeping peace in view and fearing to lose a right understanding of the matter. “On the same grounds we also accepted the phrase ‘begotten, not made.’ ‘For “made,”’ they said, ‘is a term common to all the creatures that were made through the Son, and the Son bears no likeness to them. So he is no creature like those that were made through him, but is of a substance far above any creature. The divine Scriptures teach that this substance was begotten of the Father by a manner of begetting that no creature can explain or even conceive.’ “In the same way, when the statement that ‘the Son is of one substance with the Father’ was discussed, it was agreed that this must not be understood in a bodily sense, or in any way like mortal creatures. For it is not by division of substance, or by cutting off, or by any change in the Father’s substance and power, since the Father’s nature, which has no beginning, is inconsistent with all these things. To be of one substance with the Father, then, simply means that the Son of God bears no likeness to created things, but is in every way like the Father alone who begot him, and that he is of no other substance or essence but from the Father. It seemed right to assent to this doctrine when explained in this way, especially since we knew that some eminent bishops and learned writers among the ancients have used the term homoousios in their theological discourses on the nature of the Father and the Son. “This is what I have to tell you about the articles of faith that have been published, and in which we have all agreed: not without due examination, but in the senses given, which were examined in the presence of our most highly favored emperor and approved for the reasons stated. We also judged the anathema they pronounced after the statement of faith to be unobjectionable, because it forbids the use of illegitimate terms, from which almost all the confusion and turmoil of the churches has come. Since no divinely inspired Scripture contains the phrases ‘from things that do not exist’ and ‘there was a time when he was not,’ and the others added after them, it seemed improper to say and teach them. We gave this decision our approval all the more readily because we have never before been accustomed to use these terms. “We thought it our duty, beloved, to let you know the care with which we both examined and agreed to these things: that on reasonable grounds we resisted to the last moment the insertion of certain objectionable expressions as long as they were not acceptable, and that we received them without dispute when, examining the sense of the words after careful thought, they seemed to agree with what we had originally put forward as a sound confession of faith.” [v]

Such was the letter Eusebius Pamphilus addressed to the Christians at Caesarea in Palestine. At the same time the synod itself, with one accord, also wrote the following letter to the church of the Alexandrians and to the believers in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis.