Nicaea I
Nicaea is often remembered as the council that "voted Jesus God." The ancient accounts record a condemnation of the teaching of Arius, a creed with one disputed word, an agreement on the date of Pascha, and twenty canons on the order of the Church. They give the number of bishops differently, and the differences are set out below.
For Inquirers
The first Christians said something startling about Jesus: that he was God himself, the One who made the stars, living a human life, and so higher than the wisest teacher, the holiest man, or the greatest messenger God ever sent. One of his own friends, shown the wounds of the risen Jesus, did not call him a prophet. He said "My Lord and my God!" (John 20.28), and Christians have been saying it ever since.
Then a priest in the great Egyptian city of Alexandria, named Arius, began teaching something that sounded humbler and tidier.[^soc5] Jesus, he said, was the first and noblest thing God ever made, so far above the rest of creation that you might almost call him God, but still made, with a beginning, the way everything else has a beginning. An idea like that spreads easily, because it sounds reverent and fits what we all assume about God, who has no beginning at all. Within a few years there were churches arguing about it from one end of the Roman world to the other, and the emperor, who wanted peace in his empire, called the bishops, the pastors who lead the churches, together to settle it.[^theod-summon]
The bishops answered in a short statement of faith, and a good part of it is still said aloud in churches on Sundays: that Jesus is "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made." The Nicene Creed 1.1[^creed-percival] A child is begotten by a parent and a table is made by a carpenter, and the bishops meant that the Son comes from the Father the first way and never the second. To say it plainly they chose one unusual word, which means of one being with the Father. Think of one candle lit from another: it is the same fire, passed along, and nobody would say the first candle built the second. If Jesus is the finest of God's creatures, then God sent us the best messenger he had made, and if Jesus is God, then God came himself.
Why would anyone fight over a single word? Because everything between a messenger and a visit hangs on it. The claim is strange, and it is fair to find it so, for it says that the Maker of everything took on a human face. Christians of very different churches, Lutherans among them, confess this faith,[^augsburg] and what divides them lies elsewhere. Someone who comes with no faith at all can still read the story as one of the great arguments of the ancient world, told in a hall of bishops, some of whom had survived persecution with their bodies marked,[^theod-martyrs] and in a quarrel that outlasted everyone in the room.
Overview
- The First Council of Nicaea met in the year 325 in the city of Nicaea, in what is now Turkey, at the call of the Roman emperor Constantine. Bishops came to it from across the Church, and it was later counted as the first of the Ecumenical Councils.
- It was called because Arius, a presbyter (priest) of Alexandria, taught, in what came to be called Arianism, that the Son of God was a created being, exalted above all other creatures but not truly God. The council condemned that teaching and confessed the Son as "of one essence" (homoousios) with the Father, so that Jesus is fully God and not a creature.
- The council wrote the creed that became the first part of the Creed Christians say today. It ends with a short line about the Holy Spirit, and the longer statement about the Spirit came from a later council, Constantinople I.
- It also settled that the whole Church would keep Pascha, the feast the West calls Easter, on one day, dealt with a schism in Egypt, and issued twenty canons, the rules of the Church's life.
- The main figures are the emperor Constantine; Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, and the deacon Athanasius who stood beside him; Arius and his supporter Eusebius of Nicomedia; and Eusebius of Caesarea, whose letter describing the council survives.
Summary
The First Council of Nicaea (AD 325) was the first gathering of bishops from the whole Church, called by the emperor Constantine after a dispute that began in Alexandria had spread through the churches of the East. Arius, a presbyter there, taught that the Son was made by the Father out of nothing, that there was a time when he was not, and that he was a creature, though a perfect one. His bishop, Alexander, taught that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, so that there was never a time when the Father was not Father.
When the bishops met, the council rejected a creed offered by Arius's party, took up a creed presented by Eusebius of Caesarea, and enlarged it with phrases that Athanasius says were chosen to leave no room for evasion: that the Son is of the substance of the Father, begotten and not made, and of one substance with him, followed by anathemas, formal condemnations, of those who say that he came from nothing or is changeable.[^ath-decr20-essence]
Almost every bishop signed. A handful would not, or signed the creed and withheld their names from the condemnation, and the emperor sent the leading dissenters into exile.[^soc8-five] The same council found a way to keep Pascha on one day in East and West, offered terms to the schismatic followers of Meletius in Egypt, and enacted twenty canons, several of which the Church still keeps.[^synodal-easter][^trullo2] The decades that followed were hard, because the formula was attacked, reworded and defended before the whole Church received it, but Nicaea became the standard against which the later councils measured their own work.[^chalcedon-def]
Why It Matters
The question before the bishops was whether the One who walked among us was himself God or only the best of God's works, and the Fathers treated it as a question about salvation. St. Athanasius, who stood in that hall as a deacon of Alexandria, put the stakes in a single line: "For He was made man that we might be made God." On the Incarnation of the Word 54.8[^ath-inc54] The Orthodox account of salvation is union with God as well as pardon from him, and it asks that the one who joins us to God be God himself.
If the Word were divine only by sharing in something higher, Athanasius says of the Arian position, "He would not deify, being deified Himself." De Synodis 51.3[^ath-syn51] A Son who had received his divinity as a gift would have none to give, and so the thread runs straight from the creed of Nicaea to the doctrine of Theosis.
The Lord asks that "all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father" (John 5.23), and a creed that called the Son the greatest of creatures would have to ask what Thomas was doing when he answered the risen Jesus, and what the Church has done in every prayer addressed to Christ since. Nicaea answered that Thomas was right, and in answering it protected the shape of the Christian faith: the God who made the world entered it and was met there by people who touched him.
How It Applies
The first place the council shows up is the Divine Liturgy, where the whole congregation sings the Creed. The text sung today is the enlarged creed of the one hundred and fifty fathers at Constantinople, which the Council of Chalcedon introduced as "consonant to the holy and great Synod of Nice," Chalcedon[^chalcedon-sess2] so the lines about the Son that the people sing are the language of 325. A Christian who stands there and says it is confessing, in the council's own words, who it is that the rest of the service addresses.
The people stand to sing it, and the posture is also the council's. Canon 20 ordered that on the Lord's Day and in the days of Pentecost "prayer be made to God standing," The Canons 20.1[^canon20] and St. Basil, asked later in the same century why the Church prays this way, answered that the standing posture on the first day of the week recalls the resurrection.[^basil-standing] Even the body's posture on a Sunday morning carries a trace of the council.
Athanasius, answering the Arians' habit of naming God by what he is not, points to what Christ himself commanded: "He has bid us be baptized, not in the name of Unoriginate and Originate, not into the name of Uncreate and Creature, but into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." De Decretis 7.35[^ath-decr31] Every Christian baptism in the Church's own form is a quiet confession of what Nicaea defended.
Arius and Alexander
The quarrel began, as Socrates the church historian tells it, in the church of Bishop Alexander in Alexandria. The bishop was explaining the unity of the Holy Trinity to his assembled presbyters, with what Socrates calls too philosophical a minuteness. A presbyter named Arius thought he heard the teaching of Sabellius in it, and took the opposite side.[^soc5] If, said Arius, "the Father begot the Son, he that was begotten had a beginning of existence: and from this it is evident, that there was a time when the Son was not. It therefore necessarily follows, that he had his substance from nothing."[^soc5] It is a short argument, and its appeal is plain. It starts from a premise nobody denies, that a father is older than his child, and it ends in a conclusion that sounds like a defense of God's uniqueness.
Two of Arius's letters and fragments of his verse survive inside the books of his opponents. Writing to Eusebius of Nicomedia, a bishop of like mind, he put his case in a sentence: "We are persecuted, because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning." The Ecclesiastical History 1.317[^arius-theod-beginning] The sentence shows what he thought he was defending. Everything that has a beginning is made, and God alone is without one.
Arius did not call the Son an ordinary creature. In the creed he and his clergy sent to Alexander, the Son is begotten before eternal times and made to subsist as a "perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures; offspring, but not as one of things begotten." De Synodis 16.3[^arius-syn16-creature] That is the highest place a creature can hold, and Arius keeps him there. In the verse he called the Thalia, which survives only in fragments quoted by Athanasius, he draws the line harder, denying that the Son is equal to the Father or of one essence with him.[^thalia-syn15]
Arius was afraid of making God into a thing with parts that could be cut, and the fear is one a Christian can respect. If the Son is from the Father in the sense of being a part of him, then the Father, as Arius reports his opponents' view, is compounded, divisible and material, a God with the circumstances of a body.[^arius-syn16-body] Athanasius, defending the Nicene phrase, shares the fear: "let every corporeal reference be banished on this subject." De Decretis 5.63[^ath-decr24] Both men refused the picture of a divided God, and they parted over what follows from the refusal. For Arius it followed that the Son must be a different sort of thing from the Father, and for the Fathers it followed that the Son must be the Father's own, in a way for which no human analogy has the words.
Writing to the churches, Alexander answers from the other end of Scripture: "Who that hears John saying, 'In the beginning was the Word,' does not condemn those that say, 'There was a period when the Word was not'?"[^alex-enc-john] The Prologue is his anchor, and he reads its opening as a rebuke to anyone who would give the Word a starting point. Its third verse sharpens the point: "All things were made through him. Without him, nothing was made that has been made" (John 1.3). If everything that was made was made through the Word, the Word cannot be one of the things made.
The word "Father" is where Arius began, and Alexander turns it against him: it is necessary, he writes, to say that "the Father is always the Father," because "the Son is always with Him, on account of whom He is called the Father."[^alex-ep7] If the Son had a beginning, there was a time when God was not yet a Father, and a time when the name God has given himself was not yet true of him. Athanasius sharpened the charge into one that Arius could not wave away: the Arians made the Trinity something that grew, a Monad at first and a Triad by addition.[^ath-ar1-17]
The quarrel did not stay in one church. Alexander says in his encyclical that, assembled with the bishops of Egypt and Libya, nearly a hundred in number, he anathematized Arius and his followers, among them five other presbyters, six deacons, and two men once called bishops, Secundus and Theonas, who would still be standing apart at Nicaea.[^alex-depos] Socrates says that the matter then spread: "from a little spark a large fire was kindled,"[^soc6-spark] until Christianity became a subject of ridicule in the theatres.[^soc6-theatres] Eusebius of Nicomedia, he adds, became a zealous defender of Arius, and the Melitians, a faction separated from the Church for reasons of their own, threw in with the Arians.[^soc6-eusebius]
The Emperor Calls the Bishops
Constantine first tried to put the fire out with a letter. Theodoret says he sent a messenger to Alexandria in the hope of reconciling the two sides, and that when the attempt failed he summoned the council.[^theod-summon] The letter that survives in Eusebius's Life of Constantine, addressed to Alexander and Arius together, shows how little the emperor understood about what was at stake. After inquiring into the quarrel, he writes, "I find the cause to be of a truly insignificant character, and quite unworthy of such fierce contention."[^vc-ii64] In the version Socrates preserves he goes further and says the two men agree on the Creed itself.[^soc7] The emperor had a quarrel to end and no doctrine to impose. He wanted a divided people to stop dividing, and the bishops were the ones who knew the quarrel was about something.
The summons went out to bishops everywhere, and it went with money behind it. Eusebius of Caesarea, who was among those summoned, says that Constantine invited the speedy attendance of bishops from all quarters in letters that honored them, and Theodoret adds that bishops and their officials were furnished with public transport, so that even a bishop from a poor see could make the journey.[^vc-iii6] The imperial post carried the Church to Nicaea, a city in Bithynia whose name, as Eusebius notes, means victory.
The date of Pascha was the other trouble. The churches of the East did not agree about when to keep it, some following the custom of the Jews and others the practice of Christians elsewhere, and Socrates says the emperor, seeing the Church agitated on both accounts, summoned all the bishops to meet him at Nicaea.[^soc8-convoke] Athanasius, writing later with his fellow bishops, gives the same two reasons for the council.[^ath-afros2]
Writing afterward to the churches whose bishops could not come, Constantine says that he convened as many bishops as possible and "took my seat among them as one of yourselves; for I would not deny that truth which is the source of my greatest joy, namely, that I am your fellow-servant." The Ecclesiastical History 2.30[^theod-i9] A skeptic can read that as courtesy and nothing more, and the record of his later conduct shows a ruler used to being obeyed. The sentence still states the claim the emperor made for his own role: he called the bishops together, and he presented the matter to them as theirs to decide.
Who Came, and How Many
The familiar summary says that three hundred bishops met and all but two signed, and the ancient accounts disagree about the first of those numbers. Eusebius, who was there, says the bishops alone exceeded two hundred and fifty, with a crowd of presbyters, deacons and attendants beyond computation.[^vc-iii8] Eustathius of Antioch, another eyewitness, says about two hundred and seventy, and admits that "there were, however, so many assembled that I cannot state their exact number." The Ecclesiastical History 1.476[^eustathius-270] Athanasius, in his own account, gives three hundred, more or less, and Constantine, writing to Alexandria, says more than three hundred.[^ath-decr3]
The figure three hundred and eighteen appears in Theodoret and Socrates, in Athanasius and the bishops of Egypt and Libya, and in Basil and Gregory the Theologian, and it passes into the language of the councils: the Synod of Constantinople in 382 speaks of the faith "ratified by the three hundred and eighteen fathers at Nicæa in Bithynia," Synodical Letter 1.23[^const382-318] and Chalcedon, the Council in Trullo and the Second Council of Constantinople use it too.
Genesis tells how Abram, hearing that Lot had been taken captive, numbered his home-born servants at three hundred and eighteen (Genesis 14.14),[^gen14] and early Christian readers found a mystery in the number: the Epistle of Barnabas reads the Greek numeral as the letters I and H, the first two letters of the name Jesus, with the T that is shaped like the cross,[^barnabas9] and Clement of Alexandria and Ambrose find the same sign in it.[^clem-strom6]
Hilary says plainly what he is doing with the figure when he sets eighty bishops who once rejected the word against the three hundred and eighteen who recently accepted it: "for my own part I think the number sacred." Hilary of Poitiers[^hilary86] Socrates refers the names beyond the first few to the Synodicon of Athanasius, and no full list appears in the historians themselves.[^soc13-list] Put plainly, the bishops numbered something above two hundred and fifty, the tradition settled on three hundred and eighteen, and Hilary and Ambrose treated the figure as both a count and a sign.
Among them were men whose bodies carried the marks of the persecutions. Theodoret says that James of Nisibis had raised the dead, that Paul of Neocaesarea had lost the use of both hands to a red-hot iron in the rage of Licinius, and that others had lost an eye or an arm, among them Paphnutius of Egypt. "In short," he writes, "the Council looked like an assembled army of martyrs." The Ecclesiastical History 1.426[^theod-martyrs] Socrates names Paphnutius and Spyridon of Cyprus as two of extraordinary celebrity.[^soc8-celebrity]
Rome was represented by two presbyters. The bishop of Rome, Theodoret explains, was absent because of his advanced age, "but he sent two presbyters to the council, with authority to agree to what was done." Theodoret[^theod-rome] Socrates names them in his roll, Vito and Vicentius, set after Hosius of Cordova and before Alexander of Alexandria, and says nothing about rank.[^soc13-list]
Alexander came with a deacon, Athanasius, whom Socrates describes as highly esteemed by his bishop and as opposing Eusebius of Nicomedia and his party in the debates.[^soc8-athanasius] A later admirer, Gregory the Theologian, says of Athanasius that "though not yet ranked among the Bishops, he held the first rank among the members of the Council, for preference was given to virtue just as much as to office." Select Orations — Oration 21 14.2[^greg-or21-14] That is praise from a generation later, and it agrees with the earlier record that the deacon stood at the center of the argument. On the other side stood a handful of bishops whom Theodoret names as having sided with Arius: Menophantus of Ephesus, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Theognis of Nicaea, Narcissus of Neronias, and the two Libyan bishops Theonas and Secundus.[^theod-sided]
Inside the Council Hall
The date comes from the record Socrates found prefixed to the proceedings: the synod met "in the consulate of Paulinus and Julian, on the 20th day of May."[^soc13-date] Theodoret says the emperor had a great hall prepared in the palace, with benches and seats, and that the bishops entered first. Constantine came in last, with a few attendants, and took his place only after he had asked their leave. Eusebius, who was present, tells the same courtesy, and writes that "he waited until the bishops had beckoned to him, and then sat down, and after him the whole assembly did the same."[^vc-iii10]
Theodoret says the great Eustathius of Antioch rose first and delivered the speech of welcome, while Eusebius says only that the bishop who held the chief place on the right of the assembly addressed the emperor, and he does not name him.[^theod-eustathius] Eusebius also speaks of "those who presided in the council," in the plural.[^vc-iii13]
The Church's calendar remembers more than one chair. The synaxarion for Eustathius says, "The first to preside over this Council was Saint Eustathius,"[^syn-eustathius] The memory of the Church has no single answer, and each feast gives the chair to its own hero. The synaxarion for the Sunday of the Fathers says, "The emperor Constantine presided over the sessions of the Council,"[^syn-fathers-presided] The synaxarion for Hosius of Cordova records that he advised the emperor to convene the council and was the first to sign its acts.[^syn-hosius] The early historians do not settle the question, and it comes up again below, where the claims of Rome are weighed.
Constantine's address, as Theodoret gives it, urged the bishops to concord and reminded them how shameful it would be to fall on one another when their enemies were destroyed. The gospels, the apostolic writings and the prophets, he said, teach what we ought to believe about the divine nature, and he asked the bishops to "seek in the divinely-inspired word the solution of the questions at issue." The Ecclesiastical History 1.437[^theod-address] The emperor who is said to have dictated the faith is reported to have told the bishops that the faith is in Scripture and that they were to find it there.
The debate began with a creed offered by the party of Arius. Theodoret says they "drew up a formulary of their faith, and presented it to the council. As soon as it was read it was torn to pieces, and was declared to be spurious and false." The Ecclesiastical History 1.441[^theod-torn] Eustathius remembers the same moment as one of grief for the audience, because the formulary of Eusebius displayed plain evidence of its author's blasphemy.[^eust-formulary] The text of that formulary is not given in the histories. Athanasius records what followed: the Eusebians were asked to explain and defend their terms, "one differed from another," and, seeing the straits they were in, they fell silent.[^ath-decr3-dumb]
The Faith Before the Quarrel
Nicaea was not inventing the worship of Christ. St. Ignatius of Antioch, writing to the church at Ephesus, does not hesitate over the name: "For our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived in the womb by Mary according to a dispensation, of the seed of David but also of the Holy Ghost." Ignatius of Antioch[^ign-eph18] The sentence holds a human birth and the name "God" together without apology, as the Gospel of John had done at its beginning (John 1.1) and Thomas at its end.
St. Irenaeus states in a single line the logic the Church would defend at Nicaea: "the Father is God and the Son is God; for that which is begotten of God is God." The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 47.1[^iren-demo47] A child is of the same kind as the one who begets him, and Irenaeus applies that ordinary fact of fatherhood to the Son, who is then divine by being born of the Father and has no divine rank given to him afterward.
What the Church did not yet have was settled vocabulary for saying how the Father and the Son are two and also one. Jerome, no friend of Arius, admits as much: "before Arius arose in Alexandria as a demon of the south, things were said incautiously which cannot be defended against a malevolent criticism." Apology Against Rufinus — Book II 17.21[^jerome-ruf] The great Alexandrian teacher Origen can be heard on both sides of the unsettled language, since Athanasius cites him for the Son as the likeness of the Father of whom it was never the case that he was not, while the work against Celsus speaks of Father and Son as two in subsistence and one in agreement of will.[^orig-decr27]
The word that did the reaching, homoousios, was not coined in 325. About the middle of the third century two bishops, Dionysius of Alexandria and Dionysius of Rome, were drawn into a quarrel about the Sabellian error, and Dionysius of Alexandria, answering it, spoke so sharply of the Son's distinctness that he was charged with denying that the Son is of one essence with God.[^ath-dion5] Athanasius preserves his defense, in which he concedes that "I have not found this term anywhere in Holy Scripture, yet my remarks which follow... are not inconsistent with that belief," De Decretis 6.12[^dion-decr25] and Athanasius concludes from the letters that Dionysius held the Son to be of one essence with the Father.[^ath-sent-sum] His Roman namesake, from the other side, taught that the Son is spoken of in Scripture as generated and never as having come into being.[^dion-rome]
The word also had a bad history, and the Arians knew it. Basil does not hide the awkwardness: "the members of the synods which met to discuss the case of Paul of Samosata did find fault with the term as an unfortunate one." Letters (St. Basil of Caesarea) — Letter 52 1.11[^basil52] Athanasius explains why that does not tell against Nicaea, since the two groups of bishops were answering different heresies, so that "the one party condemned the Samosatene, while the other condemned the Arian heresy." De Synodis 45.3[^ath-syn45]
Alexander's complaint ties the older error to the new, calling Arius's teaching the same as that of Paul of Samosata and adding that Paul's successor Lucian withdrew from the bishops' communion for many years, and Arius's own farewell to Eusebius of Nicomedia calls him a fellow-Lucianist. The link between Lucian and Arius's party rests on those two letters.[^alex-theod-lucian]
The Creed
The bishops took up the creed that Eusebius of Caesarea presented, a statement of the faith he had received at his baptism, and Eusebius reports that the emperor was the first to say it was entirely correct. His letter to his own church is the fullest account of the next step. The emperor urged all present to subscribe "with the insertion, however, of that single word homoousios (consubstantial), an expression which the emperor himself explained, as not indicating corporeal affections or properties; and consequently that the Son did not subsist from the Father either by division or abscission."[^euseb-socr-emperor]
"On their dictating this formula," Eusebius writes of the bishops, "we did not let it pass without inquiry in what sense they introduced of the essence of the Father, and one in essence with the Father."[^euseb-newman5] The Synaxarion remembers the moment in the same shape, with the emperor asking the council to insert into the Symbol of Faith the word "consubstantial," which he had heard in the speeches of the bishops.[^syn-constantine-word] The emperor urged the word and gave it a sense that kept clear of the picture of a divided Father, and the formula itself was the bishops' work.
The text the council adopted, in the Percival translation, is short enough to read in a minute:
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 his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten (γεννηθέντα), not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον, consubstantialem) with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not (ἤν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν), or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion [τρεπτὸν in Greek; convertibilem in Latin] — all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.[^creed-percival-full]
Eusebius says that after his own declaration of faith was read to the emperor and approved, a second text was promulgated "consisting of ours with certain additions to its expression."[^euseb-socr-additions] The Nicene text keeps "God of God, Light of Light" and the structure of the Eusebian confession, and it adds the phrases the Arians could not say.
Eusebius of Nicomedia, one of Arius's strongest supporters, explained his position to a fellow bishop, Paulinus of Tyre, and his letter shows which escape routes each addition closed. Scripture, the letter argues, uses the word "begotten" of beings quite unlike God, and so "it is not of Him alone that the Scriptures have spoken as begotten, but that they also thus speak of those who are entirely dissimilar to Him by nature." The Ecclesiastical History 1.395[^eusnic-begotten] A creed that said only "begotten" would have confessed nothing the Arians denied, and so the bishops added "not made."
Eusebius of Nicomedia saw clearly what "of the substance of the Father" would exclude: "If He had been from Him or of Him, as a portion of Him, or by an emanation of His substance, it could not be said that He was created or established." The Ecclesiastical History 1.393[^eusnic-substance] He had read the phrase correctly: if the Son is of the Father's substance, he cannot be called created.
The bishops saw it from the other side. Eusebius of Caesarea says the phrases were examined in questions put to those who had framed them, and that it was agreed that "ousias (of the essence or substance) simply implied that the Son is of the Father indeed, but does not subsist as a part of the Father."[^euseb-socr-ousias] The creed's text carries no gloss of its own. The sense that excluded both the Arian reading and a materialist one was agreed in the discussion Eusebius records, and it is the sense Constantine had urged.
The anathemas at the end open with the Arian slogan quoted back, that there was a time when the Son was not, and condemn the claims that he was made of things that were not, that he is a creature, and that he is subject to change. The clause forbidding a different "substance or essence" pairs two nouns that later generations would pull apart, speaking of one essence and three hypostases. At the council of Alexandria in 362 the bishops who spoke of one hypostasis explained that they used the word "thinking it the same thing to say Subsistence or Essence," Tomus ad Antiochenos 6.3[^tomus6] while those who spoke of three said they meant no three alien essences and no three gods. The vocabulary of Hypostasis and Ousia that Orthodox theology uses today builds on that settlement, and the Cappadocians, with Athanasius, laid the pattern for formulating the doctrine of the Trinity.[^cappadocians]
One line of the creed is short enough to miss: "And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost." Basil, long afterward, explains that he can add nothing to the Nicene creed beyond the ascription of glory to the Spirit, "because our Fathers treated this point cursorily, no question having at that time arisen concerning the Spirit." Letters (St. Basil of Caesarea) — Letter 258 2.4[^basil258] The longer statement about the Spirit, which the congregation sings today, was made by the hundred and fifty fathers at Constantinople I. Athanasius and the bishops of Egypt and Libya read the short line as complete in its own way, a confession of the faith in the Holy Trinity entire.[^ath-afros11]
Theodoret says that after the uproar at the Arian formulary all but Secundus and Theonas stood up and took the lead in renouncing Arius.[^theod-exception] Socrates counts differently, saying that "Five only would not receive it, objecting to the term homoousios": Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis, Maris, Theonas and Secundus.[^soc8-five] The council's own letter to Alexandria says that the condemnation of Arius was unanimously decreed and that Theonas and Secundus received the same sentence as the rest.[^synodal-unanimous]
The historians therefore agree on two names, Theonas and Secundus, and differ at the margin about whether the other three signed the creed, whether they signed the condemnation, and how quickly they turned back. Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis, in the letter of retraction they sent after their exile, say that "we subscribed the declaration of faith; we did not subscribe the anathematizing," explaining that they had not believed the accused to be what he was represented.[^soc14-retract] Constantine's edict sent Arius into exile with Eusebius and Theognis and their followers.[^soc8-edict] Neither Socrates nor Theodoret reports a count of votes, and "all but two" is a compression of a more tangled story.
Why These Words
Why did the bishops take so much trouble over phrases that look so abstract? Athanasius, who was in the room, explains in the Defense of the Nicene Definition that the council began by trying to use only scriptural words. The bishops wanted to say that the Son is from God, and is Word and Wisdom, and not a creature or work, and the party of Eusebius replied that "from God" is true of us too, since Paul writes that "there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things" (1 Corinthians 8.6).[^ath-decr19-scripture] The scriptural words could be signed by a man who denied everything the bishops meant. The Fathers therefore "wrote 'from the essence of God,'" De Decretis 5.13[^ath-decr19] so that "from God" could no longer be taken as common to the Son and to things made, and the Word alone would be acknowledged as from the Father.
When the bishops said that the Word is the true power and image of the Father, always existing and unalterable, the Eusebians let it pass, but Athanasius says they were "caught whispering to each other and winking with their eyes, that 'like,' and 'always,' and 'power,' and 'in Him,' were, as before, common to us and the Son, and that it was no difficulty to agree to these." De Decretis 5.19[^ath-decr20-whisper] A word was needed that could not be shared, and the one that served was the word the Arians had been avoiding. Bodies that are alike can be separated, as a son can stand at a distance from his father, and what the Fathers wanted was a likeness that could not be pulled apart. Because the Son's generation is not like human generation, the Council "suitably wrote 'one in essence,' that they might both defeat the perverseness of the heretics, and show that the Word was other than originated things." De Decretis 5.23[^ath-decr20-essence]
The Letter to the Hebrews says of the Son that he is "the radiance of his glory, the very image of his substance" (Hebrews 1.3), and Athanasius, writing with his colleagues to the Africans, says that the bishops gathered such figures from the Scriptures, brightness, the river and the well, together with the Lord's own words that he and the Father are one (John 10.30).[^ath-afros6]
Each of these images says that the Son is from the Father and never apart from him. The step to the creed's word was then short: "And lastly they wrote more plainly, and concisely, that the Son was coessential with the Father; for all the above passages signify this." Ad Afros Epistola Synodica 6.4[^ath-afros6b] Light and its radiance are never apart, since there is no light without radiance and no radiance that is not from the light. That is the sense in which the Son is "Light of Light," and "one in essence" is the shortest way of saying what the image says.
The Arians' strongest objection to the word was that it made God a body, and Athanasius answers it with care. He argues that God is simple, with no parts to divide, and he asks his readers, when they hear "one in essence," to "preserve undivided the oneness of nature and the identity of light." De Decretis 5.63[^ath-decr24-light] The cautions are the ones Constantine had put into his gloss, and they show that the people who wrote "of one essence" did not mean it in the sense that frightened Arius. The creed answered that a God without parts can have a Son who is truly his own.
Basil, whom his opponents nicknamed Homoousiast for his loyalty to the word,[^basil226] remembers the logic of the creed's sequence in another letter, saying that the Fathers at Nicaea "spoke of the Only-begotten as Light of Light, Very God of very God, and so on, and then consistently added the homoousion." Letters (St. Basil of Caesarea) — Letter 9 3.3[^basil9] The word was the last link in a chain whose earlier links the Arians had said they could accept.
Of those who accept everything else defined at Nicaea and doubt only about the Coessential, Athanasius says that they must not be treated as enemies: "we discuss the matter with them as brothers with brothers, who mean what we mean, and dispute only about the word." De Synodis 41.1[^ath-syn41] It is the temper in which he defended the creed.
Pascha and the Melitians
Eusebius says that the churches were divided over Pascha, one party asserting that the Jewish custom should be adhered to and the other holding that the exact recurrence of the period should be observed.[^vc-iii5] The council's letter to Egypt announces the result as good news: "all our brethren in the East who formerly followed the custom of the Jews are henceforth to celebrate the said most sacred feast of Easter at the same time with the Romans and yourselves and all those who have observed Easter from the beginning." Nicaea I[^synodal-easter] Constantine's circular to the churches records that the question was resolved by the united judgment of all present, and Theodoret's copy of the council's letter says the keeping of the feast was unanimously rectified.[^vc-iii18-decision][^theod-synodal-easter]
Neither the council's letter nor the emperor's circular gives a rule for finding the day, and the twenty canons do not mention Pascha. The circular offers a reason: the emperor says that those who follow the Jewish reckoning sometimes celebrate twice in one year, and that the Church will not agree to keep the feast a second time in the same year.[^vc-iii18-twice] Why the Orthodox churches and the West now keep Pascha and Easter on different Sundays is a later history that these documents do not tell.
Meletius, Theodoret says, was convicted of crimes by Peter of Alexandria and deposed, and refusing to accept the deposition he filled the Thebaid and the neighboring part of Egypt with tumult. Socrates tells it with a heavier charge, that Peter deposed him because he had denied the faith and sacrificed in the persecution, and that his followers made common cause with the Arians.[^theod-meletius][^soc6-melitius] The synod, in the words of its letter to Egypt, was "disposed to deal gently with Meletius (for in strict justice he deserved no leniency)." Nicaea I[^synodal-meletius] He was to remain in his own city with the bare title of his rank and no authority to ordain or administer, and those he had ordained, once confirmed by a more sacred laying on of hands, might be admitted to communion as inferiors of the clergy Alexander had appointed. It did not fully work. Socrates observes that the Melitians in Egypt were still separated from the Church in his own day, "because the Synod deprived Melitius of all power."[^soc9-melitian]
The Twenty Canons
The Council in Trullo, in the seventh century, sets its seal on the canons "set forth by our holy and blessed Fathers, that is, by the 318 holy God-bearing Fathers assembled at Nice," The 102 Canons 2.5[^trullo2] and the Church has kept several of them in use ever since, among them the posture of prayer on Sundays[^trullo90] and the choosing of a bishop by his province.[^const382-can4]
Canon 11 shows the persecutions still fresh. It deals with Christians who had fallen, and it speaks of those who lapsed "without compulsion, without the spoiling of their property, without danger or the like, as happened during the tyranny of Licinius," and rules that, though they had deserved no clemency, they were to be dealt with mercifully, passing years among the hearers and the prostrators before communing in prayer.[^can11] Canon 13 reaches the deathbed: "if any man be at the point of death, he must not be deprived of the last and most indispensable Viaticum," The Canons 13.1[^can13] and it adds that the bishop, after examination, is to give the Eucharist to any dying person who asks for it.
Canon 1 admits a man mutilated by surgery or by barbarians but not one who castrated himself in health, canon 2 refuses ordination to the newly baptized on the strength of the apostolic word about a novice, and canon 3 bars the clergy from keeping a subintroducta, a woman living in the household as a spiritual companion, except a mother, sister or aunt. Basil tells a correspondent to read "the canon put forth by our holy Fathers at the Council of Nicæa, which distinctly forbids subintroducts." Letters (St. Basil of Caesarea) — Letter 55 0.5[^basil55] Canons 15 and 16 forbid clergy to move from city to city, and canon 17 deposes any cleric who lends at interest, citing the Scripture that says "He has not given his money upon usury" (Psalm 14.5).[^can17]
Socrates reports that the bishops also considered a new law forbidding married clergy to live with their wives, and that Paphnutius, a confessor who had lost an eye and had never himself been married, rose and objected that marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled (Hebrews 13.4), whereupon the whole assembly agreed and dropped the subject. No canon among the twenty records the story, and it comes to us as Socrates tells it.[^soc11-paphnutius]
Canon 4 provides that a bishop is to be appointed by all the bishops of the province, or by at least three with the written assent of the absent, and the bishops of Constantinople in 382 can describe the rule as "an ancient custom... confirmed by the enactment of the holy fathers of Nicæa." Synodical Letter 1.29[^const382-can4] Canon 5 sets up provincial synods twice a year, one before Lent and one in autumn, so that wrongful excommunications could be corrected, and canon 7 gives the bishop of Jerusalem the next place of honor.[^can5]
Canon 8 admits the clergy of the Cathari, the Novatians, who profess in writing to follow the dogmas of the Church, on the condition that "there may not be two bishops in the city," The Canons 8.5[^can8] and canon 19 requires the followers of Paul of Samosata to be rebaptized, as Trullo repeats.[^trullo95]
Canon 18 forbids deacons to give the Eucharist to presbyters, "whereas neither canon nor custom permits that they who have no right to offer should give the Body of Christ to them that do offer," The Canons 18.1[^can18] and the Lutheran Augsburg Confession of 1530 can cite a Nicene canon that deacons receive communion after the presbyters.[^augsburg24] Canon 20 closes the set with the rule about standing at prayer on the Lord's Day, and the Council in Trullo says the Church has received from the Fathers the canon "that in honour of Christ's resurrection, we are not to kneel on Sundays." The 102 Canons 90.1[^trullo90] Which of the twenty bind in every age, and how, is a question the canons themselves do not answer. Canon 6, on the sees of Alexandria, Rome and Antioch, is taken up in Polemics.
The Council Remembered
The Church keeps the council on the Sunday of the Fathers of the First Council, the seventh Sunday after Pascha, and the hymns of the day give thanks for the Fathers as lights set on the earth to guide the Church to the true faith.[^troparion-fathers] The kontakion of the day says that "The Apostles' preaching and the Fathers' doctrines have established one faith for the Church."[^kontakion]
Spyridon of Cyprus is one of the two bishops Socrates singles out for celebrity, and his sketch of him is short and affectionate: he had been a shepherd, was thought worthy to be a pastor of men, and "on account of his extreme humility he continued to feed his sheep during his incumbency of the bishopric."[^soc12-spyridon] A later synaxarion text puts into his mouth a speech to a philosopher that includes "We believe that He is one in essence (consubstantial) with the Father."[^syn-spyridon] Socrates does not report that speech, and it stands as the Church's tradition about him.
Nicholas of Myra, the bishop who is the basis of the Santa Claus legends, stands in the same position: the Church's tradition places him at the council as well.[^wiki-nicholas] The synaxarion for his feast says that he, "fired with zeal for the Lord, assailed the heretic Arius with his words, and also struck him upon the face."[^syn-nicholas] Socrates, Theodoret and Eusebius name several of the bishops who were present, and none of them mentions Nicholas. The story comes from long after the event, and no early historian attests the blow.
After Nicaea
The council ended the argument on paper, and the argument went on. Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis were recalled from exile and restored to their churches after sending a written retraction to the leading bishops, and Constantine himself, in a letter to the church of Nicomedia, speaks of bishops "whom, by the clemency of the council, I had reserved for penitence" and says that he banished them again for sheltering men in Alexandria whom he had ordered arrested.[^theod-nicomedians]
Arius, for his part, wrote a creed of his own for the emperor. Socrates preserves it, and Arius could sincerely say much of it. He and Euzoius confess one God the Father Almighty and the Lord Jesus Christ his Son, "who was begotten of him before all ages, God the Word through whom all things were made."[^soc26-creed] What the creed lacks is the word homoousios, the phrase "of the substance of the Father," and any anathema, which are the places where the council had put its weight. Socrates, who reports that Arius then returned to Alexandria, calls the whole affair an artifice for suppressing the truth, and the document is one that a man who still held what Nicaea condemned could sign in good conscience.
A synod that had been meeting at Tyre was ordered by the emperor to hasten to Jerusalem, and there it received Arius and his adherents back into communion, "in obedience, as they said, to the wishes of the emperor, who had signified in his communication to them, that he was fully satisfied respecting the faith of Arius and Euzoïus."[^soc33-jerusalem] The supporters of Nicaea suffered in the swing. Socrates says that Eustathius of Antioch was deposed as a supporter of the Sabellian heresy, though other reasons were also given,[^soc24-eustathius] and Athanasius, who followed Alexander as bishop of Alexandria, was banished by the emperor into Gaul.[^soc35-athanasius]
Arius died on the Saturday before the Sunday on which he was to be received into communion in Constantinople. Socrates says he was seized with a sudden illness in the neighborhood of Constantine's Forum and died almost at once,[^soc38-death] and Athanasius, writing about it, is careful about the limits of his knowledge: "I was not at Constantinople when he died; but Macarius, the presbyter, was there, and from him I learned all the circumstances." The Ecclesiastical History 2.163[^ath-serapion]
When was Constantine baptized? His own words, as Eusebius reports them, are that he had thought to be baptized in the Jordan, "but God, who knows what is expedient for us, is pleased that I should receive this blessing here,"[^vc-iv62] and Socrates says only that, in his last illness, he removed to Nicomedia and received baptism there. Neither source names the bishop who baptized him, and nothing in either supports the claim that it was an Arian.[^soc39-baptism]
After Constantine's death the struggle was fought by other means. Athanasius, looking back, says what he saw happen when argument failed: those who had defended the heresy, perceiving that they were dishonored, "devised a different method, and attempted to vindicate it by means of external power." History of the Arians — Part Viii. 64.22[^ath-hist66]
The best-known step is the Dedication synod of Antioch in 341, whose letter protests, "We have not been followers of Arius — how could Bishops, such as we, follow a Presbyter?" De Synodis 22.4[^antioch341-letter] Its bishops wished to be heard as men who held the faith received from the beginning, and the creed they issued is written in the language of reverence, calling the Son the exact image of the Godhead, essence, will, power and glory of the Father, and never saying one in essence.[^antioch341-creed] Socrates reads the series of councils as a campaign: the bishops "altered the creed; not as condemning anything in that which was set forth at Nicæa, but in fact with a determination to subvert and nullify the doctrine of consubstantiality by means of frequent councils."[^soc-ii8]
At Sardica the Western bishops declined to draft any new creed at all, on the ground, as Athanasius reports, that Nicaea "lacked nothing but was full of piety." Tomus ad Antiochenos 5.5[^tomus5]
The line did not always hold. After the council at Ariminum, where in Jerome's account the word ousia was abolished, "The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian," The Dialogue Against the Luciferians 19.7[^jerome-lucif] Jerome speaks for a Church caught off guard. Hilary of Poitiers, a bishop in Gaul, confesses that "though long ago regenerate in baptism, and for some time a bishop, I never heard of the Nicene creed until I was going into exile," Hilary of Poitiers[^hilary91] His admission shows how slowly the creed had reached the West.
Athanasius urged the bishops of Egypt and Libya to "hold fast, every one, the faith we have received from the Fathers, which they who assembled at Nicæa recorded in writing," Ad Episcopus Aegypti et Libyae 1.99[^ath-epaeg] The Cappadocian generation carried the insistence further. Gregory the Theologian puts in a plain declarative what the creed's anathema says as a prohibition: "There never was a time when He was not." Select Orations — Oration 29 0.26[^greg-or29-3]
The hundred and fifty fathers at Constantinople I in 381 completed what Nicaea had said of the Spirit, and Chalcedon, introducing their creed, called it consonant with the great synod of Nicaea and declared the exposition of the Three Hundred and Eighteen pre-eminent.[^chalcedon-def2] By the time of Ephesus in 431 the Nicene creed was the test of right reading, and the council forbade anyone to compose a different faith as a rival to it.[^ephesus-can7] The creed written in a hall in Bithynia was by then the measure of the others.
Polemics
Retellings: The Bible and the Vote
The council did not choose the books of the Bible. None of the twenty canons concerns the list of Scripture, and the list that Athanasius gave in his Festal Letter of 367, more than forty years after the council, introduces itself as his undertaking "to set before you the books included in the Canon, and handed down, and accredited as Divine," without mentioning Nicaea.[^festal39] The emperor's letter on the subject, in Theodoret, asks Eusebius of Caesarea for fifty volumes on fine parchment for the churches of his new city, an order for "copies of the Holy Scriptures, which, as you know, it is most necessary that the congregation of the Church should both have and use." The Ecclesiastical History 2.237[^theod-i15] That is a commission to make copies, and it decides nothing about which books count.
The picture of a vote that made Jesus God finds no support in the historians. Socrates counts the dissenters as five and Theodoret as two, the council's own letter says the condemnation of Arius was unanimously decreed, and neither Socrates, Theodoret nor Eusebius speaks of a vote at Nicaea.[^soc8-five] The bishops confessed the faith they had received, in words chosen to meet a particular denial, and put their names to it.
The Claims of Jesus and the Texts the Arians Loved
The oldest objection to the creed is also the simplest: did Jesus himself ever say he was God? The Qur'an answers that the Messiah was a messenger and God's word to Mary, and it closes the verse with "Indeed, Allah is but one God. Exalted is He above having a son."[^quran4171] A Muslim reader who comes to Nicaea hears in the creed the very thing the verse forbids, and finds the Gospels apparently on his side, since the Lord says that the Father is greater than he (John 14.28) and that not even the Son knows the day or the hour (Mark 13.32). Arius read these verses at face value, and the objection says the creed overrode what Jesus himself said.
In John, Jesus says that before Abraham came into existence, I AM (John 8.58), and when he adds that he and the Father are one (John 10.30) the Jews take up stones and tell him why: "We don't stone you for a good work, but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God" (John 10.33). The Gospel records that those who heard him understood the claim, and that is why they reached for stones.
Paul's hymn speaks of the one "existing in the form of God, didn't consider equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant" (Philippians 2.6; Philippians 2.7), and this is the key the Fathers turn in every lock the Arians picked: the sayings of weakness are spoken by one who has taken a human nature and is still who he was. Gregory the Theologian states the rule in a sentence: "What He was He continued to be; what He was not He took to Himself." Select Orations — Oration 29 0.275[^greg-or29-19]
Gregory observes that the text names the Son lesser in nothing but source: "in respect of being the Cause the Father is greater than the Son." Select Orations — Oration 29 0.227[^greg-or29-15] The Father is the origin of the Son's being, and the Son is not therefore an inferior sort of being, which is the line the creed draws with "God of God, Light of Light." The ignorance of the Son in Mark is read as what belongs to the human nature he took, and Athanasius says the Lord spoke "according to the flesh because of the body; that He might show that, as man, He knows not; for ignorance is proper to man." Four Discourses Against the Arians — Discourse Iii 28.55[^ath-ar3-46]
Wisdom's speech in the Greek Old Testament reads, in the Brenton translation, "The Lord made me the beginning of his ways for his works" (Proverbs 8.22), and Athanasius reports that the Arians took it, with a verse of Hebrews about the Son being faithful to him who made him, to prove that the Son is a work and a creature.[^ath-ar2-1] Dionysius of Rome had set the verb beside the verse that follows in the same passage, where the same speaker says "before all hills, he begets me" (Proverbs 8.25), and had taught that Scripture speaks of the Son as generated and never as having come into being.[^dion-rome]
Athanasius reads the verb of the human nature, since to that belongs creation,[^ath-ar2-20] and he reads Hebrews the same way: Paul, he says, "was writing concerning the Word's human Economy, when he said, 'Who was faithful to Him that made Him,' and not concerning His Essence," Four Discourses Against the Arians — Discourse II 0.108 because the Son became Apostle and High Priest only when he took flesh and blood like his brethren (Hebrews 3.2).[^ath-ar2-9]
For the verse that the Son was exalted and given a name above every name (Philippians 2.9), Athanasius says that the exaltation belongs to the manhood.[^ath-ar1-41] Colossians, which the Arians loved for the phrase "the firstborn of all creation," continues in its very next verse: "For by him all things were created in the heavens and on the earth" (Colossians 1.15; Colossians 1.16). He through whom everything was created cannot be one of the creatures.
The Qur'an calls Jesus God's "word,"[^quran4171] and John's Gospel gives the Son that title in its first line: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God" (John 1.1). The verse goes on to deny that God has a son, and the creed does not answer by softening the claim. It says the Son is begotten and not made, in a begetting that has nothing to do with bodies, and Athanasius demands that every corporeal reference be banished from it, so that the picture the verse rules out is one the Fathers rule out too. Whether the divine Word may also be called Son is the point on which the two faiths part. The verse's other charge, that Christians say three, is taken up in the next section.
The Shema and the Easter Letter
A Jewish reader hears the creed against the opening of the Shema, "Hear, O Israel, The Lord our God is one Lord" (Deuteronomy 6.4). A Son of the substance of the Father sounds like a second divine being, the three names of the Trinity sound like three gods, and the language of one essence and three subsistences sounds like philosophy used to hide the number. The Qur'an's "do not say, 'Three'" presses the same point from the other side.[^quran4171]
The Fathers knew the charge and answered it from the Old Testament itself, which speaks of a plurality in the Lord before any Gospel was written. Genesis says that "the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven" (Genesis 19.24), and David says "The Lord said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand" (Psalms 109.1), and Athanasius sets both beside Abraham's worship of the Lord as proof that the Son was Lord and King before he became man.[^ath-ar2-13] The chapter of Proverbs the Arians quoted makes Wisdom the one begotten before the hills.
Dionysius of Rome, who wrote against those who divided the Godhead, states the rule: "a Triad is preached by divine Scripture, but that neither Old Testament nor New preaches three Gods." De Decretis 6.22[^dionrome-triad] The defenders of Nicaea spent their effort on keeping the Monad and the Triad together, and the party of Arius accused them of the opposite, of teaching with Sabellius that the Father is himself the Son.[^soc5] None of this will move a reader who does not already hold that the Word became flesh, but it does show that the creed begins with one God and means it, and that the plurality it confesses was heard in Israel's Scriptures long before 325.
The same council also fixed the date of Pascha so that it would no longer follow the Jewish custom, and the imperial letter that announces the decision is blunt. Constantine writes, "Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd; for we have received from our Saviour a different way."[^vc-iii18-jews] In Theodoret's copy of the letter the sentence reads differently and calls the Jews our adversaries.[^theod-i9-jews] The sentence belongs to the emperor's circular, and no Christian has any reason to defend it. The council's own letter to Alexandria speaks only of the East's former following of the custom of the Jews and of a new agreement with Rome and Alexandria, and it contains none of the emperor's contempt, and none of the twenty canons mentions the Jews. The council's decision concerned one day for all, and the contempt belongs to the emperor's prose alone.
Constantine and the Creed
It is natural to suspect that a creed written with an emperor in the room is an imperial product, and the suspicion has evidence behind it. Eusebius of Caesarea says that Constantine urged the one disputed word on the council and explained its sense,[^euseb-socr-emperor] and the emperor's edict ordered that "if any one shall be detected in concealing a book compiled by Arius, and shall not instantly bring it forward and burn it, the penalty for this offense shall be death."[^soc9-edict] Arius went into exile, and a creed whose enforcement soon became a matter of state is easy to read as the state's. The edict deserves no defense.
Yet the word was the bishops' proposal on every account that can be checked against another. Eusebius had every reason to present his own assent in the best light, since he was explaining it to a diocese that had heard rumors, and his letter is an interested account; even so it describes the bishops dictating the formula and says the questions that followed were put to them.[^euseb-newman5] The argument does not rest on him alone. Athanasius, who was in the hall, says that the Fathers wrote "from the essence" when the Eusebians signed every scriptural phrase, and "one in essence" when they were caught winking over the rest.[^ath-decr19-20]
The letter of Athanasius to the Africans, as Theodoret reproduces it, tells the same sequence and adds that the bishops "saw through their evil design" and wrote the phrase themselves,[^theod-17-afros] and Eustathius of Antioch records that the Arian formulary was torn up before the assembly.[^eust-formulary] Socrates names the five who refused the word,[^soc8-five] and the Church's own memory has the emperor asking for a word he had heard in the bishops' speeches.[^syn-constantine-word] These witnesses come from the Nicene side, from Eusebius himself and from the historians, and they agree on who put the word forward.
If a council's formula survived only because an emperor imposed it, the imperial power that came next would have buried it. Athanasius says that the defenders of the heresy, having lost the argument, turned to external power, and as Socrates and Jerome tell the story, councils held under imperial patronage rewrote the creed again and again for decades.[^ath-hist66-soc-ii8-jerome] Socrates reports that Constantine himself, in the end, wished Arius received back into communion.[^soc33-jerusalem] A creed that had to be defended for decades against imperial favor cannot have been a product of it.
The objection also assumes that a doctrine is made true by the authority that first writes it into a confession. The council claimed to be recording something it had received, and Athanasius says it committed to writing "not your doctrines, but that which from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word have handed down to us." De Decretis 6.49[^ath-decr27] The worship of Christ as God was older than Constantine, as Ignatius and Irenaeus show.
The Historians' Caution About "Arianism"
It is often pointed out that "Arian" was a label given by opponents, that few fourth-century bishops called themselves Arians, and that the creed of 325 was contested for decades. If so, the objection runs, the story of an orthodox Church against a heretical party is a simplification made by the winners, and a good deal of this can be granted. Athanasius himself explains how the name arose: "those who went out with Arius, left the Saviour's Name to us who were with Alexander, and as to them they were hence-forward denominated Arians." Four Discourses Against the Arians — Discourse I 1.21[^ath-ar1-3] The Dedication bishops insisted that they were no followers of Arius, and Jerome records bishops who signed a weak formula at Ariminum and then asked why those who were not Arians should be condemned.[^jerome-lucif] Some who disliked the word homoousios were far from Arius, as Athanasius's own rule about treating them as brothers shows. The Church did not speak with one voice about the word for a long time.
What the picture cannot erase is the set of positions the creed condemned, because someone held them. Arius wrote that the Son has a beginning while God does not, and Eusebius of Nicomedia wrote to Arius, in the words Athanasius preserves, that "what has been made was not before its origination; but what came to be has a beginning of being." De Synodis 17.2[^eusnic-arius] It is the logic of Arius over again: whatever is made began. Asterius the Sophist, an apologist of that party, wrote that "the Son too, being a work, has at His will come to be and been made." De Synodis 19.5[^asterius] The anathemas at the end of the creed repeat theses that these men wrote in their own hands. The long conflict that followed was fought over how to say the opposite and over whether the new word was needed, and it left no doubt that the condemned propositions had been taught.
A Word Not in Scripture
Homoousios does not occur in Scripture, and Dionysius of Alexandria had admitted as much before Nicaea. A Protestant reader asks what right a council has to bind the conscience with vocabulary the Bible does not use. The confessions of the Reformation do not dispute the creed's content: the Lutheran churches teach in the Augsburg Confession that the Nicene decree about the unity of the divine essence and the three persons "is true and to be believed without any doubting,"[^augsburg1] and Calvin writes that the little word "distinguished between Christians of pure faith and the blasphemous Arians."[^calvin]
The sharper Reformed question is about authority, and the Westminster Confession states it: "All synods or councils, since the Apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both."[^wcf31]
The council did begin with Scripture, and the party of Arius was in no position to complain of unscriptural phrases. Athanasius says the bishops first tried the scriptural words and abandoned them only when the Eusebians showed that those words could be signed by a man who denied everything the bishops meant. He challenges the Arians to say from what Scriptures they learned "the phrases, 'out of nothing,' and 'He was not before His generation,' and 'once He was not,' and 'alterable.'" De Decretis 5.3[^ath-decr18-arian] The Arians, who complained of unscriptural words, are being asked for the Scripture behind their own. The test of a phrase, he says, is its sense: "even if the expressions are not in so many words in the Scriptures, yet... they contain the sense of the Scriptures, and expressing it, they convey it to those who have their hearing unimpaired for religious doctrine." De Decretis 5.32[^ath-decr21] Eusebius of Caesarea himself admitted that some eminent bishops and learned writers among the ancients had used the word.[^euseb-ancients]
A council does not bind merely because it is a council. The Orthodox reply to the Westminster Confession grants that councils can err, as the history shows: Athanasius, writing with the bishops of Egypt and Libya, notes that the party of Arius held ten or more synods that wrote one thing and then another, and he sets the Nicene synod against them in words that echo Peter's letter (1 Peter 1.25): "the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicæa, abides forever." Ad Afros Epistola Synodica 2.9[^ath-afros2-abides]
What marks a council that does not err is reception. At Jerusalem the apostles and elders said, "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us" (Acts 15.28), and a later Church heard Nicaea in the same way: Cyril of Alexandria, in a letter read at Ephesus, speaks of "the symbol of the faith set out some time ago by the Holy Ghost at the great and holy synod convened in Nice." Ephesus[^ephesus-cyril3] A Reformed reader will not accept reception as a rule of faith, and the disagreement is real. What the texts show is that the Church treated Nicaea as an authority because the bishops confessed the faith handed down and the whole Church took it up, and that the councils which tried to set Nicaea aside, Ariminum among them, are the ones Athanasius and his colleagues say the Church refused.[^ath-afros3]
A broader academic form of the doubt holds that Nicaea replaced a Hebrew faith with Greek metaphysics. The record points elsewhere. The images the bishops gathered were the Bible's own, the radiance and image of Hebrews and the Lord's word that he and the Father are one, and they turned to an unscriptural word only after the scriptural ones had been signed by men who denied what they meant. Rome's own catechism, in its passage on the Trinity, grants that the Church took terms of philosophical origin, substance and hypostasis among them, and in doing so "gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms."[^ccc251] The same words meant something new on the Church's lips, which is a different thing from philosophy governing the faith.
Development and the Same Faith
A Catholic reader will see in Nicaea the model case of legitimate development: the faith is the same, the language is new, and the Church that found the right word in 325 can find others. Rome does not claim a right to add whatever it likes. Vatican I's constitution on faith teaches that the meaning of the sacred dogmas is to be maintained as the Church has declared it, "in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding,"[^dei-filius4] and Vatican II adds that "there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down."[^dv8]
Newman builds the argument on Nicaea itself. It is a lesser difficulty, he says, that the papal supremacy was not formally acknowledged in the second century than that the Church made no formal acknowledgment of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity until the fourth, since "No doctrine is defined till it is violated."[^newman4] Vatican I grounds the authority to define in the promise to Peter's successors, who were given the Spirit "not so that they might by his revelation make known some new doctrine, but that by his assistance they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles."[^pa4] On that account Nicaea and the primacy are two cases of one process, and the Church has an organ able to say infallibly that the unfolding is faithful.
The Orthodox agree with the first half of that and reject the second. Nicaea's own claim was that the bishops said nothing but what earlier Fathers said, "not inventing phrases for themselves, but learning in their turn, as we said, from the Fathers who had been before them," Ad Afros Epistola Synodica 9.2[^ath-afros9] and the claim can be tested: the faith of the creed can be traced from Ignatius through Irenaeus and the two Dionysii to the council, text by text, and the whole Church received it. Newman's analogy asks that the primacy of jurisdiction be treated as latent in the early Church the way the Son's divinity was, and the evidence for that is what the next subsection examines. Nicaea's example shows that a faithful development is recognized by the agreement of the Church and the witness of earlier Fathers, and an unfolding that rests on an office needs proof of its own.
The Orthodox cite the canon of Ephesus that forbids anyone "to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different (ἑτέραν) Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa," The Canons 7.1[^ephesus-can7] That canon is the Orthodox answer to a rival creed. The Council of Florence replied that the explanation of the word Filioque "has been lawfully and reasonably added to the Creed."[^florence] The creed of 325 ends with a single line about the Spirit, so the complaint about the later clause is a complaint about the creed of 381 and about who may enlarge it, and it belongs to the discussion of The Filioque.
Canon 6 and Rome
On the Catholic account, "there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter's successor."[^ccc884] The Catholic Encyclopedia reports that Hosius presided at Nicaea together with the two Roman presbyters, and that Gelasius of Cyzicus is categorical that he presided in the pope's name.[^cath-enc-hosius]
Theodoret's account is plainer: the bishop of Rome, because of his advanced age, was absent, "but he sent two presbyters to the council, with authority to agree to what was done," Theodoret[^theod-rome] and Socrates lists them, Vito and Vicentius, after Hosius and before Alexander without a word about rank.[^soc13-list] Athanasius reports that the Eusebian party told Constantius that Hosius "is the president of Councils," History of the Arians — Part Vi. 0.8[^ath-hist42] a remark made to an emperor about a bishop's influence that does not say he sat for Rome. Eusebius, Socrates and Theodoret narrate the signatures, the council's letters and the emperor's confirmation of its decrees, and none of them reports a confirmation by the bishop of Rome.[^vc-iii23]
Catholic writers point to the cry of the bishops at Chalcedon over Leo's letter, "Peter has spoken thus through Leo," Chalcedon[^chal2-peter] and read it as the East's recognition of Rome as the last court in matters of faith. The same session shows how the bishops framed their test. Each was asked to declare whether the letter of Leo agreed with the exposition of the 318 fathers at Nicaea and the decrees of the 150, and the acclamation joins Leo to Cyril as teachers of one faith.[^chal2-test] Nicaea was the measure, and the letter was received because it passed it.
In Percival's translation the sixth canon reads: "Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also." The Canons 6.1[^can6] Catholic teaching does not rest the primacy on this canon. Hefele, the Catholic historian of the councils, writes that the council "has not in view here the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over the whole Church, but simply his power as a patriarch."[^hefele]
Vatican I grounds the primacy in the Gospel, teaching that "a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the Lord,"[^pa1] The ground it names is Christ's promise to Peter. Of the whole teaching it says only that it is found in "the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons," without naming a canon.[^pa3] The argument over canon 6 is therefore an argument over what the early Church understood about Rome, and the Latin tradition carries evidence worth weighing.
Rufinus, in his Latin Church History, renders the canon as keeping the old custom that Alexandria care for Egypt and Rome for the suburbicariarum ecclesiarum, the churches near the city, and the old Latin collection called the Prisca gives it as an ancient custom that the bishop of Rome should have a primacy so as to govern the suburban places and his own province.[^rufinus-prisca] At Chalcedon the papal legate Paschasinus read the canon with a first sentence, "The Roman Church has always had the primacy," Chalcedon[^chal16-paschasinus] a sentence that, as Schaff's edition records, stands in several Latin manuscripts as well.
The Greek text read at the same session by the secretary Constantine, from a book handed him by the archdeacon Aëtius, has no such sentence and gives Rome as a parallel: the bishop of Alexandria is to have jurisdiction "since this also is the custom at Rome." Chalcedon[^chal16-greek] Both forms stand in the acts without comment, and the record does not say which was the original.
The legate Lucentius, objecting to the proposed canon 28, is reported in two forms as well. In the Latin he says that "the decrees of the 318 have been put aside," and in the Greek the sense is that "the present decrees have been added to the decrees of the 318 and to those of the 150 after them, decrees not received into the synodical canons." Chalcedon[^chal16-lucentius] Either form treats Nicaea's canons as a standard both sides acknowledge, and what is in dispute is what the standard says.
The imperial judges then gave their own ruling, as a proposal on canon 28, and the council approved it over Lucentius's protest: "the primacy of all... and the chief honour... according to the canons, is to be kept for the most God-beloved archbishop of Old Rome, but that the most reverend archbishop of the royal city Constantinople, which is new Rome, is to enjoy the honour of the same primacy." Chalcedon[^chal16-judges] A Catholic reader will hear "primacy of all" as more than honor.
Leo of Rome, refusing canon 28 in his letter to Anatolius, rested his case on Nicaea: his legates, he says, protested against "any reprehensible innovation contrary to the enactments of the Council of Nicæa," Letters — Letter 106 1.20[^leo106] and he reads those enactments as fixing Alexandria's place as second and Antioch's as third. The canons as Percival gives them number no sees. Canon 6 speaks of Alexandria's customary jurisdiction and of the privileges of Antioch, and canon 7 of the honor of Jerusalem, so the order Leo reads is an inference from them.
The canon the council then enacted gives its reason, "the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city," The Canons 28.2[^chal-can28] The same ground appears in Constantinople I, whose third canon gives Constantinople "the prerogative of honour next after the bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is new Rome." Chalcedon[^const1-can3]
The stronger Catholic texts are not about canon 6 at all. Julius of Rome writes in the letter that Athanasius preserves that "the custom has been for word to be written first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place," Apologia Contra Arianos — Part I 2.183[^julius-apol35] and Socrates, reporting the same quarrel, says that an ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches make no ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome.[^soc-ii8-canon] The council of Sardica, on the proposal of Hosius, allowed a bishop deposed by his fellows to appeal to the bishop of Rome, "and he be willing to give him a hearing," and the Latin text of the canon is stronger, forbidding the appointment of a successor until the Roman bishop has judged.[^sardica5] These texts show what Rome claimed and what some bishops allowed in the 340s, which is a real piece of evidence about the fourth century and says nothing about the decree of 325.
The African bishops of 419 show how carefully such appeals were checked. When an appeal was made on behalf of the Roman see to decrees said to be Nicene, they answered that "never have we read in the Latin copies that there were any such decrees," asked the Eastern churches for authentic copies, and received from Atticus of Constantinople the Nicene canons in full; the canon in the Roman instructions, as the editor notes, belongs to Sardica, whose canons stand directly after Nicaea's in many Western collections.[^carthage-boniface]
The ancient sources therefore leave the Orthodox reading where it stood. Rome had first place of honor among the churches, the Fathers of Constantinople and Chalcedon said so and gave the reason, and whether that honor carries jurisdiction over other churches is a claim that Catholic teaching rests on the Gospel and that the early councils do not make. The doctrines of The Trinity, The Incarnation and Theosis meanwhile stand or fall with the claim the creed made in 325, that the one who became man is God of God, begotten and not made.
Sources
[^soc5]: Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.5. [^theod-summon]: Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.6. [^creed-percival]: First Council of Nicaea (325), Creed (Percival translation). [^augsburg]: Augsburg Confession (1530), Art. I. [^theod-martyrs]: Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.6. [^ath-decr20-essence]: Athanasius, De Decretis 20. [^soc8-five]: Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.8; Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.6. [^synodal-easter]: First Council of Nicaea, synodal letter to the church of Alexandria (Percival translation). [^trullo2]: Council in Trullo (692), canon 2. [^chalcedon-def]: Council of Chalcedon (451), Definition of the Faith. [^ath-inc54]: Athanasius, On the Incarnation of the Word 54. [^ath-syn51]: Athanasius, De Synodis 51. [^chalcedon-sess2]: Council of Chalcedon (451), Session 2. [^canon20]: First Council of Nicaea, canon 20 (Percival translation). [^basil-standing]: Basil of Caesarea, On the Holy Spirit 27.66. [^ath-decr31]: Athanasius, De Decretis 31. [^arius-theod-beginning]: Arius, letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, in Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.4. [^arius-syn16-creature]: Arius and his clergy, letter to Alexander, in Athanasius, De Synodis 16. [^thalia-syn15]: Arius, Thalia, as quoted in Athanasius, De Synodis 15. [^arius-syn16-body]: Arius and his clergy, letter to Alexander, in Athanasius, De Synodis 16. [^ath-decr24]: Athanasius, De Decretis 24. [^alex-enc-john]: Alexander of Alexandria, encyclical letter, in Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.6. [^alex-ep7]: Alexander of Alexandria, letter to Alexander of Constantinople 7. [^ath-ar1-17]: Athanasius, Orations against the Arians 1.17. [^alex-depos]: Alexander of Alexandria, deposition of Arius and encyclical letter 2–3. [^soc6-spark]: Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.6. [^soc6-theatres]: Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.6. [^soc6-eusebius]: Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.6. [^vc-ii64]: Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of Constantine 2.64–72 (Constantine's letter to Alexander and Arius). [^soc7]: Constantine, letter to Alexander and Arius, in Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.7. [^vc-iii6]: Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of Constantine 3.6; Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.6. [^soc8-convoke]: Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.8. [^ath-afros2]: Athanasius and the bishops of Egypt and Libya, Ad Afros 2. [^theod-i9]: Constantine, letter to the churches, in Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.9. [^vc-iii8]: Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of Constantine 3.8. [^eustathius-270]: Eustathius of Antioch, as quoted in Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.7. [^ath-decr3]: Athanasius, De Decretis 3; Constantine, letter to the church of Alexandria, in Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.9. [^const382-318]: Synod of Constantinople (382), letter to the Western bishops; Council of Chalcedon (451), Definition of the Faith; Council in Trullo (692), canon 2; Second Council of Constantinople (553), confession of faith; Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.6; Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.8; Athanasius and the bishops of Egypt and Libya, Ad Afros 2; Basil of Caesarea, Letters 51 and 114; Gregory the Theologian, Oration 21.14. [^gen14]: Genesis 14.14 (Brenton). [^barnabas9]: Epistle of Barnabas 9.8 (Lightfoot translation). [^clem-strom6]: Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 6.11; Ambrose of Milan, De Fide 1, prologue 5 and 1.18.121. [^hilary86]: Hilary of Poitiers, De Synodis 86. [^soc13-list]: Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.13. [^soc8-celebrity]: Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.8 and 1.11–12. [^theod-rome]: Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.6. [^soc8-athanasius]: Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.8. [^greg-or21-14]: Gregory the Theologian, Oration 21.14. [^theod-sided]: Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.6; Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.8. [^soc13-date]: Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.13. [^vc-iii10]: Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of Constantine 3.10; Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.6. [^theod-eustathius]: Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.6; Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of Constantine 3.11. [^vc-iii13]: Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of Constantine 3.13. [^syn-eustathius]: Synaxarion for 21 February (St. Eustathius of Antioch). [^syn-fathers-presided]: Synaxarion for the Sunday of the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council. [^syn-hosius]: Synaxarion for 27 August (St. Hosius the Confessor). [^theod-address]: Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.6. [^theod-torn]: Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.6. [^eust-formulary]: Eustathius of Antioch, as quoted in Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.7. [^ath-decr3-dumb]: Athanasius, De Decretis 3. [^ign-eph18]: Ignatius of Antioch, To the Ephesians 18.2 (Lightfoot translation). [^iren-demo47]: Irenaeus of Lyons, Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching 47. [^jerome-ruf]: Jerome, Apology against Rufinus, book 2. [^orig-decr27]: Origen, as quoted in Athanasius, De Decretis 27; Origen, Against Celsus 8.12 (Crombie translation). [^ath-dion5]: Athanasius, De Sententia Dionysii 5; OrthodoxWiki, "Dionysius of Rome." [^dion-decr25]: Dionysius of Alexandria, as quoted in Athanasius, De Decretis 25. [^ath-sent-sum]: Athanasius, De Sententia Dionysii 18. [^dion-rome]: Dionysius of Rome, as quoted in Athanasius, De Decretis 26. [^basil52]: Basil of Caesarea, Letter 52. [^ath-syn45]: Athanasius, De Synodis 43–45. [^alex-theod-lucian]: Alexander of Alexandria, letter to Alexander of Constantinople, in Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.3; Arius, letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, in Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.4; Jerome, De Viris Illustribus 77. [^euseb-socr-emperor]: Eusebius of Caesarea, letter to his church, in Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.8. [^euseb-newman5]: Eusebius of Caesarea, letter to his diocese 4–5 (Newman translation). [^syn-constantine-word]: Synaxarion for the Sunday of the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council. [^creed-percival-full]: First Council of Nicaea (325), Creed (Percival translation). [^euseb-socr-additions]: Eusebius of Caesarea, letter to his church, in Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.8. [^eusnic-begotten]: Eusebius of Nicomedia, letter to Paulinus of Tyre, in Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.5. [^eusnic-substance]: Eusebius of Nicomedia, letter to Paulinus of Tyre, in Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.5. [^euseb-socr-ousias]: Eusebius of Caesarea, letter to his church, in Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.8. [^tomus6]: Athanasius, Tomus ad Antiochenos 5–6; OrthodoxWiki, "Timeline of Church History (Nicene Era)." [^cappadocians]: OrthodoxWiki, "Cappadocians." [^basil258]: Basil of Caesarea, Letter 258. [^ath-afros11]: Athanasius and the bishops of Egypt and Libya, Ad Afros 11. [^theod-exception]: Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.6. [^synodal-unanimous]: First Council of Nicaea, synodal letter to the church of Alexandria (Percival translation). [^soc14-retract]: Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis, letter of retraction, in Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.14. [^soc8-edict]: Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.8. [^ath-decr19-scripture]: Athanasius, De Decretis 19. [^ath-decr19]: Athanasius, De Decretis 19. [^ath-decr20-whisper]: Athanasius, De Decretis 20. [^ath-afros6]: Athanasius and the bishops of Egypt and Libya, Ad Afros 6. [^ath-afros6b]: Athanasius and the bishops of Egypt and Libya, Ad Afros 6. [^ath-decr24-light]: Athanasius, De Decretis 24. [^basil226]: Basil of Caesarea, Letter 226. [^basil9]: Basil of Caesarea, Letter 9. [^ath-syn41]: Athanasius, De Synodis 41. [^vc-iii5]: Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of Constantine 3.5. [^vc-iii18-decision]: Constantine, letter to the churches, in Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of Constantine 3.18. [^theod-synodal-easter]: First Council of Nicaea, synodal letter, in Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.8. [^vc-iii18-twice]: Constantine, letter to the churches, in Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of Constantine 3.18. [^theod-meletius]: Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.8. [^soc6-melitius]: Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.6. [^synodal-meletius]: First Council of Nicaea, synodal letter to the church of Alexandria (Percival translation). [^soc9-melitian]: Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.9. [^trullo90]: Council in Trullo (692), canon 90. [^const382-can4]: Synod of Constantinople (382), letter to the Western bishops. [^can11]: First Council of Nicaea, canons 11, 12, 14 (Percival translation). [^can13]: First Council of Nicaea, canon 13 (Percival translation). [^basil55]: Basil of Caesarea, Letter 55. [^can17]: First Council of Nicaea, canons 1–3, 15–17 (Percival translation); Psalm 14.5 (Brenton). [^soc11-paphnutius]: Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.11. [^can5]: First Council of Nicaea, canons 4, 5, 7 (Percival translation). [^can8]: First Council of Nicaea, canon 8 (Percival translation). [^trullo95]: First Council of Nicaea, canon 19; Council in Trullo (692), canon 95. [^can18]: First Council of Nicaea, canon 18 (Percival translation). [^augsburg24]: Augsburg Confession (1530), Art. XXIV. [^troparion-fathers]: Troparion (Tone 8) for the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council. [^kontakion]: Kontakion (Tone 8) for the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council. [^soc12-spyridon]: Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.12. [^syn-spyridon]: Synaxarion for 12 December (St. Spyridon of Tremithus). [^wiki-nicholas]: OrthodoxWiki, "Nicholas of Myra." [^syn-nicholas]: Synaxarion for 6 December (St. Nicholas of Myra). [^soc9-edict]: Constantine, edict against Arius, in Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.9. [^theod-nicomedians]: Constantine, letter to the Nicomedians, in Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.19; Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.14. [^soc26-creed]: Arius and Euzoius, confession of faith to Constantine, in Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.26. [^soc33-jerusalem]: Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.33. [^soc24-eustathius]: Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.24. [^soc35-athanasius]: Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.35. [^soc38-death]: Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.38. [^ath-serapion]: Athanasius, letter to Apion, in Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.13. [^vc-iv62]: Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of Constantine 4.62. [^soc39-baptism]: Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.39. [^ath-hist66]: Athanasius, History of the Arians 66. [^antioch341-letter]: Council of Antioch (341), letter, in Athanasius, De Synodis 22. [^antioch341-creed]: Council of Antioch (341), creed, in Athanasius, De Synodis 23. [^soc-ii8]: Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 2.8. [^tomus5]: Athanasius, Tomus ad Antiochenos 5. [^jerome-lucif]: Jerome, Dialogue against the Luciferians 17–19. [^hilary91]: Hilary of Poitiers, De Synodis 91. [^ath-epaeg]: Athanasius, Letter to the Bishops of Egypt and Libya. [^greg-or29-3]: Gregory the Theologian, Oration 29.3. [^chalcedon-def2]: Council of Chalcedon (451), Definition of the Faith; Session 2. [^ephesus-can7]: Council of Ephesus (431), canon 7. [^festal39]: Athanasius, Festal Letter 39. [^theod-i15]: Constantine, letter to Eusebius of Caesarea, in Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.15. [^quran4171]: Qur'an 4:171 (Saheeh International translation). [^greg-or29-19]: Gregory the Theologian, Oration 29.19. [^greg-or29-15]: Gregory the Theologian, Oration 29.15. [^ath-ar3-46]: Athanasius, Orations against the Arians 3.46. [^ath-ar2-1]: Athanasius, Orations against the Arians 2.1. [^ath-ar2-20]: Athanasius, Orations against the Arians 2.20. [^ath-ar2-9]: Athanasius, Orations against the Arians 2.7–9. [^ath-ar1-41]: Athanasius, Orations against the Arians 1.40–41. [^ath-ar2-13]: Athanasius, Orations against the Arians 2.13. [^dionrome-triad]: Dionysius of Rome, as quoted in Athanasius, De Decretis 26. [^vc-iii18-jews]: Constantine, letter to the churches, in Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of Constantine 3.18. [^theod-i9-jews]: Constantine, letter to the churches, in Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.9. [^ath-decr19-20]: Athanasius, De Decretis 19–20. [^theod-17-afros]: Athanasius, letter to the Africans, in Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.7. [^ath-hist66-soc-ii8-jerome]: Athanasius, History of the Arians 66; Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 2.8; Jerome, Dialogue against the Luciferians 17–19. [^ath-decr27]: Athanasius, De Decretis 27. [^ath-ar1-3]: Athanasius, Orations against the Arians 1.3. [^eusnic-arius]: Eusebius of Nicomedia, letter to Arius, in Athanasius, De Synodis 17. [^asterius]: Asterius, as quoted in Athanasius, De Synodis 19. [^augsburg1]: Augsburg Confession (1530), Art. I. [^calvin]: John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 1.13.5. [^wcf31]: Westminster Confession of Faith 31.3. [^ath-decr18-arian]: Athanasius, De Decretis 18. [^ath-decr21]: Athanasius, De Decretis 21. [^euseb-ancients]: Eusebius of Caesarea, letter to his church, in Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.8. [^ath-afros2-abides]: Athanasius and the bishops of Egypt and Libya, Ad Afros 2. [^ephesus-cyril3]: Cyril of Alexandria, Third Letter to Nestorius, in the Council of Ephesus (431), Session 1. [^ath-afros3]: Athanasius and the bishops of Egypt and Libya, Ad Afros 3. [^ccc251]: Catechism of the Catholic Church §251. [^dei-filius4]: Vatican Council I, Dei Filius, ch. 4. [^dv8]: Vatican Council II, Dei Verbum §8. [^newman4]: John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, ch. 4. [^pa4]: Vatican Council I, Pastor Aeternus, ch. 4. [^ath-afros9]: Athanasius and the bishops of Egypt and Libya, Ad Afros 9. [^florence]: Council of Florence, Laetentur caeli (1439), Denzinger 691. [^ccc884]: Catechism of the Catholic Church §884. [^cath-enc-hosius]: Catholic Encyclopedia, "Hosius of Cordova." [^ath-hist42]: Athanasius, History of the Arians 42. [^vc-iii23]: Eusebius of Caesarea, Life of Constantine 3.23; Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 1.8 and 1.13; Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History 1.9. [^can6]: First Council of Nicaea, canon 6 (Percival translation). [^hefele]: Karl Joseph von Hefele, History of the Councils of the Church, vol. 1, p. 397, as quoted in Schaff and Wace, eds, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ser. 2, vol. 14, excursus on canon 6. [^pa1]: Vatican Council I, Pastor Aeternus, ch. 1. [^rufinus-prisca]: Rufinus, Ecclesiastical History 10.6; the Prisca version of the canon; both as given in Schaff and Wace, eds, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ser. 2, vol. 14, excursus on canon 6. [^chal16-paschasinus]: Council of Chalcedon (451), Session 16 (Percival translation). [^chal16-greek]: Council of Chalcedon (451), Session 16 (Percival translation). [^chal16-lucentius]: Council of Chalcedon (451), Session 16 (Percival translation). [^chal16-judges]: Council of Chalcedon (451), Session 16 (Percival translation). [^chal-can28]: Council of Chalcedon (451), canon 28 (Percival translation). [^const1-can3]: Council of Constantinople (381), canon 3, as read at Chalcedon, Session 16. [^julius-apol35]: Julius of Rome, letter to the Eusebians, in Athanasius, Apologia contra Arianos 35. [^soc-ii8-canon]: Socrates Scholasticus, Ecclesiastical History 2.8. [^sardica5]: Council of Sardica (344), canon 5 (Greek), and canon 3 (Latin). [^carthage-boniface]: Council of Carthage (419), letter to Boniface of Rome; Atticus of Constantinople, letter to the African council; Percival, introduction to the Council of Sardica. [^pa3]: Vatican Council I, Pastor Aeternus, ch. 3. [^chal2-peter]: Council of Chalcedon (451), Session 2 (Percival translation). [^chal2-test]: Council of Chalcedon (451), Session 2 (Percival translation). [^leo106]: Leo the Great, Letter 106 (to Anatolius).