Ecumenical council I

The First Council of Nicaea

The First Ecumenical Council, held at Nicaea in Bithynia

The council that confessed the Son to be of one substance with the Father, addressed the date of Pascha, and issued twenty disciplinary canons. It did not decide which books belong to the Bible.

Read aloud. Your browser speaks the page using the voices installed on this device. Nothing is uploaded — the text never leaves your computer. Voice quality varies by browser and device.

Date
325
Location
Nicaea in Bithynia, in north-western Asia Minor
Convoked by
The Emperor Constantine
Attendance
Traditionally the 318 Fathers

Overview

In 325 the bishops of the Roman world met at Nicaea, a town near the imperial residence at Nicomedia, at the summons of the Emperor Constantine. It was the first time bishops from across the empire could gather in one place: the persecutions had ended little more than a decade earlier. What they confessed there about the Son of God has been recited by Christians ever since.

The council issued three kinds of thing, and it matters that they are kept apart. It set out a creed. It sent a synodal letter to the Church of Alexandria reporting what it had done. And it issued twenty canons — disciplinary rulings on the ordering of the Church's life. These are not the same kind of document, they do not carry the same weight, and they are not received in the same way.

It also matters that the Creed recited in Orthodox churches today is not, word for word, the text Nicaea issued. The received Creed is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, associated with the Council of Constantinople in 381. The 325 text is shorter, ends with anathemas against specific Arian formulas, and says much less about the Holy Spirit.

The controversy

The immediate occasion was a dispute in Alexandria. Arius, a presbyter of that city, taught that the Son was brought into being by the Father — the first and greatest of creatures, through whom everything else was made, but a creature nonetheless. On this view there was, as the slogan had it, a state in which the Son was not. Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, condemned him; the argument spread.

The question underneath was not academic. If the Son is a creature, then what Christians do in worship — praying to Christ, being baptised into his name, receiving him in the eucharist — is either idolatry or something less than communion with God. If the Son is truly God, then in Christ God himself has entered human life, and salvation means being joined to God rather than to God's highest creature.

The council answered by confessing the Son homoousios with the Father: of one substance, not of a like substance and not of another. The word was not uncontroversial. It had a difficult history — it had been used by people the Church had condemned — and it is not a biblical word, which troubled many bishops who were not Arians. Its general acceptance took most of the fourth century and a good deal of argument, exile and reversal.

The positions in play

Arius and those who supported him
Held the Son to be a creature, however exalted, brought into being before all ages by the Father's will. Their concern was to protect the unbegotten uniqueness of God.
Alexander of Alexandria and his deacon Athanasius
Held that the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, of the Father's own being, and therefore fully God. Athanasius spent much of the rest of his life defending this.
The larger middle
Bishops who rejected Arius's formulas but were uneasy about homoousios, either because it was not scriptural or because they feared it collapsed Father and Son into one. Some later preferred homoiousios. Reducing the fourth century to Arians against the orthodox misses how much of the argument happened in this group.

What the council issued

The Creed of 325 confesses one God the Father, and one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten and not made, of one substance with the Father. It then attaches anathemas to specific Arian formulas — that there was a time when he was not, that he was made out of nothing, that he is of another substance.

The article on the Holy Spirit is a single clause: 'And in the Holy Ghost.' The fuller confession of the Spirit came later, at Constantinople in 381, after the Spirit's divinity had itself become the disputed question.

The Creed of Nicaea, 325

As printed in Percival's edition. Note the closing anathemas, which are part of the conciliar text and are not carried into the Creed used in worship today.

Conciliar text, as printed in the edition cited

The Nicene Creed.

(Found in the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, in the Epistle of Eusebius of Cæsarea to his own Church, in the Epistle of St. Athanasius Ad Jovianum Imp., in the Ecclesiastical Histories of Theodoret and Socrates, and elsewhere, The variations in the text are absolutely without importance.)

The Synod at Nice set forth this Creed.49

The Ecthesis of the Synod at Nice.50

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 conversion51—all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

Henry R. Percival (ed.), The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XIV (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1900). Public domain.

The council on the keeping of Pascha

The council's own account of the disagreement over the date of pascha and its resolution, in a letter reported by the emperor. It fixes a principle rather than a calculation.

Conciliar text, as printed in the edition cited

On the Keeping of Easter.

From the Letter of the Emperor to all those not present at the Council.

(Found in Eusebius, Vita Const., Lib. iii., 18–20.)

When the question relative to the sacred festival of Easter arose, it was universally thought that it would be convenient that all should keep the feast on one day; for what could be more beautiful and more desirable, than to see this festival, through which we receive the hope of immortality, celebrated by all with one accord, and in the same manner? It was declared to be particularly unworthy for this, the holiest of all festivals, to follow the custom [the calculation] of the Jews, who had soiled their hands with the most fearful of crimes, and whose minds were blinded. In rejecting their custom,113 we may transmit to our descendants the legitimate mode of celebrating Easter, which we have observed from the time of the Saviour’s Passion to the present day [according to the day of the week]. We ought not, therefore, to have anything in common with the Jews, for the Saviour has shown us another way; our worship follows a more legitimate and more convenient course (the order of the days of the week); and consequently, in unanimously adopting this mode, we desire, dearest brethren, to separate ourselves from the detestable company of the Jews, for it is truly shameful for us to hear them boast that without their direction we could not keep this feast. How can they be in the right, they who, after the death of the Saviour, have no longer been led by reason but by wild violence, as their delusion may urge them? They do not possess the truth in this Easter question; for, in their blindness and repugnance to all improvements, they frequently celebrate two passovers in the same year. We could not imitate those who are openly in error. How, then, could we follow these Jews, who are most certainly blinded by error? for to celebrate the passover twice in one year is totally inadmissible. But even if this were not so, it would still be your duty not to tarnish your soul by communications with such wicked people [the Jews]. Besides, consider well, that in such an important matter, and on a subject of such great solemnity, there ought not to be any division. Our Saviour has left us only one festal day of our redemption, that is to say, of his holy passion, and he desired [to establish] only one Catholic Church. Think, then, how unseemly it is, that on the same day some should be fasting whilst others are seated at a banquet; and that after Easter, some should be rejoicing at feasts, whilst others are still observing a strict fast. For this reason, a Divine Providence wills that this custom should be rectified and regulated in a uniform way; and everyone, I hope, will agree upon this point. As, on the one hand, it is our duty not to have anything in common with the murderers of our Lord; and as, on the 113 We must read ἕθους, not ἔθνους, as the Mayence impression of the edition of Valerius has it. On the Keeping of Easter.

other, the custom now followed by the Churches of the West, of the South, and of the North, and by some of those of the East, is the most acceptable, it has appeared good to all; and I have been guarantee for your consent, that you would accept it with joy, as it is followed at Rome, in Africa, in all Italy, Egypt, Spain, Gaul, Britain, Libya, in all Achaia, and in the dioceses of Asia, of Pontus, and Cilicia. You should consider not only that the number of churches in these provinces make a majority, but also that it is right to demand what our reason approves, and that we should have nothing in common with the Jews. To sum up in few words: By the unanimous judgment of all, it has been decided that the most holy festival of Easter should be everywhere celebrated on one and the same day, and it is not seemly that in so holy a thing there should be any division. As this is the state of the case, accept joyfully the divine favour, and this truly divine command; for all which takes place in assemblies of the bishops ought to be regarded as proceeding from the will of God. Make known to your brethren what has been decreed, keep this most holy day according to the prescribed mode; we can thus celebrate this holy Easter day at the same time, if it is granted me, as I desire, to unite myself with you; we can rejoice together, seeing that the divine power has made use of our instrumentality for destroying the evil designs of the devil, and thus causing faith, peace, and unity to flourish amongst us. May God graciously protect you, my beloved brethren.

Henry R. Percival (ed.), The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XIV (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1900). Public domain.

The synodal letter to the Church of Alexandria

The council's report of its own business: the condemnation of Arius, the settlement of the Melitian schism in Egypt, and the Paschal question. It is a useful check on later summaries of what the council did — including this one.

Conciliar text, as printed in the edition cited

The Synodal Letter.

(Found in Gelasius, Historia Concilii Nicæni, lib. II, cap. xxxiii.; Socr., H. E., lib. I., cap. 6; Theodor., H. E., Lib. I., cap. 9.)

To the Church of Alexandria, by the grace of God, holy and great; and to our well-beloved brethren, the orthodox clergy and laity throughout Egypt, and Pentapolis, and Lybia, and every nation under heaven, the holy and great synod, the bishops assembled at Nicea, wish health in the Lord.

Forasmuch as the great and holy Synod, which was assembled at Niece through the grace of Christ and our most religious Sovereign Constantine, who brought us together from our several provinces and cities, has considered matters which concern the faith of the Church, it seemed to us to be necessary that certain things should be communicated from us to you in writing, so that you might have the means of knowing what has been mooted and investigated, and also what has been decreed and confirmed.

First of all, then, in the presence of our most religious Sovereign Constantine, investigation was made of matters concerning the impiety and transgression of Arius and his adherents; and it was unanimously decreed that he and his impious opinion should be anathematized, together with the blasphemous words and speculations in which he indulged, blaspheming the Son of God, and saying that he is from things that are not, and that before he was begotten he was not, and that there was a time when he was not, and that the Son of God is by his free will capable of vice and virtue; saying also that he is a creature. All these things the holy Synod has anathematized, not even enduring to hear his impious doctrine and madness and blasphemous words. And of the charges against him and of the results they had, ye have either already heard or will hear the particulars, lest we should seem to be oppressing a man who has in fact received a fitting recompense for his own sin. So far indeed has his impiety prevailed, that he has even destroyed Theonas of Marmorica and Secundes of Ptolemais; for they also have received the same sentence as the rest.

But when the grace of God had delivered Egypt from that heresy and blasphemy, and from the persons who have dared to make disturbance and division among a people heretofore at peace, there remained the matter of the insolence of Meletius and those who have been ordained by him; and concerning this part of our work we now, beloved brethren, proceed to inform you of the decrees of the Synod. The Synod, then, being disposed to deal gently with Meletius (for in strict justice he deserved no leniency), decreed that he should remain in his own city, but have no authority either to ordain, or to administer affairs, or to make appointments; and that he should not appear in the country or in any other city for this purpose, but should enjoy the bare title of his rank; but that those who have been placed by him, after they have been confirmed by a more sacred laying on of hands, shall on these conditions be admitted to communion: that they shall both have their rank and the right to officiate, but that they shall be altogether the inferiors of all those who are enrolled The Synodal Letter.

in any church or parish, and have been appointed by our most honourable colleague Alexander. So that these men are to have no authority to make appointments of persons who may be pleasing to them, nor to suggest names, nor to do anything whatever, without the consent of the bishops of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, who are serving under our most holy colleague Alexander; while those who, by the grace of God and through your prayers, have been found in no schism, but on the contrary are without spot in the Catholic and Apostolic Church, are to have authority to make appointments and nominations of worthy persons among the clergy, and in short to do all things according to the law and ordinance of the Church. But, if it happen that any of the clergy who are now in the Church should die, then those who have been lately received are to succeed to the office of the deceased; always provided that they shall appear to be worthy, and that the people elect them, and that the bishop of Alexandria shall concur in the election and ratify it. This concession has been made to all the rest; but, on account of his disorderly conduct from the first, and the rashness and precipitation of his character, the same decree was not made concerning Meletius himself, but that, inasmuch as he is a man capable of committing again the same disorders, no authority nor privilege should be conceded to him.

These are the particulars, which are of special interest to Egypt and to the most holy Church of Alexandria; but if in the presence of our most honoured lord, our colleague and brother Alexander, anything else has been enacted by canon or other decree, he will himself convey it to you in greater detail, he having been both a guide and fellow-worker in what has been done.

We further proclaim to you the good news of the agreement concerning the holy Easter, that this particular also has through your prayers been rightly settled; so that 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.

Wherefore, rejoicing in these wholesome results, and in our common peace and harmony, and in the cutting off of every heresy, receive ye with the greater honour and with increased love, our colleague your Bishop Alexander, who has gladdened us by his presence, and who at so great an age has undergone so great fatigue that peace might be established among you and all of us. Pray ye also for us all, that the things which have been deemed advisable may stand fast; for they have been done, as we believe, to the well-pleasing of Almighty God and of his only Begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost, to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

Henry R. Percival (ed.), The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XIV (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1900). Public domain.

Canons

The council issued 20 canons in this edition. All twenty are archived here in full, and each has its own study page setting the fourth-century problem it addresses alongside a clearly labelled modern summary.

Read the canons

Who was there

The bishops came overwhelmingly from the Greek-speaking East. The bishop of Rome did not attend and was represented by two presbyters. Among those present were Alexander of Alexandria with the young deacon Athanasius; Eusebius of Caesarea, the historian, who submitted the creed of his own church at one point in the proceedings; Eusebius of Nicomedia, who supported Arius; and a considerable number of bishops who had been imprisoned or maimed in the persecutions and whose presence made its own argument.

Constantine convoked the council, provided for the travel of the bishops, and took an active part in its proceedings. He was not baptised at the time and was not a bishop. Presenting him as the author of the council's doctrine goes well beyond the evidence; presenting the council as though imperial power played no part in it goes beyond the evidence in the other direction.

Reception

Nicaea's authority was not settled by the fact that it met. The decades after 325 saw repeated councils, competing creeds, imperial pressure in several directions, and the exile of Athanasius five times. What established Nicaea was that the Church, over time, recognised its confession as its own faith — which is what Orthodox theology means when it says that reception makes a council ecumenical.

The Nicene faith was reaffirmed and expanded at Constantinople in 381, and the resulting Creed became the Church's baptismal and eucharistic confession. Subsequent councils treat Nicaea as the standard against which their own work is measured: Chalcedon opens its definition by appealing to it, and Canon I of Chalcedon confirms the canons of the earlier Fathers.

Nicaea is received as the first ecumenical council by the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox churches, the Assyrian Church of the East, the Roman Catholic Church and the great majority of Protestant bodies. It is one of the few points at which that list can be written without qualification.

Reception outside the Eastern Orthodox Church

Oriental Orthodox churches
Receive Nicaea fully as the first ecumenical council. Their separation from the Eastern Orthodox concerns Chalcedon, not Nicaea.
Assyrian Church of the East
Receives Nicaea. Its separation concerns Ephesus and what followed.
Roman Catholic Church
Receives Nicaea as the first ecumenical council. Canon VI, which speaks of the customary jurisdiction of Alexandria and mentions Rome, has been read very differently in East and West; the disagreement is old and is discussed on the canon's own page.

Consequences

In the short term the council did not end the controversy; it defined it. The half-century that followed was one of the most turbulent in the Church's history, and the Nicene position was for periods in the minority among bishops.

In the long term Nicaea gave the Church a vocabulary for saying what it had always done in worship, and a working model of how a disputed question could be settled: bishops gathered, evidence weighed, a confession formulated, and the whole Church left to receive or reject it.

The twenty canons had a long afterlife of their own. They were copied into the canonical collections, commented on by the Byzantine canonists, and repeatedly confirmed by later councils. Several of them still describe the ordinary structure of Orthodox Church order — provincial synods, the metropolitan's role in episcopal ordination, the refusal to let clergy drift between cities.

Liturgical commemoration

The Orthodox Church commemorates the Fathers of the First Council on the Sunday after the Ascension, and the Fathers of the first six councils are commemorated together in July. The hymnography of these days treats the council as a work of the Holy Spirit in the Church rather than as an administrative event.

  • Athanasius of Alexandria

    Bishop of Alexandria, exiled five times, whose defence of the Nicene confession held the line for half a century, and whose thirty-ninth festal letter contains the earliest surviving list of the twenty-seven New Testament books.

    Father or writer

  • Eusebius of Caesarea

    The first Church historian, without whom the pre-Nicene Church would be largely unknown to us — and an interested party in the fourth-century disputes he narrates. He is not a canonised Father.

    Father or writer

  • The First Council of Constantinople

    The council that confessed the divinity of the Holy Spirit and gave the Church the Creed it recites today. It was not ecumenical when it met; the Church made it so by receiving it.

    Council

  • The Holy Trinity

    One God in three persons: how the Church came to say it, and why the words were fought over.

    Theme

  • The Creed and the Holy Trinity

    What the Church confesses about God, where the words came from, and why they were fought over.

    Lesson

  • Nicaea did not choose the books of the Bible

    A direct answer to the most persistent myth about the councils, with the council's own documents open.

    Lesson

Your notes

Stored in this browser only. Never uploaded, never visible to anyone else, and marked as your own words if you add this page to a study packet.

Sources for this page

  1. Tier C The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church Henry R. Percival (ed.); Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (series eds.) The Nicene Creed annotated edition of conciliar texts The 325 text with its closing anathemas, as archived here. Source record (opens in a new tab)
  2. Tier C The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church Henry R. Percival (ed.); Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (series eds.) The Canons of the 318 Holy Fathers Assembled in the City of Nice, in Bithynia, Canons I-XX annotated edition of conciliar texts All twenty canons, archived in full. Source record (opens in a new tab)
  3. Tier C The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church Henry R. Percival (ed.); Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (series eds.) The Synodal Letter annotated edition of conciliar texts The council's own report of its business. Source record (opens in a new tab)
  4. Tier C The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church Henry R. Percival (ed.); Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (series eds.) On the Keeping of Easter annotated edition of conciliar texts The Paschal question. Source record (opens in a new tab)
  5. Tier C The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church Henry R. Percival (ed.); Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (series eds.) Excursus on the Number of the Nicene Canons annotated edition of conciliar texts Percival's discussion of ancient claims that the council issued more than twenty canons, and why the twenty are the received number. Source record (opens in a new tab)
  6. Tier C Socrates and Sozomenus: Ecclesiastical Histories Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (eds.) Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, Book I translated edition of primary texts A fifth-century narrative of the council and its aftermath. Source record (opens in a new tab)
  7. Tier C Theodoret, Jerome, Gennadius, Rufinus: Historical Writings Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (eds.) Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, Book I translated edition of primary texts A second fifth-century narrative, preserving documents Socrates does not. Source record (opens in a new tab)

Tiers are explained in the methodology. No page on this site has been reviewed or approved by any bishop, priest, synod or seminary.