Chapter 4: The Council of Nicaea
4
The Council of Nicaea
As Emperor Constantine consolidated his rule in the West, the “Arian controversy” in Alexandria and in the East seemed to have been either halted or stalled by Licinius’s decree against allowing the Christian bishops to meet in councils.138 When Constantine emerged as sole emperor in the East, in 324, controversy erupted again. The new “Christian emperor” soon interjected himself into the theological tumult because he intended Christianity to be the unifying force for his far-flung empire. Imagine his surprise and irritation when he found out that the Christians could not be depended upon for supplying social and ecclesiastical unity!
The first step in this imperial intervention came in the form of a lengthy letter to Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, and Arius, urging both of them to peace and harmony. Constantine seemed to have his own opinion about how the controversy arose: “When you, Alexander, inquired of your presbyters what each thought on a certain inexplicable passage of the written Word, rather on a subject improper for discussion; and you, Arius, rashly gave expression to a view of the matter such as ought either never to have been conceived, or when suggested to your mind, it became you to bury it in silence.”139 He blamed both parties for speculating about a difficult passage of Scripture, probably Proverbs 8:22, about which they both should have kept silent. The emperor urged them to listen conscientiously to each other and to avoid “useless talk” so that harmony and communion among them might be restored. For “who can grapple with the subtleties of such investigations without danger of lapsing into error?”140 Constantine wrote not so much as an emperor giving commands, but as “a fellow-servant” offering Christian exhortation; yet the shadow of imperial power hung over his request. In view of the division and disharmony being caused, the theological matters about which they were contending were, Constantine wrote, “of small or scarcely the least importance.” Since both parties strive to worship the same God and Christ, should they not stress those things that lead to harmony? Because they are both charged with the leadership of the people of God, their divisive contention with one another “not only is unbecoming, but it is also believed to be altogether unlawful.”141 Without broaching the theological issue that divided the Alexandrians, Constantine urged them, “The great God and Savior of us all has extended to all the common light. Under his providence, allow me, his servant, to bring this effort of mine to a successful issue; that by my exhortation, ministry, and earnest admonition, I may lead you, his people, back to unity of communion. For since, as I have said, there is but one faith among you, and one sentiment respecting religion, and since the precept of the law, in all its parts, combines all in one purpose of soul, let not this diversity of opinion, which has excited dissension among you, by any means cause discord and schism . . .”142
The letter to the Alexandrians was hand-delivered by one of Constantine’s leading religious advisors, Hosius, bishop of Cordova. Socrates told his readers, “The Emperor greatly loved this man and held him in the highest estimation.”143 As it turns out, Hosius was a good choice, from the standpoint of Alexander and Athanasius, because he clearly understood the theological ramifications of the controversy, in a way that Constantine could not—or did not care to. Upon his arrival in Alexandria, Hosius called a church council, which debated the issues causing dispute. A circular letter was drafted by the council that stressed the importance of the theological matters under consideration and indicated that a reconciliation had not been achieved. The gravity of the questions under debate was readily apparent to the bishop from Cordova, and Hosius soon became a champion of what would become the Nicene solution. He also became an important ally of Alexander and Athanasius against Arius at the Council of Nicaea. After the local synod, Hosius left Alexandria and began his return trip to the seat of the emperor at Nicomedia.
On his way east, Hosius stopped in Antioch of Syria, where the church was in chaos following the death of their bishop. Soon after Hosius arrived, a new bishop was elected. Hosius presided over a council of fifty bishops that met to adjudicate several doctrinal and ecclesiastical matters that were troubling that church, among which seemed to have been the Arian question. A creed was drawn up by the Synod of Antioch, in early 325, that affirmed that the Son was “not as made but as properly an offspring, but begotten in an ineffable, indescribable manner, because only the Father Who begot and the Son Who was begotten know . . . Who exists everlastingly and did not at one time not exist. For we have learned from the Holy Scriptures that He alone is the express image [Gk. Eikon], not (plainly) as if He might have remained unbegotten from the Father, nor by adoption . . . ; but the Scriptures describe Him as validly and truly begotten as Son, so that we believe Him to be immutable and unchangeable.”144 This creed strongly reflects the position of Alexander and Athanasius over and against the views of Arius. And in case even the casual reader did not “get” the anti-Arian slant of the Creed of Antioch, its anathemas (condemnations) made its posture completely clear: “we anathematize those who say or think or preach that the Son of God is a creature or has come into being or has been made and is not truly begotten, or that there was a time when He was not.”145 Philostorgius, the Arian church historian, complained that Hosius and Alexander met prior to the Council of Nicaea and plotted to develop an anti-Arian creed that would include the phrase homoousia (“consubstantial”), and that in collusion they agreed to anathematize Arius.146 This meeting, which Philostorgius located in Nicomedia, could have taken place either in Alexandria or at the Council of Antioch.147
Constantine continued to be “deeply grieved at the diversity of opinion that prevailed” in the church, both concerning the date of Passover (and hence Easter celebrations) and subsequently—upon hearing the report of Hosius—about the divisions over doctrine.148 Hence the emperor, either at the urging of the bishop of Cordova or the prompting of Alexander of Alexandria, decided to call an ecumenical church council.149 Socrates reported this event as follows: “When it was found that the event did not answer the expectations of the emperor, but that on the contrary, the contention was too great for reconciliation, so that he who had been sent to make peace returned without having accomplished his mission, Constantine convened a synod at Nicaea, in Bithynia, and wrote to the most eminent men of the churches in every country, directing them to be there on an appointed day.”150
Bishops and their entourages began arriving by mid-May 325. Constantine himself did not arrive at Nicaea till after July 3, and the council began to meet in earnest after that, finally adjourning on August 25, 325.151 Philostorgius reported, “Seeing that the bishops had many different views at the time, the emperor Constantine decided to summon a council of all the bishops to Nicaea and to put an end to their mutual bickering.”152
It was a distinguished gathering of church leaders, with the Eastern bishops outnumbering those who made the long trip from the Latin West. It is symptomatic of the confusing and sometimes contradictory path laid out by our various sources that our early church historians cannot agree on exactly how many bishops attended. Eusebuis and Athanasius—both of whom were at the Council of Nicaea—report “more than 250” and “more than 300,” respectively.153 Sozomen stated that “about three hundred and twenty bishops were present, accompanied by a multitude of presbyters and deacons. There were likewise men present who were skilled in dialectics, and ready to assist in the discussions.”154 In a later writing, Athanasius fixed the number at precisely 318—a total that may have been suggested to him by the text of Genesis 14:14, and the size of the holy posse that rode out with Abraham to rescue Lot.155 The meager paper trail that has been left to us and the fact that even eyewitnesses like Eusebius and Athanasius cannot agree on the exact number of participants does not give the contemporary reader much confidence that she can know the details of the deliberations at the Council of Nicaea. In fact, Eusebius’s eyewitness account is notable for its glorification of Constantine and for its utter silence about the “Arian controversy.”
It is generally agreed that the official opening of the Council of Nicaea corresponded to the arrival of Emperor Constantine and his “Opening Address,” reported by Eusebius in his Life of Constantine. Other “opening addresses” were attributed to Eusebius156 and to Eustathius of Antioch.157 These and other important speeches were probably delivered prior to the emperor’s arrival. Eusebius probably introduced the Emperor Constantine, and Eustathius’s important address on the meaning of Proverbs 8:22 was also probably part of the deliberations.158 But there can be no doubt that the presence of Emperor Constantine was the galvanizing force of the Council and the focus of attention of the bishops present. It is further suggested, by Athanasius, that Hosius was the presiding chairman of the council.159
When Constantine entered the room of their deliberations a silence fell upon the place. The emperor stood in the midst of the bishops, who rose and bowed to him and thereby “intimated their desire that he should be seated.”160 Taking his place among them, the emperor addressed the bishops “[in] words of exhortation to harmony and unity, and entreated each to lay aside all private pique.”161 He told them that as soon as he heard “news of your dissension,” he judged this to be a matter of the utmost importance and resolved to “remedy this evil.”162 Constantine spoke to them, in Latin, which was also translated into Greek by an interpreter: “Delay not, then, dear friends: delay not, ye ministers of God, and faithful servants of Him who is our common Lord and Savior: begin from this moment to discard the causes of that disunion which has existed among you, and remove the perplexities of controversy by embracing the principles of peace. For by such conduct you will at the same time be acting in a manner most pleasing to the supreme God, and you will confer an exceeding favor on me who am your fellow-servant.”163 Constantine’s first action among them was to show the assembly a bundle of petitions and complaints that he had received from them against one another. He ordered a brazier to be brought out, and he burned these in the presence of all, saying, “‘Christ enjoins him who is anxious to obtain forgiveness, to forgive his brother.’ When therefore he had strongly insisted on the maintenance of harmony and peace, he sanctioned again their purpose of more closely investigating the questions at issue.”164
After the Council had dispensed with several other issues—including the date and celebration of the Christian Passover, Easter—“the emperor himself being present, leading all into unanimity, established unity of judgment, and agreement of opinion among them.”165 The debate over the Arian theology proceeded through the presentation of creeds, sermons, and discussions. It began when Arius, who was present by the emperor’s command, set forth his case “in painstaking detail.” “Finally,” Rufinus noted, “after long and detailed discussion it was decided by all, and decreed as though by the mouth and heart of all, that the word homoousios [consubstantial] should be written, that is that the Son should be acknowledged to be of the same substance as the Father, and this was most firmly declared by the vote of them all.”166 This vote was preceded by a discussion led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, about squaring the Nicene formula with the terms used in Holy Scripture, seeking to show that the phrase homoousia was an innovation and not consistent with the biblical witness. Athanasius recalled that they buzzed about the actual definition like a swarm of gnats, either because it caused them to “stumble out of ignorance” or because it served as “an accurate declaration and full in the face of their heresy.”167 When those in favor of the homoousian terminology drew upon scriptural phrases and analogies to explain their usage, the Arian party disputed that it was not strictly speaking a biblical word and was thus an innovation.168 Since this process seemed to be going nowhere, Eusebius of Nicomedia put forth a formulation of his own composition, which was viewed by Eustathius of Antioch (among others) as being so heretical that it was snatched from his hands and torn to pieces before the entire assembly.169
In his self-congratulatory letter to his home church about the Council of Nicaea, Eusebius Pamphilus (Eusebius of Caesarea) claimed that at this point he presented their own creed before the emperor and the Council, as a working draft from which to develop a conciliar document.170 Hence, the Nicene Creed was developed out of this earlier creed, with the emperor himself insisting upon the insertion of the words “one in essence” (homoousia) to describe the consubstantial nature of the God the Father and God the Son.171 Those who refused to subscribe to the “one essence” phraseology, or who insisted upon saying that the Son had a beginning, or that the Son was created, were anathematized.172 As Sozomen explained, “The next debate by the priests turned upon doctrine. The Emperor gave patient attention to the speeches of both parties; he applauded those who spoke well, rebuked those who displayed a tendency to altercation, and according to this apprehension of what he heard, for he was not wholly unpracticed in the Greek tongue, he addressed himself with kindness to each one. Finally all the priests agreed with one another and considered that the Son is consubstantial with the Father.”173
In this Defense of the Nicene Definition (De Decretis) Athanasius subsequently described the heterodoxy of Eusebius of Nicomedia and his cohorts that was evidenced at Nicaea: “While they stood out in their irreligion, and attempted their fight against God, the terms they used were replete with irreligion; but the assembled Bishops who were three hundred more or less, mildly and charitably required of them to explain and defend themselves on religious grounds. Scarcely, however, did they begin to speak, when they were condemned; and one differed from another; then perceiving the straits in that their heresy lay, they remained dumb, and by their silence confessed the disgrace that came upon their heterodoxy.”174 In the process of debate, and after one day’s delay, Eusebius of Caesarea, who had originally opposed the “same substance” phraseology, changed sides and found a way to accept the Council’s decision in favor of consubstantial, “one essence” language to describe the relationship of the Father and the Son. Hence, as Athanasius reported, “And what is strange indeed, Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, who had denied the day before, but afterwards subscribed, sent to his Church a letter, saying that this was the Church’s faith, and the tradition of the Fathers; and made a public profession that they were before in error, and were rashly contending against the truth.”175
Thus, the majority of the Arians, perhaps for fear of reprisals, were gradually won over to the Nicene theology of “one essence” shared between the Father and Son. “At the commencement of the conference,” Sozomen noted, “there were but seventeen who prized the opinion of Arius, but eventually the majority of these yielded assent to the general view. To this judgment the emperor deferred, for he regarded the unanimity of the conference to be a divine approbation; and he ordained that any one who should be rebellious thereto, should forthwith be sent into banishment, as guilty of endeavoring to overthrow the Divine definitions.”176 In the end, only six—Arius, as well as bishops Secundus, Theonas, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis, and Maris—stood by their aberrant opinions. These were anathematized by the Council of Nicaea and banished by the emperor into exile.177 The other eleven, as described by Rufinus, “after taking counsel together, agreed to subscribe [to the Nicene Creed] with hand only, not heart.”178
The question of Athanasius’s role at the Council of Nicaea is a difficult one because of the silence of the eyewitnesses; much of what has been said about his leadership in the debate in favor of the theology enshrined in Nicene Creed is based on supposition. Gregory Nazianzen, writing soon after the death of Athanasius, is an example of this: “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.”179 Describing Athanasius, Theodoret wrote, “He had, at the general council, so defended the doctrines of the apostles, that while he won the approbation of all the champions of the truth, its opponents learned to look on their antagonists as a personal foe and public enemy. He had attended the council as one of the retinue of Alexander, then a very young man, although he was the principal deacon.”180 Likewise, Sozomen reported, “Many of the Bishops who were assembled [at Nicaea], and of the clergy who accompanied them, being remarkable for their dialectic skill and practiced in such rhetorical methods, became conspicuous and attracted the notice of the emperor and the court. Of that number Athanasius, who was then a deacon of Alexandria, and had accompanied his bishop Alexander, seemed to have the largest share in the counsel concerning these subjects.”181 Rufinus added that “Athanasius, at that time a deacon of Alexander of Alexandria, was there too [at Nicaea], aiding the old man with his assiduous advice.”182
The actual source of the Nicene Creed, described by J. N. D. Kelly as an explicit reply to Arianism,183 remains somewhat of a mystery. Philostorgius, the Arian historian, described it as principally the production of Hosius and Alexander of Alexandria: “Hosius of Cordova and Alexander and their associates had in readiness the document that everyone needed to subscribe.”184 Despite the questionable accuracy of some of his assessments, Philostorgius’s account rings truer than that of Eusebius of Caesarea, whose self-congratulatory letter to his own church implies that the skeleton of the Creed came from their own confession of faith.185
The full text of the Nicene Creed, as given by Eusebius of Caesarea, is as follows:
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 the Father, that is of the substance of the Father; God of God, Light of light, true God of true God; begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father; by whom all things were made both which are in heaven and on earth; who for the sake of men, and on account of our salvation, descended, became incarnate, was made man, suffered and rose again on the third day; he ascended into the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead. [We believe] also in the Holy Spirit. But those who say “There was a time when he was not,” or “He did not exist before he was begotten,” or “He was made of nothing,” or assert that “He is of other substance or essence than the Father,” or that the Son of God is created, or mutable, or susceptible of change, the Catholic and apostolic Church of God anathematizes.186
That the Nicene Creed was developed as an anti-Arian confession is easily discerned by close attention to four phrases in the first article (paragraph), and the “anathemas” of the concluding paragraph. The phrase “only-begotten” (which stems from John 1:14) is a hedge against saying that the Son was “made or created” before all time—as the Arians had affirmed. The phrase “is of the substance of the Father” further clarifies the Divine identity of the Son, as the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, as being a part of God, and therefore as not being a creature. The substance of God, while (wisely) not defined, is explained metaphorically using scriptural terms: “God of God, Light of light, true God of true God.” The third phrase that has an explicitly anti-Arian ring to it is “begotten not made”—since it distinguishes the mode of the Son’s generation from that of all creatures. Thus, the Son is not a creature. And the final term that had an overtly anti-Arian thrust was “consubstantial,” which affirms that the Father and the Son are of the same divine substance (literally: “one substance”), and hence are eternally equal in their Divine natures.
The key term under debate was “consubstantial” (homoousia, meaning “one substance”). Eusebius indicated that it was Constantine himself who insisted upon the inclusion of this term in the Creed, and this assertion was supported by both Socrates and Theodoret (who probably followed him).187 Constantine himself is said to have explained the meaning of homoousia as he intended it to be used in the Creed.188 And certainly it was his imperial support, as much as the cogency of his explanation (which probably came from Hosius), that was determinative.189 The term homoousia had a complicated history,190 and it was sometimes associated with a heretical, modalistic view of the relationship of the Father and Son,191 hence it was troubling to some people at the Council.192 While it was protested (by the Arians) that the term was not used in the Bible, Athanasius argued that it “contains the intention of the Scriptures.”193 For Athanasius and his associates “consubstantial” (homoousia) had come to mean that the Son of God is co-eternal, and of the same Divine nature as the Father; this precluded any notion (of the Arians) that the Son was a creature and had a beginning. This assertion that the Son is “consubstantial” with the Father was deemed absolutely necessary for the Christian doctrine of salvation and for the appropriate worship of Christ as Divine.194 It was viewed as an essential clarification of the relationship of the Father and the Son that truly and faithfully reflected scriptural teaching. While we have no way of drawing a direct line of connection between the Nicene Creed and Athanasius’s early writings, it is clear that there are strong affinities between them, particularly in insisting upon the full Deity of God the Son, and in the process of drawing the incarnation and salvation offered by Jesus Christ closely together.
Secundus and Theonas (both of Libya) refused to sign the Nicene Creed. They were deposed by the Council and exiled to Illyricum along with Arius and the presbyters who supported them.195 As he was leaving for exile, Secundus scolded Eusebius of Nicomedia: “You subscribed in order to avoid exile! As God is my witness, you will have to suffer banishment on my account.” And indeed, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea were also sent into exile three months later;196 while they had reputedly signed the Nicene Creed, they ultimately would not go along with the Council’s rejection of Arius.197
After the Council of Nicaea a series of letters were written to inform the church about the decisions made at the Council and to enforce them. Among these letters, which are preserved in the early church histories, is one to the church of Alexandria that gives an official report of the decisions made at the Council. The following Arian theological assertions were condemned: “affirming that ‘the Son of God sprang from nothing,’ and that ‘there was a time when he was not’; saying moreover that ‘the Son of God, because possessed of free will, was capable either of vice or virtue; and calling him a creature and a work. All these sentiments the holy Synod has anathematized, having scarcely patience to endure the hearing of such an impious opinion, or, rather, madness, and such blasphemous words.”198
Constantine also addressed a letter to the Alexandrian Christians, which reported the decisions of the Council and placed the blame for the dispute squarely upon the shoulders of Arius: “Arius alone beguiled by the subtlety of the devil, was discovered to be the sole disseminator of this mischief, first among you, and afterwards with unhallowed purposes among others also.”199 The conciliar decision of Nicaea and its Creed were to be affirmed and dissension to be put behind them, for “the judgment of three hundred bishops cannot be other than the doctrine of God.”200 In a second encyclical letter, Constantine not only anathematized Arius’s doctrines but also outlawed his writings: “I decree, 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; immediately for this offense the criminal shall suffer capital punishment.”201 In still another encyclical letter Constantine formalized the date for the Christian Passover, Easter, and took steps to normalize their celebration.202 A subsequent letter to the church of Nicomedia bewailed the conduct of their bishop and exhorted the church to elect a new bishop to replace him.203
The Meletian dispute, which at this point was not directly related to the “Arian controversy,” was also addressed by the Council of Nicaea. Meletius had been present at the council and he had presented a “white paper” to Alexander that indicated that the Meletians would stand with the Catholic faith against Arianism. The Council managed to reconcile the Meletians to the faith, while prohibiting them from obtaining future longevity through the elevation of additional bishops from and for their own sect.
Thus, the Council of Nicaea had—apparently—established theological and ecclesiastical unity in the fourth-century Christian church. It had resolved disputes about doctrine, the celebration of Easter, and the legitimate line of episcopal succession. Most importantly, it had bequeathed the church the Nicene faith, expressed in the Nicene Creed, which many millions of Christians still use today as apt summation of their faith. But this unity was illusionary, and, as we shall see in the chapters that follow, it was maintained only by Constantine’s imperial will and power. But when the will and determination of the emperor began to waver in the face of new theological and political intrigues, the disputes that revolved around the Nicene theology would return with a vengeance—and that vengeance would be meted out upon Athanasius and those who supported him.
138. Eusebius, Life of Constantine I.15, NPNF, vol. I, 486.
139. Socrates, Church History I.7, NPNF, vol. II, 6.
140. Ibid.
141. Ibid., 6–7.
142. Ibid., 7.
143. Ibid., 6.
144. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 209.
145. Ibid., 210.
146. Philostorgius, Church History I.7, 9.
147. Ibid.
148. Socrates, Church History I.16, NPNF, vol. II, 252.
149. Epiphanius attributes the calling of the Council of Nicaea to Alexander of Alexandria (Panarion 68.4, 249). Hanson finds this to be “unlikely” (Christian Doctrine of God, 154).
150. Socrates, Church History I.17, NPNF, vol. II, 253.
151. Kidd, History of the Church, 2:22.
152. Philistorgius, Church History I.7, 10.
153. Eusebius, Life of Constantine III.8, NPNF, vol. I, 522; Athanasius, History of the Arians 66, NPNF, vol. IV, 294.
154. Sozomen, Church History I.17, NPNF, vol. II, 253.
155. Kidd, History of the Church, 2:23.
156. Sozomen, Church History I.19, NPNF, vol. II, 254.
157. Theodoret, Church History I.7, NPNF, vol. III, 24.
158. Sozomen, Church History I.19, NPNF, vol. II, 254 n. 4.
159. Hanson, Christian Doctrine of God, 154. Hanson points to a reference in Athanasius’s Apology to Secunda, which referred to Nicaea as “the General Council of Ossius.”
160. Socrates, Church History I.8, NPNF, vol. II, 9.
161. Ibid.
162. Eusebius, Life of Constantine III.12, NPNF, vol. I, 523.
163. Ibid.
164. Socrates, Church History VIII.8, NPNF, vol. II, 9.
165. Ibid., 9–10.
166. Rufinius, Church History X.5, 13.
167. Athanasius, To the Bishops of Africa 5, NPNF, vol. IV, 491.
168. Theodoret, Church History I.7, NPNF, vol. III, 44.
169. Ibid.
170. Eusebius, Council of Nicaea 1, NPNF, vol. IV, 74.
171. Eusebius, Council of Nicaea 4, NPNF, vol. IV, 75.
172. Eusebius, Council of Nicaea 8–9, NPNF, vol. IV, 76.
173. Sozomen, Church History I.20, NPNF, vol. II, 255.
174. Athanasius, Defense of the Nicene Definition II.3, NPNF, vol. IV, 152.
175. Ibid.
176. Sozomen, Church History I.20, NPNF, vol. II, 255.
177. Socrates, Church History I.8, NPNF, vol. II, 10.
178. Rufinus, Church History X.5, 13.
179. Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 21.14, NPNF, vol. VII, 273.
180. Theodoret, Church History I.25, NPNF, vol. III, 61.
181. Sozomen, Church History I.17, NPNF, vol. II, 253.
182. Rufinus, Church History X.5, 13.
183. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 234–42. See Kelly for a full exposition of the anti-Arian posture of the Nicene Creed.
184 Philostorgius, Church History I.9a, 12.
185. Eusebius, Council of Nicaea 1, NPNF, vol. IV, 74
186. Socrates, Church History I.8, NPNF, vol. II, 11.
187. Eusebius, Council of Nicaea 4, NPNF, vol. IV, 75. Cf. Socrates, Church History I.8, NPNF, vol. II, 11; Theodoret, Church History I.12, 17.
188. Ibid. Socrates wrote, “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; for, said he, a nature which is immaterial and incorporeal cannot possibly be subject to any corporeal affection; hence our conception of such things can only be in divine and mysterious terms. Such was the philosophical view of the subject taken by our most wise and pious sovereign; and the bishops on account of the word homoousios, drew up this formula of faith.”
189. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, 250.
190. Cf. ibid., 242–54, for an extensive discussion of the term.
191. This view was represented by Marcellus, whose use of the term implied that the Father and Son were the same being.
192. Socrates, Church History I.23, NPNF, vol. II, 26.
193. Athanasius, Four Discourses Against the Arians III.16, NPNF, vol. IV, 402–3.
194. Pelikan, Catholic Tradition, 1:206.
195. Philostorgius, Church History I.10, 13.
196. Ibid.
197. Sozomen, Church History I.21, 255.
198. Socrates, Church History I.9, NPNF, vol. II, 12.
199. Ibid., 14.
200. Ibid.
201. Ibid.
202. Ibid., 15.
203. Ibid., 17.