Various theories have been propounded to explain Constantine's aim in calling this council. By some it is represented as having served a poUtical purpose (based on Eusebius, ]'ita Comtant. iii, 4); by others it is re- garded as intended to restore quiet to the Church, and unite all its parties in the great Trinitarian question oa
NIC^AN COUNCILS
45
NIC^AN COUNCILS
which the Church was at that time greatl.v divided — there existing three parties: one, which may be called the orthodox party, held lirmly to the doctrine of the deity of Christ ; the second was the .4 riaii party [see Arianism] ; and the third, which was in the majority, taking conciliatory or middle ground, and consenting to the use of such christological expressions as all parties could consistently agree upon ; they acknowledged the divine nature of Christ in general Biblical terms, but avoided the use of the term ofioovaiog [see Homoou- sian], which the Arians decried as unscriptural, Sabel- lian, and materialistic. According to Pusey, " He (i. c. Constantine) did not understand the doctrine, and at- tached as much or more importance to uniformity in keeping Easter as to unity of faith. Indeed, he him- self at this time believed in no doctrine but that of Providence, and spared no terms of contempt as to the pettiness of the dispute between Alexander and Arius" (Councils of the Church, p. 102) ; yet it would seem that Constantine only called a council when he believed it impossible to restore peace between the contending par- ties, led respectively by Arius and Alexander, and now turned over the case for settlement to the bishops, who appeared to him to be the representatives of God and Christ, the organs of the divine Spirit " that enlight- ened and guided the Church," and he appears to have hoped that when in council assembled, analogous to the established custom of deciding controversies in the sin- gle provinces by assemblies composed of all the provin- cial bishops, they would be able to dispose of the present controversy.
No complete collection of the transactions of this Ni- caean oecumenical council have come down to ns. Some account of the bishops who composed this assembly is given by Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. It is un- certain who presided, but it is generally supposed that the president was Hosius, bishop of Corduba (Cordova), m Spain. From the reports of two of its attendants, Athanasius and Eusebius of Ctcsarea, we learn that it was busy mainly with the settlement of the different christological views. The opening seasons were princi- pally devoted, according to these writers, to a considera- tion of Arian views, and resulted finally in the personal examination of Arius himself. He did not hesitate to maintain that the Son of God was a creature, made from nothing; that there was a time when he had no existence; that he was capable of his own free will of right and wrong. Athanasius, although at the time but a deacon, drew the attention of the whole council by his marvellous penetration in unravelling and laying open the artifices of the heretical views of Arius and his followers ; he resisted Eusebius, Theognis, and Ma- ris, the chief supporters of Arius, and evinced such zeal in defence of the true faith that he attracted both the admiration of all CathoUcs and the bitter hatred of the Arian party. We are told that so great and far-reach- ing was the influence of Athanasius's criticism that many of the Arians became doubtful of their own stand-point, and eighteen of them abandoned the cause of Arius. The orthodox themselves became enthusiastic in behalf of their cause, and when Eusebius of Cajsarea proposed a confession of faith— an ancient Palestinian confession, which was very similar to the Nicene, and acknowledged the divine nature of Christ in general Biblical terms, but avoided the term in question, ofioovaioQ, coiisub- stautiaUs, of the same essence— they rejected it, though the emperor had seen and approved this confession, and even the Arian minority were ready to accept it. They wished a creed which no Arian could honestly sub- scribe, and especially insisted on inserting the expres- sion komo-usios, which the Arians so much objected to. The fathers tinally presented through Hosius of Cor- dova another confession, which became the substance of what is now known and owned by the orthodox churches of Christianity as the well-known Nicene Creed (q. v.). The following is the Latin text of this creed :
"Credirans iu Denm, Patrem omiiipoteutem, omninm visil)iHum et invisibilium Creiitorem. Et iu Dominum Jesum Christum Filiitm Dei,uatum ex Patre, etUniireni- tuni, lioc est, ex substantia Patris, Deum ex Deo, Lumeu de Luniiue, Deum vernm ex Deo vcro, geniumi uou fac- tum, et cousubstaiitiiilem Patri per quem omnia facta sunt, tam iu coelis qunm in terra. Qui propter nos homi- nes et propter uostiam !?alutem descendit, et iucarnatus est et homo factus est ; pnssus est, et resurrexit teitiu die ; et ascendit in ccelos, veiuurus inde ad judicandum vivos et mortuos. Et iu Spiritual Sauctum."
Eleven copies of this creed in Greek are extant. The decision of the council having been laid before Con- stantine, he saw clearly that the Eusebian formula would not pass; and, as he had at heart, for the sake of peace, the most nearly unanimous decision which was possible, he gave his voice for the disputed word, and declared that he recognised in the unanimous consent of the bishops the work of God, and received it with reverence, declaring that all those persons should be banished who refused to submit to it. Upon this the Arians, through fear, also anathematized the dogmas condemned, and subscribed the faith laid down by the council ; that they did so only outwardly was shown by their subsequent conduct. It was declared by its advo- cates that it was presented after mature deliberation, and after diligent consultation of all that the holy evange- lists and apostles have taught upon the subject; and it proceeded to set forth the true doctrine of the Church in a creed, in which, in order to defy all the subtleties of the Arians, the council thought good to express by the term " consubstantial," 6|(ooii(7(oc, the divine essence or substance which is common to the Father and the Son. According to Athanasius, this creed was in a great meas- ure composed by Hosius of Cordova. It was written out by Hermogenes, bishop of Caisarea, in Cappadocia, and subscribed, together with the condemnation of the dog- mas and expressions of Arius, by all the bishops present with the exception of a few of the Arians. Socrates (Hb. i, ch. 5) says that all the bishops except five; Baro- nius, that all except Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theog- nis of Nictea assented to the use of the word ufioovaiog. According to Cave, Secundus of Ptolemais and Theog- nis of Marmorica alone refused, and Eusebius signed. Arius himself was banished by Constantine's order to Ilh'ria, where he remained until his recall, which took place live years after. See for further details the arti- cle Arianism.