THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
NICiEA (NICE), COUNCILS OF.
I. The First Council, 325 a.d.
Character, Membership, and Problems (§ 1). The Procedure (§ 2). The Symbol (§ 3). Other Problems (§4). II. The Second Council, 787 a.d.
I. The First Council, 325 A.D.: The first Council of Nice is conspicuous as the starting point for the great doctrinal controversies of the Church in the fourth and fifth centuries. Here a union between the ecclesiastical potency of the councils and the State was effected, vesting the deliberations of this body with imperial power. Earlier synods had been contented with protection against 1. Charac- heretical doctrines; but the Council ter, Mem- of Nice is characterized by the further bership, and step from a defensive position to posi- Problems. tive decisions and minutely elaborated articles of faith. In the Arian controversy lay a great obstacle to the realization of Constantine's idea of a universal empire which was to be attained by aid of uniformity of divine worship. Accordingly for the summer of 325 the bishops of all provinces were summoned to the first ecumenical council at Nice in Bithynia, a place easily accessible to the majority of the bishops, especially those of Asia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Greece, and Thrace. The number of members can not be accurately stated; Athanasius counted 318, Eusebius only 250. As a matter of course, the oriental bishops formed the preponderating number; the first rank being held by the three archbishops Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem, and by Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea. A special prominence attached to this council also because the persecutions had just ended, and it was to be assumed that nearly all of the assembled fathers had stood forth as witnesses of the faith. The Occident sent not more than five representatives in equal distribution from the provinces, Marcus of Calabria from Italy, Cecilian of Carthage from Africa, Hosius of Cordova from Spain, Nicasius of Dijon from Gaul, and Domnus of Stridon from the province of the Danube. These ecclesiastical dignitaries of course did not travel alone, but each one with his suite, so that Eusebius speaks of an almost innumerable host of accompanying priests, deacons, and acolytes. Among the assistants it was Athanasius, a young deacon and companion of Bishop Alexander of Alexandria, who distinguished himself as the " most vigorous fighter against the Arians," and similarly Alexander of Constantinople, a presbyter, as representative of his aged bishop. The points to be discussed at the synod were: (1) The Arian question, (2) the celebration of Easter, (3) the Meletian schism, (4) the baptism of heretics, and (5) the status of the lapsed in the persecution under Licinius.
The council was formally opened May 20, in the central structure of the imperial palace, busying itself chiefly with preparatory discussions on the Arian question, in which Arius, with some adherents, especially Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nice, and Maris of Chalcedon, seems to have been the leading spirit; regular sessions, however, began
only on the arrival of the emperor. After prescribing the course of the negotiations he entrusted the mode of procedure to a committee
2. The appointed by himself, consisting in all Procedure, probability of the most prominent
participants of that body. It is undoubtedly chiefly owing to this step on the part of Constantine that the council, after being in session for an entire month, promulgated on June 19 the' Nicene Creed (see Constantinopolitan Creed). At first the Arians and the orthodox showed an uncompromising front toward each other. The Arians entrusted the representation of their interests to Eusebius of Csesarea (q.v.), whose scholarship and flowery speech made a great impression upon the emperor. His reading of the confession of the Arians called forth a storm of resentment among the opponents; two minorities vividly interested in contrary opinions opposed each other, but between them yawned indifference. In their behalf, as well as for his own sake, Eusebius, after he had ceased to represent the Arians, appeared as a mediator; and in asserting that the chief aim to be pursued should be the establishment of the peace of the Church, he at the same time agreed with his exalted protector. He presented a new formula, the baptismal symbol of his own congregation at Csesarea, by means of which the differing opinions might be reconciled. The emperor, who pursued the purely political intentions of a successful pacification, could desire no more welcome proposition and immediately confirmed it by making it his own. In this way he did not overpower the majority, but most probably met its wishes; for if the orthodox had really been able to count on a preponderating majority, even the predilection of the emperor would not have hindered them from setting up their own confession in the manner of that proposed by Bishop Alexander in his first circular letter. But far from daring such an attempt, the majority (without resistance) complied, asserting their rights only in the form of amending clauses. While such modes of procedure are more characteristic of minorities than of majorities, their use by the latter does not necessarily debar victory, as indeed in this case it did not. All propositions of the orthodox during the remainder of the controversy having been accepted, it is furthermore evident, first: that the Arians of conviction were in the minority; second: that the majority (or deciding body) did not possess, and hence did not assert, convictions of a dogmatic nature. These are, considered in a general way, the presuppositions of the world-important decisions of the Council of Nice.
Examining the symbol in detail, it appears that
it contained indeed decisions on the Son of God
which might satisfy all members of the council.
Even Arius found no reason to oppose it from his
standpoint. But for the partizans of
3. The Bishop Alexander the definitions were Symbol, too vague; they rendered them more
concise, and if the Nicene Creed be compared with its model, that of Csesarea, it seems to have originated in some omissions from the second article which was the only one in question. To these omissions corresponded three no less impor-