NICÆA. PARTIES IN THE COUNCIL.

The letter may have been written based on information provided by Eusebius (Dictionary of Christian Biography, s.v.); however, the Emperor’s anxiety for the peace of his new dominions is its primary theme. Upon the arrival of Hosius, a council (p. 140) was held, which produced little effect regarding the main question. However, the claims of Colluthus were absolutely disallowed, and his ordination of one Ischyras (see below, § 5) to the priesthood was pronounced null and void. Hosius apparently carried back a strong report in favor of Alexander; at any rate, the Emperor is credited (Gelas. Cyz. ii., Hard. Conc. i. 451—458) with a vehement letter of rebuke to Arius, which may have been written at this time. Such was the state of affairs that led to the imperial resolve—likely at the suggestion of Hosius—to summon a council of bishops from the entire world to decide the doctrinal question, as well as the relatively lesser matters in controversy.

§ 3 (1) The Council of Nicæa.

An ecumenical council was a new experiment. Local councils had long since become a recognized organ of the Church for both legislation and judicial proceedings. But no precedent existed; no ecclesiastical law or theological principle had yet established the "General Council" as the supreme expression of the Church’s mind. Constantine had already referred the case of the Donatists first to a select council at Rome under Bishop Miltiades, and then to what Augustine (Epistola 43) is understood to call a plenarium ecclesiæ universæ concilium original: "a plenary council of the universal Church" at Arles in 314. This remedy for schism was now to be tried on a grander scale.

The idea that the heads of all the Churches of Christendom should meet in free and brotherly deliberation, and testify to the world their agreement in the Faith—handed down independently but harmoniously from the earliest times in Churches widely remote in location and separated by differences of language, race, and civilization—is a grand and impressive one. This idea was approximately realized at Nicaea as in no other assembly that has ever met. The testimony of such an assembly carries immense weight; the almost unanimous horror of the Nicene Bishops at the novelty and profaneness of Arianism condemns it irrevocably as alien to the immemorial belief of the Churches.

However, it was one thing to perceive this, and another to formulate the positive belief of the Church in such a way as to exclude the heresy. It was one thing to agree in condemning Arian formulas, and another to agree upon an adequate test of orthodoxy. This was the problem facing the council, which only the most clear-sighted members grappled with tenaciously. This is the explanation for the reaction that followed, which, for more than a generation—well-nigh half a century—put the results of the council in jeopardy.

The number of bishops who met at Nicaea was over 250 1. So Eusebius, Life of Constantine iii. 8—over 270; Eustathius in Theodoret i. 8—in fact more than 300 (de Decr. 3), according to Athanasius, who again, toward the end of his life (ad Afr. 2), settles on the precise figure of 318 (Genesis 14:14; the Greek numeral τιή combines the Cross with the initial letters of the Sacred Name). This figure was adopted by a later generation (it first occurs in the alleged Coptic acts of the Council of Alexandria, 362, then in the Letter of Liberius to the bishops of Asia in 365, infra § 9), perhaps on symbolic rather than historical grounds.. They represented many nationalities (Eusebius, as cited above), but only a handful came from the West, the chief being Hosius, Caecilian of Carthage, and the presbyters sent by Silvester of Rome, whose age prevented his personal attendance. The council lasted from the end of May until August 25 (see Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, 1389). We have nothing to do with the many picturesque stories told of its incidents (Stanley’s Eastern Church; Socrates i. 10—12; Sozomen i. 17, 18; Rufinus, Eccl. Hist. i. 3—5), but it may be well to note the division of parties.

(1) As for the thoroughgoing partisans of Arius, Secundus 2. The name of Secundus appears among the subscriptions (cf. Sozomen i. 21), but this is contradicted by the primary evidence (Letter of the Council in Socrates i. 9, Theodoret i. 9); cf. Philostorgius i. 9, 10. There is evidence that there were two individuals named Secundus. and Theonas alone scorned all compromise. However, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis (Bishop of Nicaea itself), and Maris of Chalcedon also belonged to the inner circle of Arians by conviction (Socrates i. 8; Sozomen i. 21 lists the same number, but incorrectly). The last three named were pupils of Lucian (Philostorgius ii. 15). Some twelve others—the chief names being Athanasius of Anazarbus and Narcissus of Neronias in Cilicia; Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Aetius of Lydda, Paulinus of Tyre, Theodotus of Laodicea, and Gregory of Berytus in Syria and Palestine; and Menophantus of Ephesus—completed the strength of the Arian party proper.

(2) On the other hand, a clearly formulated doctrinal position in contrast to Arianism was taken up by only a minority, although this minority carried the day. Alexander of Alexandria was, of course, the rallying point of this wing, but the choice of the formula proceeded from other minds. Hypostasis the essential nature or individual existence of a divine person and ousia substance or essence are one in the Nicene formula; Alexander in 323 wrote of "three hypostases."

The test formula of Nicaea was the work of two concurrent influences: that of the anti-Origenists of the East (especially Marcellus of Ancyra and Eustathius of Antioch, supported by Macarius of Aelia, Hellanicus of Tripolis, and Asclepas of Gaza), and that of the Western bishops, especially Hosius of Cordova. This latter fact explains the energetic intervention of...