PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II., § 3 (1).

The documents, the history of which we do not fully know, nor even how long they occupied 5 the council, lay before the assembly. We are told the "council paused." The evidence is incomplete, but this may well have been the case. All the bishops who were genuinely horrified at the naked Arianism of Eusebius of Nicomedia were still far from sharing the clear-sighted definiteness of the few; they knew that the test proposed was not in Scripture and that it had a suspicious history in the Church. The history of the subsequent generation shows that the mind of Eastern Christendom was not wholly ripe for its adoption. However, the fathers were reminded of the previous discussions, of the futility of using purely Scriptural tests, and of the behavior of the Arians—the whispering, the nodding, the winking, and the evasions. With a great revulsion of feeling, the council closed its ranks and marched triumphantly to its conclusion. All signed—all except two, Secundus and Theonas. Maris signed, as did Theognis, Menophantus, Patrophilus, and all the rest. Eusebius of Nicomedia signed; he signed everything, even the condemnation of his own convictions and of his "genuine fellow-Lucianist," Arius. It was not the last time that an Arian leader was found to turn against a friend in the hour of trial. Eusebius justified his signature with a "mental reservation," but we can sympathize with the bitter scorn of Secundus, who, as he departed into exile, warned Eusebius that he would not long escape the same fate (Philostorgius i. 9).

The council broke up after being entertained by the Emperor at a sumptuous banquet in honor of his Vicennalia The twentieth anniversary of his reign.. The defiant bishops, along with Arius and some others, were sent into exile (an unhappy and fateful precedent), a fate which soon after overtook Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis (see the discussion in Dictionary of Christian Biography ii. 364 sq.). But in 329, we find Eusebius once more in high favor with Constantine, discharging his episcopal functions and persuading the Emperor that he and Arius held substantially the Creed of Nicæa.

The council also dealt with the Paschal (Easter) question (see Life of Constantine iii. 18; for the matter as it relates to Athanasius, see below, p. 500) and with the Meletian schism in Egypt. The latter was the main subject of a letter (Socrates i. 9; Theodoret i. 9) to the Alexandrian Church. Meletius himself was to retain the honorary title of bishop, to remain strictly at home, and to be in lay communion for the rest of his life. The bishops and clergy of his party were to receive a more mystical ordination Original: "μυστικωτέρα χειροτονία". This term implies an ordination performed with a deeper spiritual or sacramental character, often to regularize irregular clerical status. (see Bright, Notes on Canons, pp. 25 sqq.; Gore, The Church and the Ministry, ed. I, p. 192 note) and were to be allowed to discharge their office, but in the strictest subordination to the Catholic Clergy of Alexander. However, as vacancies occurred, the Meletian incumbents were to succeed, subject to: (1) their fitness, (2) the wishes of the people, and (3) the approval of the Bishop of Alexandria. The terms were mild, and even the gentle Alexander seemed to fear that immediate peace might have been purchased at the expense of future trouble (his successor openly blames the compromise, p. 131, and more strongly p. 137). Accordingly, before carrying out the settlement, he required Meletius to draw up an exact list of his clergy at the time of the council, so as to bar an indefinite multiplication of claims. Meletius, who must have been even less pleased with the settlement than his metropolitan, seems to have taken his time. At last, nothing would satisfy both parties but the personal presentation of the Meletian bishops from all Egypt, and of their clergy.

5 The events have been related in what seems to be their most likely order, but there is no real certainty in the matter. It is clear that there were at least two public sittings in the emperor’s presence, at the first of which the petitions were burned and the bishops requested to examine the question of faith. This was probably on June 19. The tearing up of the creed of Eusebius of Nicomedia seems, from the account of Eustathius, to have come immediately before the final adoption of a creed. The creed of Eusebius of Cæsarea, which was the basis of what was already adopted, must therefore have been propounded after the failure of his namesake. (Montfaucon and others are clearly wrong in supposing that this was the "blasphemy" that was torn to pieces!) The difficulty is where to place the dramatic scene of whisperings, nods, winks, and evasions which compelled the bishops to apply a drastic test. I think (with Kölling, etc.) that it must have preceded the proposal of Eusebius of Nicomedia, upon which the ὁμοούσιον Original: "of the same substance" or "consubstantial." was quietly insisted on by Constantine. The latter was the only occasion (pretext) for any modification in the Cæsarean Creed, which in itself does not correspond to the tests described later. But Montfaucon and others, followed by Gwatkin, place the scene in question after the proposal of Eusebius of Cæsarea and the resolution to modify his creed by the insertion of a stringent test—in fact, at the "pause" of the council before its final resolution. This conflicts with the clear statement of Eusebius that the ὁμοούσιον was the "thin end of the wedge" which led to the entire recasting of his creed. It follows, therefore, from the combined accounts of Athanasius, Eusebius, and Eustathius (our only eye-witnesses) that (1) the fathers were practically resolved upon the ὁμοούσιον before the final sitting; (2) that this resolve was clinched by the creed of Eusebius of Nicomedia; (3) that Eusebius of Cæsarea made his proposal when it was too late to think of half-measures; (4) that the creed of Eusebius was modified at the Emperor’s direction (which presupposes the willingness of the Council); and (5) that this revision was immediately followed by the signatures and the close of the council. The work of revision shows such signs of attention to detail that we are almost compelled to assume at least one adjournment of the final sitting. When the other business of the council was transacted, including the settlement of the Easter question, the Meletian schism, and the Canons, it is impossible to say. The question of the presidency of the council must be left open. The conduct of the proceedings was evidently in the hands of Constantine, so that the question of presidency reduces itself to identifying the bishop on Constantine’s right who delivered the opening address to the Emperor. This was certainly not Hosius, but may have been Eusebius of Cæsarea, who probably, after a few words from Eustathius or Alexander, was entrusted with so congenial a task.