NICAEA, COUNCIL OF. The Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) is an event of the highest importance in the history of Christianity. Its convocation by Constantine and its course illus trate the radical revolution which the position of this religion, within the confines of the Roman empire, had undergone in con sequence of the Edict of Milan. From his accession Constantine had shown himself the friend of the Christians; and, when his victory over Licinius (A.D. 323) gave him undisputed possession of the crown, he adhered to this religious policy, distinguishing and fortifying the Christian cause by gratuities and grants of privilege. This propitiatory attitude originated in the fact that he recog nized Christianity—which had successfully braved so many per secutions—as the most vital and vigorous of religions, and as the power of the future. Consequently he directed his energies toward the establishment of a positive relationship between it and the Roman state. But the Church could only maintain its great value for the politician by remaining the same compact organism which it had proved itself to be under the stormy reign of Diocletian. Scarcely, however, did it find itself in the enjoyment of peaceful relations with the state, when violent feuds broke out in its midst, whose extent, and the virulence with which they were waged, threatened to dismember the whole religious body. Donatism in the West was followed by the Arian struggle in the East. The former movement had been successfully arrested, though it sur vived in North Africa till the 5th century. The conflict kindled by the Alexandrian presbyter Arius with regard to the relation of Christ to God assumed a more formidable character (see ARms). Constantine therefore had recourse to an institution previously evolved by the Christian Church—the convocation of a synod to pronounce on burning questions—enlarging it, how ever, to correspond with the altered circumstances. He convened a council, designed to represent the whole Church of the empire, at Nicaea in Bithynia, a town situated no great way from the imperial summer-residence of Nicomedia and within easy reach by sea of the Oriental bishops. In consequence of the vast dis tances, the West was not largely represented, but the able theolo gian Hosius, bishop of Cordova, was present. The three most
important bishoprics of the East were represented (Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem) ; a prominent part was also taken by Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and his namesake of Caesarea (the historian), along with a very large number of others from the east. Among the attendant clergy, the still youthful deacon Athanasius, destined to succeed Alexander in the see of Alexandria, was prominent as the most powerful antagonist of Arianism (see ATHANASIUS). The synod sat from May 20 to July 25.
The deliberations on the Arian question passed through several distinct stages before the final condemnation of Arius and his doctrines was reached. A clearly defined standpoint with regard to this problem—the relationship of Christ to God—was held only by the comparatively small group of Arians and a not much larger group who adhered with unshaken conviction to the Alexandrian view. The bulk of the members occupied a position between these two extremes. They rejected the formulae of Arius, and declined to accept those of his opponents; that is to say, they were merely competent to establish negations, but lacked the capacity, as yet, to give their attitude of compromise a positive expression. That the majority of the council should have adopted this neutral tendency is easily intelligible when we consider the state of theology at that period. True, at Nicaea this majority eventually acquiesced in the ruling of the Alexandrians ; yet this result was due, not to internal conviction, but partly to indiffer ence, partly to the pressure of the imperial will—a fact which is mainly demonstrated by the subsequent history of the Arian conflicts. For if the Nicaean synod had arrived at its final decision by the conscientious agreement of all non-Arians, then the con fession of faith there formulated might indeed have evoked the continued antagonism of the Arians, but must necessarily have been championed by all else. This, however, was not the case ; in fact, the creed was assailed by those very bodies which had com posed the laissez-faire centre at Nicaea ; and we are compelled to the conclusion that, in this point, the voting was no criterion of the inward convictions of the council.