I think he's more like one of those pre-revolutionary mincing, bewigged Versailles courtiers that rouged their cheeks.
Marie Antoinette was Austrian and had more substance.
Certainly Illuminist Freemasons manipulated events. And there's ample evidence to support that contention from contemporary sources, such as Robison's "Proofs of a Conspiracy".
Do you understand that the ecumenical Church council at Nicaea merely recognized that which was already accepted as the NT canon in both the East and the West? And that the "Catholic" Church was the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" - all those churches adhering to a common faith, which, at that time, was not the Western monolithic, Rome-centered entity of the later middle ages?
Freemasonry was compromised by Weishaupt-Illuminism in mainland Europe in the latter years of the 18th century (Prof John Robison: Proofs of a Conspiracy). The Illuminist-infected European form of Freemasonry was imported into post-Revolutionary America in the early 19th century.
It invalidates your argument, as the Church, at the time of Nicaea, was not a monolithic, centralized entity. That did not happen in the West until the later middle ages and never happened in the East. Therefore the canon of scripture was not the product of a monolithic, centralized entity. Accordingly, your objection to the canon on the ground of Nicaea is unsustainable.
You need to find new objections.
Jesus was completing the true Israel (which included bringing all the nations into the sphere of God's influence), fulfilling the law and the prophets, and inaugurating the Kingdom of God on Earth.
You can do better than resort to ad hominem responses, anon.
By the time of Pike, US Freemasonry was heavily skewed to Illuminism. But the origins of Illuminism in European FM were all covered by Robison in 1797/8. He attempted to sound the alarm bells, and is interesting to read, although seriously wordy.
The Bible was not "created" at Nicaea. That's an ahistorical lot of nonsense that fails to deal with the dissemination and reception of NT writings during the first 3 centuries of the "Christian Era".
I'm an Orthodox Christian, not a Roman Catholic, and I have no sympathy with Romanism in any form. But I am a historian and historical processes are crucial for real understanding of what truly happened and why we have what we have.
The Gnostic texts and other documents considered heretical are not in the canon simply because they did not accord with the faith understood by all, in both the East and West. They were not rejected; rather they never merited consideration for inclusion. They were the works of sects believed to lie outside the bounds of the truth.
The process of "weeding out" and establishing the boundaries of acceptability/orthodoxy were already taking place in the 2nd century by leaders like Irenaeus, long before the church became "legitimate" under Constantine.