might forfeit, perhaps, their conjugal virtue. He added, that he considered the marriage union, sanctioned by the laws, as pure and chaste; that it was sufficient, according to ancient usage, that he, who had once been admitted to the clerical order, should no longer be permitted to marry; but that it was unnecessary to separate him from the wife whom he had espoused when in the condition of a layman. It was thus that the venerable confessor supported his sentiments, although he had not only never been married himself, but had always refrained from illicit intercourse with the other sex, having been educated from childhood in a monastery, in which he was distinguished for his singular purity of life. The council acceded unanimously to the views of Paphnutius, and, without further deliberation, left those who were already married to continue in the state of wedlock or not, at their own discretion.

It will be perceived that the eighth canon of the synod relates to the sect of Novatians, who were called Cathari, that is, the pure. The last words of this canon are remarkable, and contain an important rule, that there should never be two bishops in the same city. The emperor, moved by his zeal for peace and union in the Church, had invited to the council a Novatian bishop by the name of Acesius. A conversation of some interest between Constantine and this prelate is recorded both by Socrates and Sozomen, which may be as well related, perhaps, in this place as in any other. When the form of faith was written, and the synod had subscribed it, the emperor asked Acesius, if he also agreed to that confession of faith, and approved of the resolution concerning Easter. "My prince,” he replied, "I know of nothing new determined by the council. I have always understood, that from the beginning, from the very days of the apostles, the same definition of the faith, and the same time of celebrating the festival of Easter, has been handed down to us by tradition." "Why then," rejoined the emperor, "do you separate yourself from our communion?" Acesius explained to him what had happened under the persecution of

Decius, when many fell from the profession of the faith; and spake of the rigor of the canon, which forbade receiving those, to the participation of the sacred mysteries, who, after baptism, had committed any such sin as is pronounced in scripture to be a sin unto death. "They ought, indeed," he said, " to be urged to repentance, but not encouraged to hope for pardon through the ministration of the priests. For this they should look directly to God, who alone has the power and prerogative of remitting sins." The bishop having thus spoken, the emperor replied, "Take a ladder, Acesius, and ascend alone to heaven."

Before separating, the council prepared a synodical epistle,* chiefly intended for the church of Alexandria, as being most interested in all the acts of the Synod. It is also addressed to all the faithful of Egypt, Pentapolis, Lybia, and all other churches whatever. The emperor Constantine wrote at the same time two letters, in order to promulgate the ordinances of the council, and to make them known to those, who were not present at the convention. The first † is directed to the churches in general, and informs them that the faith has been examined, and placed in so clear a light that no difficulty remains. Copies of this letter were dispatched to all the provinces. The second ‡ is particularly faddressed to the church of Alexandria. He published also another letter, or more properly an edict, directed to the bishops and people, condemning Arius and his writings. He says that Porphyry, having composed impious books against Christianity, rendered himself infamous in the eyes of posterity, and that his writings were destroyed. It has in like manner, he continues, been decreed, that Arius and his followers be called Porphyrians, so that they may bear the name of him whom they have imitated; and that if any book written by Arius shall be found, it shall be committed to the flames, that no monument of his corrupt doctrine may descend to future ages. He declares that whoever shall be convicted of having concealed

* F.

+ Documents, G,

+ Documents, H,

any book composed by Arius, instead of burning it, shall suffer death immediately after his apprehension. With whatever degree of aversion we may contemplate the doctrines of Arius, it is painful to witness so melancholy a forgetfulness in the first Christian emperor, of the benignant temper of Him, who rebuked the unhallowed zeal of the disciples, as not knowing what spirit they were of, who would have called down fire from heaven to consume the inhospitable Samaritans. At the same time, Arius and the two prelates who adhered the most obstinately to his party, Secundus and Theonas, were banished by the empe

ror.

The council concluded its session on the twenty-fifth day of August, A. D. 325, a month after the commencement of the twentieth year of the reign of Constantine, who ascended the throne on the twenty-fifth of July, A. D. 306; but it is thought that the festival on that occasion, which was celebrated in every part of the empire with great solemnity, was deferred in compliment to the termination of the synod. During the public rejoicings, Eusebius of Cesarea, in the presence of Constantine, and surrounded by the bishops, pronounced a panegyric on the emperor. A magnificent entertainment was provided by that prince, "for the ministers of God," to borrow the graphic language of Eusebius, "now reconciled with one another, as an acceptable sacrifice offered to the Divine Being, through them. No one of the bishops was absent from the imperial banquet, which was more admirably conducted than can possibly be described. The guards and soldiers, disposed in a circle, were stationed at the entrance of the palace with drawn swords. The men of God passed through the midst of them without fear, and went into the most private apartments of the royal ed ifice. Some of them were then admitted to the table of the emperor, and others took the places assigned them on either side. It was a lively image of the kingdom of Christ, and appeared more like a dream than a reality." At the conclusion of this splendid festival, the emperor courteously saluted every

individual of the company, and presented his guests with rich and valuable gifts, according to their respective rank and merits. When they were about to separate, he took a friendly leave of them, exhorting them to union, harmony and mutual condescension; and concluded by recommending himself to their prayers. Thus ended the great Council of Nice, which, it is said, is still celebrated by the Greeks and Orientals among the festivals of the saints.

Nothing, in the preceding narrative, appears to give any countenance to that supremacy of the bishop of Rome, which was claimed and conceded in later ages. He was merely represented in his absence by two presbyters. He seems to have possessed no pre-eminence, nor any exclusive privileges. Bossuet indeed asserts, on the authority of Gelasius Cyzicenus, a writer in the latter part of the fifth century, that Hosius was one of the legates of the Roman prelate, and presided in the council; but it is generally admitted that the testimony of Gelasius is of little value when unsupported by other writers; and no earlier histo rian makes any mention of a fact, which, if true, would scarcely have been left unrecorded.

The remarkable unanimity of the synod on the subject of our Saviour's true and proper divinity, the only one examined by that convention, which excites much interest at the present day, may be considered, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, as affording a powerful confirmation of the truth of this important doctrine. Every part of the Christian world was virtually represented by men, who, from their commanding station and favorable opportunities, must be supposed to have been well acquainted with what was understood to have been the doctrine of the apostles, on this important article of our faith. Most of them, probably, lived within two centuries of the death of St. John. Could the original doctrine have been lost in a period so comparatively short? Could it have been corrupted? Could it have been generally corrupted throughout the Church? If not, the fathers of Nice must have held, in this respect, the

faith delivered by the first preachers of Christianity, and consequently the true one. They could not have been ignorant of what was, and had been, believed, in their respective countries. The agreement, therefore, on this point, of so many different nations, as expressed by their representatives, nations of such various characters, pursuits, manners, customs and prejudices, can be satisfactorily accounted for only on the supposition, that they had received their belief from a common source, and preserved it pure by tradition, during the few generations which had elapsed from the time when they first received the gospel from the apostles themselves, or from those who lived not long after the apostolic age. It may be said, that many of the members of the council might have been deterred from expressing their real belief, as some few of them undoubtedly were, from the fear of exile or deposition. But they appear to have been almost unanimous on this subject before any threats of that kind were held out, and therefore such an apprehension could have operated on a very small number only; and if even a mere majority had been Arians, the danger would obviously have been on the other side. St. Chrysostom remarks, that it would be absurd to charge the council, composed as it was, in a great measure, of saints and confessors, either with ignorance or fear. Nor does this reflection seem to be unfounded. For, how can it be reasonably supposed, that in the situation in which they were placed, and which has already been adverted to, they could be in any doubt whether our Lord was divine in the strict sense of the term, or a creature only, however exalted in rank and dignity; or that such men would have disguised their genuine persuasion, from the fear of losing their sacerdotal honors, or of missing those temporal advantages and emoluments, which they might naturally have expected to enjoy under the dominion of a Christian prince? Was it for them, men of unblemished integrity and virtue, basely to violate their consciences for "a piece of bread?" or descend, for the sake of office, from their elevated position, as "good soldiers of Jesus Christ," to the meanness of subter