The Council then went into a minute examination of Arius's affair, and after a full and patient hearing of all the circumstances connected with it, unanimously determined, that he should be condemned. They afterwards ruled, that *Easter should be celebrated throughout the Christian world on a +Sunday, in opposition to the Quartodecimans, who kept it on the fourteenth day of the first Jewish month, when the Jews celebrated their Passover; be that day, what it might. They likewise drew up a Profession of Faith, which the Church of England holds this day under the title of the NICENE Creed, and by it established on a Scriptural basis, the Divinity and pre-existence of Christ, as well as His consubstantiality and co-equality with the Father.

The Nicene Creed originally ended with the Article of Belief" in the Holy Spirit :"-s TO πνευμα το άγιον. The second General Council added what occurs from those words to the conclusion, and slightly altered the beginning of it. In the 7th Act of the ‡second Council of

The rejection of the authority of Victor, Bishop of Rome, by the Eastern Church, on the subject of the Easter Festival, towards the end of the second century, furnishes a convincing argument against Papal Supremacy. If it ever existed, it should never have had a discontinuance.

+ DUPIN, vol. I. p. 599.

See conclusion of Chapter XI.

Nice, "filioque" is found in the Latin Translation, but there is no corresponding Greek. *Labbè has a marginal note on the interpolated words, stating, that there was extant at the Council of Florence, a very ancient MS. of the SEVENTH General Council, in which the reading filioque occurred. Subsequently in the 9th century, filioque was contended for by the Latin, and objected to by the Greek Church. Photius, the Byzantine Patriarch, excommunicated Nicholas, Bishop of Rome, for daring to contravene the Ephesine Decree by adding filioque to the Nicene Creed. Although Vossius states this in his work de tribus Symbolis, he thinks it more probable, that the addition was mainly attributable to Pope Sergius III. A. D. 908. Baronius ascribes the addition to the Council of Toledo ; but thinks that it did not constitute a part of the Creed until the time of Benedict VII., A. D. 1112. At whatever time the Procession from the Father and THE SON may have been inserted in the Creed, it is now acknowledged by both the Greek and Latin Churches. The Church of England receives it as being warranted by Scripture, and for no other reason whatever.

After the words "HOLY SPIRIT,” an anathema was subjoined, which denounced as accursed those," who said that there was a time, when

* LABB. xiii. p. 554.

the Son of God did not exist; or that he did not exist before his birth; that he was created, or liable to change, &c."

Twenty-two of the entire number of assembled Bishops were of Arian principles, yet inconsistently enough, twenty of them joined in the sentence against Arius; but previously took care to explain their own sense of the controverted points, in a way more remarkable for its ingenuity, than its ingenuousness. The Son, said they, is not the same, but only of a like essence with the Father. The insertion of a single iota in a Greek word, enabled them to maintain this exposition, by reading—μs, for uogos. These terms are so nearly alike, that except to a sharp eye, no difference would seem to exist between them; they are, however, characteristic of systems so opposite, that they cannot possibly be reconciled. The Arian system has been already described; as for the Orthodox one, it may be reduced to a very simple and intelligible proposition. The Divinity of Christ must be perfect, else He cannot be deemed a proper object of worship and adoration:-He must be ONE with the Father so completely, as not to differ, in any respect whatever, from the indivisibility and unity of the Godhead. There still remained two of the Arian Bishops, Secundus of Ptolemais, and Theonas of Marmarica, who, to their credit be

it said, obstinately refused to participate in the insincerity of their brethren. Neither of the Eusebius's escaped the censure, which their dissimulation merited, although they are not without apologists for the parts they acted. Eusebius of Cæsarea yielded a reluctant and ambiguous consent to the HOMOOUSION; while the wavering conduct of the Nicomedian Eusebius, retarded but for a few months his disgrace and exile.

It is not necessary to enlarge here on the fictions and devices of Popish writers, farther than they are connected with the pretensions set up by them, on behalf of the Bishop of Rome, for the exercise of a supreme jurisdiction over all the Christian Churches in the world, at this early age. They affirm, that the Pope's ratification of the Acts of the Nicene Council was deemed so essential, that a Synodal Epistle was addressed to him on the occasion for the purpose of obtaining it. It is true, that documents, purporting to be a Letter from the Council, and Sylvester's Answer, are now in existence; although their authenticity is more than doubted. Labbè condemns them as fictitious ; even Binnius says they are corrupted, and Richerius gives in proof of their being flagrant forgeries :-first, that Macarius is styled in the Synodal Letter, Bishop of Constantinople, although he was at the very time Bishop of Jeru

salem; and secondly, that the Answer speaks of the Cycle of Victorinus, although in point of time Victorinus flourished much later. But to pass this over, were those Letters admitted to be genuine, there is no expression used on one side of conscious inferiority; nor, on the other, of arrogant assumption. In the Epistle to Sylvester, the Council simply styles him, σUVETIσxoTOS, FELLOW-BISHOP; a title, which he adopts in his Reply. The language of both seems based on a perfect equality.

πος,

But, it has been further affirmed, that Sylvester held a Council at Rome for the purpose of confirming the Nicene Decrees; since, according to Bellarmine, the papal sanction could alone impart to them any authority. Most unquestionably, no such idea was entertained in those days, of the necessity of such a sanction being given; for had it been so, the concurrence of the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch would not have been as much sought after, and in the same precise way, by epistolary communication, as that of the Bishop of Rome. Besides, concurrence is not confirmation. And as to the alleged Roman Council, it has been discovered to be another pious fraud of the Vatican:-a convincing proof, indeed, that it is one, is the fact of Constantine's absence from Rome at the very period, at which the Council is stated to have been held in his presence!