Now unless we set down Eusebius for a desperate liar, it is impossible to reject his account of the opening of the synod; for not only he was one of the bishops present, but he himself as soon as the Emperor took his seat, delivered an oration in praise of Constantine.* If the account of Eusebius can be relied on, we gather from it the following particulars.

First, that the synod had not assembled, nor was it alluded to when Eusebius related the immense crowd of presbyters, deacons, and attendants who accompanied the bishops, summoned or invited. Second, that the synod assembled in the great hall of

the palace at Nicca. Third, that none entered but those who had been summoned; and, consequently, that no one of those innumerable presbyters, deacons, or attendants occupied, any of the several seats, unless they came as deputies for absent bishops. Fourth, that the bishops alone are mentioned, as constituting this synod, and exercising authority before Constantine.

Such is the account given by Eusebius. I have enlarged on this account, merely as a refutation of the slur attempted to be cast by Columbanus, on the common sense of the old Bishop of Cesarea. Had Eusebius used the words imputed to him, he would certainly have proved himself an idiot which is worse than an ignorant historian. For ke would not only have contradicted all the ideas of christianity prevailing in that age, but would have given the lie to him

Ibid. Ch. xi, and in proem. ad vit. Const.

self

self, as we shall see presently. I am very much tired of this single point, but having undergone so much fatigue in crushing a mere fabrication, I cannot quit without asking once more, whether Eusebius as serts, as Columbanus has pretended, that in the • Council of Nicea the priests were beyond number, and were therefore omitted by him.' Nor can I avoid reminding you, that the authority so borrowed, as we have seen, from the name of Eusebius, is the only authority, which Columbanus can bring or indeed any man can bring in support of the right of priests "of the second order" to act as judges of the faith.

Let it not be deduced from Eusebius, much less from me, who pretend to no authority whatever in the Catholic commonweal, that, because no presbyters sat with bishops, in the act of legislating, at Nicca; or that because deacons, the inseparable ministers of bishops, did not interfere in the judicial acts of bishops when declaring the faith at Nicca ; neither presbyters therefore, nor deacons took any part in those proceedings. It would be most silly to imagine, either that no wise, no learned, no inspired priests and deacons accompanied their bishops to this assembly, or that bishops, if seeking counsel or learning, or encouragement, through humility or possibly through comparative unacquaintance with science, did not apply to their attendant clergy as to friends, to christian teachers, to counsellors, who by calling, by dignity, by consecration, by assessorship at home, by an apparent right of successi

on

on to their thrones, by authority of life, as well as by reverence of those purifying rites of christianity, which they exercised, were the fittest to be consulted, the most capable to counsel, and the best entitled cæteris paribus to be heard. What I would maintain is very different from such an opinion. I admire that humility which seeks advice. I admire that spirit of concord, in which our Saviour loves to dwell, not as in pomp, but as in daily and condescending intimacy. I know, that there is a woe prophesied against the solitary man, because if he fall he hath none to lift him. I know, that it is forbidden to quench the spirit, whether of knowledge, or of charity, or of peace; and that, in the church of CHRIST, every active part is entitled to minister, according as it hath received, according to to the multiform grace of God. Lastly I am well aware, that the kingdom of redemption is not like a temporal government, in which arbitrary will is sovereignty, and in which to abstain from crimes is called beneficence, or even to be sparing of crimes. Whatever be the authority, which exists in the christian system, that authority, in its application, must be as different from the execution of worldly force, as it is superior in its origin.

To seek for parallels between the genuine idea of christian polity, and the several species of profane or human organization of force, I consider to be extreme absurdity. To defend the government of the church as a pure monarchic or as an aristocratic, or as a republican system, or as resulting from any temperament

perament of these three forms, must necessarily lead into error; and so far, must estrange the mind from the whole of the salutary and everlasting purposes of the gospel, which except in the Catholic church, are either not known or cannot be realized. If it were lawful to circumscribe the christian state by any general name, it might more aptly be called a federal system; because its essential compact is UNITY. How this UNITY is to be procured and upheld, is, though a necessary subject of investigation, yet not foremost in the gospel theory. Let unity be once allowed, as the essential character of the christian association; the methods for procuring it are speedily to be found in the gospel. We shall find, in the gospel that as no unity can exist without order, nor order without subordination, nor subordination without a single directing and visible power, that there must be a chieftaincy derived from one to many, and yet the property of none of these, although a station to be defended by each of these. There is no monarchy in the christian church, but that of Christ: there is no aristocracy: there is no power of the commons. There are ministries and offices distinct, and there are subjects amenable to these offices. But the highest magistrate of spiritual things can only be the next representative of Christ for christians; and Christ himself has declared, that he came not to have servitude performed unto himself, but to perform it, and to lay down his life as a ransom for multitudes.

You

You will grant now, that I exclude pride, and lordly and stern command, as well as the selfish feeling of proprietorship, from the Ecclesiastical order. You will grant, that I establish charity towards God, humility towards inferior offices, and modesty in all things, to be the duties particularly of bishops, whether sitting in council, or acting out of council. AH АН this premised, I say, that in the council of Nicea, if priests even could be proved to have had seats, which is disproved from that very authority to which Columbanus appealed; if it were even proved, that priests had sat there to the exclusion of deacons and attendants, whom Eusebius mentions as having been present, as well as priests in the great celebrity, that preceded the synodical and judicial meeting: yet I assert that neither priests, nor deacons, nor any other than bishops enacted, declared, professed, confirmed, or could have enacted, declared, professed, or confirmed the faith published from Nicea, so as either to perform a judicial or legislative act by any profession of their faith, or to have bound the conscience of the christian people. My first proofs I take from this very history of Eusebius. Some difference will be found between my proofs and those of Columbanus. This last writer has attempted to prove by such inferences as you have remarked, that priests of the "second order" sat as judges; because, no doubt, priests, deacons, and innumerable followers were assembled on the occasion of the Nicene synod. I will shew, from Eusebius himself, who were the judges invited to this council,