A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

Of the COUNCIL of Nice.

COnstantine seeing that he had laboured in vain to allay the Disputes which divided the Church, * 1.1 thought it would be the most ready and effectual means to restore Peace, to call a numerous Synod compos'd of the Eastern and Western Bishops. This Council was call'd Oecumenical, i. e. a Council of the whole World, or the whole Earth, because it was called together from all Parts of the Roman Empire, to which the Title of the World, or the Earth was given, and which did almost include the Catholick Church. This Council was assembled by the Order of the Emperour at Nice a 1.2, a City of Bithynia, about the Month of July in the Year 325 b 1.3, in the Second Year of Constantine's

Reign c 1.4. St. Sylvester was then Bishop of Rome, who sent thither Victor and Vincentius his Legates. 'Tis commonly held that this Council consisted of 318 Bishops; but those who were present at it do not precisely determine this number d 1.5, but say only that there were about 300 Bishops. 'Tis not certainly known, who presided in this Council, but 'tis very probable that it was Hosius e 1.6, who held the chief Place there in his own Name, because he had already taken cognizance of this Affair, and was much esteemed by the Emperour who was there present. The Assembly was held in a Hall in his Palace f 1.7. 'Tis said that the Bishops presented Petitions to him, wherein they accused one ano∣ther, and that he burnt them all without reading them: 'Tis also said, That many Philosophers came to Nice to oppose the Christian Religion, and that they were confounded by one simple Bi∣shop: But these two Stories are not very certain. But 'tis certain that they minded very closely the Cause for which they were assembled, which was the Heresy of Arius. St. Athanasius Deacon of Alexandria, and some others, Disputed stoutly against him. When the Day was come that this great Affair should be determined, one of the Bishops made a Harangue to the Emperour, and after∣wards they begun to enter upon the Business. Arius having explained his Opinions, was con∣demned with an unanimous Consent. After this Eusebius of Caesarea presented a Confession of Faith, but the Council finding that it did not expresly enough reject the Error of the Arians, urged the Bi∣shops who favoured this Heretick to make a clear Profession of the Divinity of the Son of God; and when the Council saw that all the Terms which were used to dignify the Divinity of the Son of God were eluded by these Bishops by far-fetch'd Explications, the Council was forced, for ex∣cluding all kind of Ambiguity to say, That the Son of God was Consubstantial to his Father. This Word was the Subject of a great Dispute among the Bishops, which was allay'd by the Prudence of the Emperour, who made them all agree in the Sence of this Word. And thus in the Confession of Faith, or in the Creed made by this Council, Profession is made, Of believing in one only God, the Creator of all things, visible and invisible, and in one only Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only Son of the Substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, Consubstantial to his Father, by whom all things were made in Heaven and on Earth, who descended for us Men and for our Salvation, who was incarnate and made Man, who suffered and rose again and ascended into Heaven, and who shall come to judge the quick and the dead: And in the Holy Spirit. After this Creed followed an Anathema against those who should say, That there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that he was not before he was begotten, or that he was created of nothing, or that he was of another Sub∣stance and another Essence, or that he was created and subject to Change. All the Bishops, except Secundus of Ptolemais, and Theonas of Marmarica, Signed this Confession of Faith g 1.8. Eusebius of Caesarea refus'd to Sign it at First, but he did it the next Day. After this Arius, Secundus and Theonas were condemned in the Council h 1.9, and a Book of the First, entitled Thalia, was proscrib'd.

The Council having thus judged the Arians with rigor, treated the Meletians with more modera∣tion. It permitted Meletius to continue in the City, and to retain the name of Bishop, and the honour annexed to that Office; but it absolutely forbad him to ordain any body: It preserved also the Rank, Honour and Office of those whom he had ordained, provided nevertheless that they should be con∣firmed by a more Sacred Imposition of Hands, which is a kind of Re-ordination i 1.10; that they should be inferiour to those who had been ordained by Alexander, and that they should have no hand

in the Election of Bishops. Nevertheless it permits the People and the Clergy to choose them Bi∣shops, if they were found worthy of it, provided that the Bishop of Alexandria approve this Ele∣ction. Last of all, the Council made a Decree concerning the Celebration of Easter, and ordained that this Feast should be celebrated only on the Sunday. Constantine wrote a general Letter to the whole Church, to acquaint them with the Decisions of this Council, and the Bishops wrote a Letter particularly to the Christians of Egypt, wherein they inform them exactly of what had been ordained about the Cause of the Arians and Meletians, and about the Celebration of Easter.

St. Ambrose indeed seems to intimate that this Council made a Paschal Cycle; but these Words must be so understood as meaning only, That the Determination of the Council gave occasion to make use of Cycles. St. Leo adds in Ep. 64. That the Council gave Order to the Bishop of Alexan∣dria to give notice every Year to the Bishop of Rome of Easter-day, that he might publish it to all the Churches of the World: But if the Council had made this Order, they would have signified it in their Letter to the Egyptians, where they speak favourably of Alexander and his Church.

The Council of Nice did not only determine the Differences which troubled the Church by its De∣cisions, but also made Rules concerning the Discipline of the Church. These Rules, which are call'd Canons, are in number Twenty, and there never were more Genuine k 1.11, tho' some Modern Authors have added many more.

The First Canon excludes from Sacred Orders, those that made themselves Eunuchs, but not those who became so by Sickness, or by the Cruelty of Barbarians.

The 2d. forbids to advance those Persons to the Orders of Priest or Bishop, who were lately baptiz'd, and Ordains that those who shall be convicted of any Crime, shall be depriv'd of their Eccle∣siastical Functions.

The Third forbids Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and other Clergy-men to keep Women in the House with them; yet it excepts Mothers, Sisters, and other Persons, of whom there can be no bad suspicion.

The 4th. Ordains, That a Bishop should be Ordain'd by all the Bishops of the Province, if it can be done; but if it be too difficult to assemble them all, either because of an urgent necessity, or be∣cause of their great distance, he may be Ordain'd by Three Bishops, provided that those who are absent be willing and consent by their Letter that this Ordination should be made; but it adds, That the validity of what is done in the Province depends upon the Metropolitan.

The 5th. Ordains, That none of those who shall be separated from the Church by the Bishops in each Province, can be receiv'd or restor'd to Communion in any other place; and that enquiry be the better made, whether their Bishop has justly excommunicated them, they Ordain, That Two Synods shall be held every Year in every Province, one before Lent and the other in Autumn.

The 6th. Canon is famous for the several Questions it has occasion'd. The most natural Sence that can be given to it, is this:

We Ordain, That the Ancient Custom shall be observ'd, which gives Power to the Bishop of Alexandria, over all the Provinces of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, because the Bishop of Rome has the like Jurisdiction over all the Suburbicary Regions (for this Addition must be supplied out of Ruffinus:) We would likewise have the Rights and Privileges of the Church of Antioch, and the other Churches preserved; but these Rights ought not to prejudice those of the Metropolitans. If any one is Ordain'd without the consent of the Metropolitan, the Council declares. That he is no Bishop: But if any one is Canonically chosen by the Suffrage of al∣most all the Bishops of the Province, and if there are but One or Two of a contrary Opinion, the Suffrages of the far greater number ought to carry it for the Ordination of those particular Persons.

This Canon being thus explain'd has no difficulty in it. It does not oppose the Primacy of the Church of Rome, but neither does it * 1.12 establish it. It preserves to Great Sees their ancient Privileges, that is, the Jurisdiction or Authority which they had over many Provinces, which was afterwards call'd the Jurisdiction of the Patriarch or Exarch. In this sence it is, That it compares the Church of Rome to the Church of Alexandria, by considering them all as Patriarchal Churches. It continues also to the Church of Antioch, and all the other Great Churches, whatsoever Rights they could have; but lest their Au∣thority should be prejudicial to the ordinary Metropolitans, who were subject to their Jurisdiction, the Council confirms what had been Ordain'd in the Fourth Canon concerning the Authority of Me∣tropolitans in the Ordination of Bishops. This Explication is easie and natural, and we have given many proofs of it in our Latin Dissertation concerning the ancient Discipline of the Church.

The 7th. is, That since by ancient Tradition the Church of Elias, or of Jerusalem has been ho∣noured, this Prerogative of Honour shall be continued to it, but without prejudice to the Rights of its Metropolis.

The 8th. declares, That the Novatians who return to the Church, may continue in the Clergy after they have receiv'd Imposition of Hands, and made Profession of following the Discipline of the Church.

That if a Novatian Bishop in a City, where there is a Catholick Bishop, return to the Church, he shall not take the place of the Catholick Bishop, but continue in the Presbytery, unless the Catholick Bishop will allow him the Name of a Bishop: But if he will not, this Novatian Bishop shall continue Priest or Suffragan.

The 9th. or 10th. Ordains, That those Priests shall be degraded, who are found either to have Sacri∣ficed, or to have been guilty of other Crimes before their Ordination.

The 11th. imposes a Penance of Ten Years upon those who voluntarily renounce the Christian Religion, without being forced, either by the loss of their Estate, or danger of their Life.

The 12th. imposes Thirteen Years Penance upon those who having shown their Zeal for the Faith did afterwards apostatize to obtain Offices: Nevertheless it permits this Penance to be shorten'd in fa∣vour of those who testify much Grief and Remorse.

The 13th. renews the ancient Law, which Ordains, That dying Persons shall not be deprived of the last and most necessary Viaticum, that is, of Absolution; but upon condition, That if the sick Person recovers his health, he shall be placed only in the Rank of those who are present only at the Prayers of the Church. It leaves it at the discretion of the Bishop to give or to refuse the Communion to dying Persons who desire it.

The 14th. turns back those Catechumens to the place of Hearers, who Apostatized when they were ready to receive Baptism, and enjoins them to continue in that place for Three Years before they can be restor'd to the place wherein they were before.

The 15th. forbids the Translations of Bishops and Priests, and Ordains, That those who shall be Translated, shall return to their First Church.

The 16th. forbids the receiving of Priests, Deacons or Ministers of another Church without the con∣sent of their Bishop.

The 17th. Ordains, That Clergy-men who are Usurers, or who take sordid Gain, shall be deposed.

The 18th. forbids Deacons to give the Eucharist to Priests, because it is against the Canons and contrary to Custom, and they have not the power to Offer nor to Give the Body of Jesus Christ, to those who do offer. It forbids them also to take the Eucharist before the Bishops, and advertises them that they are but inferiour Ministers to Priests; That they ought to receive the Eucharist after them from the hand of a Bishop or a Priest; That 'tis not lawful for them to sit in the place of Priests, and threatens those who do not obey this Rule with the deprivation of their Ministry.

The 19th. Ordains, That the Paulianists shall be re-baptiz'd who return to the Church; and that if there be found any who had the Name of Clergy-men among these Hereticks, who are worthy of Orders, the Bishop shall Ordain them after they have been baptiz'd; but if they be not found worthy of Holy Orders, they shall be deposed. It Ordains the same thing of Deaconesses who are reckoned among the Clergy, tho' they never receiv'd Imposition of Hands, that they shall be placed among the Laity.

The last Canon abolishes the Custom of some Churches wherein they kneeled on Sunday and Whit-sunday, and Ordains for keeping Uniformity, that they shall pray to God standing at this time in all Churches.

We must add to the History of this Council Two remarkable Stories related by Socrates and Sozo∣men, which Socrates says he learn'd from an old Man who assisted at this Council. The First is con∣cerning Acesius a Novatian Bishop, who being asked by the Emperour, whether he approv'd the De∣cision of this Council, answer'd him, That he had receiv'd from his Ancestors the Faith which they had decree'd, and that he always celebrated Easter on the Day which they had appointed. The Empe∣rour having afterwards ask'd him, Why then did he separate from the Communion of the Church? He alledg'd the Indulgence which the Church had given from the time of Decius, and said that those who had faln into Crimes ought never to be receiv'd into the Communion of the Church, and that they ought to expect pardon from God only who only could grant it them. The Emperour hearing this Answer, answer'd him pleasantly, O Acesius, take then a Ladder, and mount up to Heaven alone. The other Story concerns Paphnutius a Bishop in Egypt, who oppos'd the Canon, which was propos'd in the Council for obliging Bishops, Priests and Deacons to observe Celibacy. This good Man said, that tho' he had liv'd all his Life-time in Celibacy, yet he did not think, that this Yoke ought to be impos'd upon the Clergy. Some question the truth of this Story; I believe they do it rather for fear least this Story might prejudice the present Discipline, than from any solid proof they have for it. But these Persons should consider that this Canon is purely a matter of Discipline, and that the Discipline of the Church may change according to the Times, and that 'tis not necessary for the Defence of it, to prove that it was always * 1.13 Uniform in all Places.

What we have hitherto said, shews, That the Authentical Monuments of the Council of Nice are the Confession of Faith, with the Anathematism subjoyned to it, the Letter of the Synod to the Egyptians, the Decree concerning Easter, and the Twenty Canons. I do not think that there ever were any other Acts of this Council l 1.14, since they were unknown to all the ancient Historians. There

is a Latin Letter of this Synod to St. Sylvester extant, but it is supposititious m 1.15, which has no Authority, and which has all the Marks of Forgery, that any writing can have, as well as the pretended Answer of St. Sylvester n 1.16. Neither is that Council genuine, which is said to have been assembled at Rome by St. Sylvester for the confirmation of the Council of Nice. The Canons of this Council are also Forged o 1.17, which contain Rules contrary to the Practice of that time, and which it had been impossible to observe.

Constantine sent a Letter to the Catholick Church which is instead of a Synodical Letter of the Coun∣cil, because by this Letter he publishes what was decided concerning Easter. He says nothing of the cause of the Arians and Meletians, because that particularly concerned the Egyptians to whom the Council gave an account of it. He condemn'd Arius and the Arians: He sent this Heretick into ba∣nishment with Secundus and Theonas, who would not subscribe the Decrees of the Synod; and the Council ending happily in the Month of August in the Year 325, at the beginning of the Second Year of his Reign, he gave the Bishops a noble Entertainment, and sent them home loaded with Presents, after he had exhorted them to Unity.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Of Nice, 325.
• a 1.2

  By Order of the Emperour, &c.] Eusebius B. III. of the Life of Constantine Ch. 6. says, That the Council of Nice was assembled by Order of the Emperour; and the Bishops of this Council in their Letter to the Egyp∣tians, say, That they were Summon'd to meet by the Emperour's Letters. Constantine says the same thing, all the Ancients are agreed in it.
• b 1.3

  In the Year 325.] Socrates assures us, That this Council was Assembled at this time, and it could not be assembled sooner nor later.
• c 1.4

  In the Second Year of the Reign of Constantine.] It begun in the Month of August, and the Council was held in the Month of July.
• d 1.5

  Those who were present at it do not precisely determine this number.] Eusebius B. III. of the Life of Constantine, says, that there were at the Council of Nice more than 250 Bishops. Eustathius says, that there were to the number of 270, or thereabouts. St. Athanasius in his Book of the Decrees of the Council of Nice, and in his Epistle to the Monks, says, that they were about 300; yet the same St. Athanasius in his Letter to the Africans, St. Hilary in his Book of Synods, Ruffinus, St. Ambrose, St. Epiphanius, &c. call the Council of Nice, a Council of 318 Bishops. Socrates, Sozomen and Marius Mercator, do not reckon precisely the same number, but they do not much differ from it.
• e 1.6

  'Tis not certainly known who presided in this Council, but 'tis probable that it was Hosius.] St. Athanasius in his second Apology, calls Hosius the Father and President of all the Councils. The Name of this Bishop is the First in all the Subscriptions. Alexander was much esteemed as appears by the Letter of the Council. Eustathius of Antioch is call'd the chief Bishop of the Council by Pro∣clus and by Facundus. But it is more probable that Ho∣sius presided there in his own Name and not in the Pope's: For he no where assumes the Title of Legate of the Holy See, and none of the Ancients say, that he presided in this Council in the Pope's Name. Gelasius Cyzicenus who first affirm'd it, says it without any Proof or Authority.
• f 1.7

  The Assembled was held in his Palace.] Euse∣bius says so expresly B. III. of the Life of Constan∣tine Ch. 10. Socrates B. I. of his History Ch. 18. and Theodoret B. I. Ch. 7. following herein the Testimony of Eusebius. 'Tis true that this place is called by Eusebius himself in Ch. 7. a Sacred Place, but it is upon the account of the Assembly of the Bishops who were then in it.
• g 1.8

  All the Bishops except Secundus and Theonas Signed this Creed.] This appears by the Letter of the Synod, and by the Testimony of Theodoret B. I. Ch. 7. and of Philostorgius. Some say, that Eusebius and Theognis would not Sign the Condemnation of Arius, and that they were condemned in the Council. This is not true, and if they did alledge this distinction, it was after the Coun∣cil of Nice and not in the Council.
• h 1.9

  Arius, Secundus and Theonas were condemned, &c.] This appears by the Letter of the Council, tho' St. Jerom affirms the contrary concerning Arius. St. Athanasius, who is more to be credited than St. Jerom in this mat∣ter, says several times that Arius was condemned in the Council of Nice. Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret do also testify the same thing.
• i 1.10

  Which is a kind of Re-ordination.] It is commonly thought that this Imposition of Hands, which the Fa∣thers of this Council call, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, was only a Ceremony; but Valesius has very well proved that it was a new Ordination; and this is the thing which the Word does properly signify.
• k 1.11

  There were never more Genuine.] Theodoret and Ruf∣finus mention only these 20 Canons; tho' the latter rec∣kons 22 of them, yet he own'd no more, because he divided 2 of them. The Bishops of Africa found but 20 of them, after they had enquired very diligently all over the East for all the Canons made by the Council of Nice. Dionysius Exiguus and all the other Collectors of Canons, have acknowledg'd but those 20. The Ara∣bick Canons which Echellensis publish'd under the Name of the Council of Nice, cannot belong to this Council.
• * 1.12

  [Only so far, as it may by a Nega∣tive Argument be hence very strong∣ly concluded, That the See of Rome then claimed none but Privileges common to it and other Metropo∣litical Sees.]
• * 1.13

  [This would be an excellent De∣fence for the Discipline of the Church of Rome in this particular, if there were some Ages wherein Celibacy could more easily be preserved than it can in others; or if the Constitu∣tion of Mankind varied according to the Temporal Interests of any one private Church.]
• l 1.14

  I do not think that there ever were any other Acts of this Council.] If there had been any, St. Athanasius would have sent them to his Friend, who desired of him the History of the Council of Nice, or he would have bid him read them: But he never did it, and he gives him an account of his own of what was done in the Council. There is a Passage cited out of St. Athanasius, to prove that he acknowledged other Acts of this Coun∣cil. 'Tis taken out of the Book of Synods, where mention is made in the Version of it, of the Acts of the Council of Nice. But in the Greek it is only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which has been written by the Fathers; and 'tis plain that he speaks in this place of the Confession of Faith. And that which farther shews that there never were any Acts of the Council of Nice, is, that the Fa∣thers of the Council themselves in their Letter to the Egyptians, say, that their Arch-Bishop Alexander, should inform them particularly of all that pass'd in the Synod. In a word, neither Ruffinus, nor Socrates, nor Theodoret, nor any ancient Historian, had ever seen or known these Acts. St. Jerom says, that he had read the Acts of the Council of Nice, but he means only the Creed, the Canons, and the Subscriptions. The Acts which Gela∣sius Cyzicenus attributes to Dalmatius were made since the Council, and taken out of Eusebius, Theodoret, Socra∣tes, Sozomen, and other Historians.
• m 1.15

  The Letter of the Council to St. Sylvester is suppositi∣tious.] The Stile of it is barbarous and intricate. It be∣gins with this Period which has no sence: Gloriam cor∣roborata de divinis mysteriis. Ecclesiasticae utilitatis quae ad robur pertinent Ecclesiae Catholicae & Apostolicae ad sedem tuam Romanam explanata, & de Graeco redacta scri∣bere confitemur; and afterwards, Nunc itaque ad vestrae se∣dis argumentum accurrimus roborari, and so on. It is all made up of such kind of stuff. The date is ridiculous, wherein the Consuls are called Sovereigns, an Epithete never given to them, and the Letter is dated Five or Six Days after the Opening of the Council.
• n 1.16

  The Answer of St. Sylvester.] The Stile is like that of the former Letter; it supposes that St. Sylvester ad∣ded something to the Council of Nice, it mentions the Cycle of Victorinus who lived long after St. Sylvester. The Date of the Consuls also is false.
• o 1.17

  The Canons of this Council are also forged.] The Inscription of this Council discovers its Imposture: There 'tis said, that the Council was held in the pre∣sence of Constantine in the City of Rome; but Constan∣tine came not to Rome that Year. 'Tis also observed, that it consisted of 275 Bishops: Who can think that Sylvester assembled so numerous a Synod, and yet that it should be unknown to all Antiquity? Why is it not mentioned in some ancient Author? The First Canon concerning the time of Easter is Non-sense. The Se∣cond is yet more unintelligible: These are the Words of it; Ut unusquisque Episcopus rediens ad Parochiam suam, compaginem salutationis plebi tuae innotescat. Thus the Stile of it is as barbarous as is possible. The Third Canon forbids the Clergy to appear before Secular Judges for any Cause whatsoever. This is contrary to the Disci∣pline of that time. The Fourth declares, That those who would enter into Holy Orders, should pass through all the Degrees, and be One Year Porters, Twenty Years Readers, Ten Years Exorcists, Five Years Acolyths, as many Years Sub-deacons, and yet as many Deacons, and afterwards Priests, and that they cannot be Bishops till the end of 6 Years more; from whence it would fol∣low that none could be Ordain'd Bishops till they were more than 60 Years old; which is ridiculous and con∣trary to the Practice of the Ancient Church.