ceedings of the councils upon it, in which the emperor appears to have employed a similar degree of authority. In justice to the work before us, we do not hesitate to declare, that the labour which Mr. Brown has expended on the collection, and the accuracy which he has shewn in the disposition of his material, merit our warmest approbation. In depth and variety of research, and in display of testimony and document, he is unri valled. As far as it proceeds, it is a most valuable reservoir of ecclesiastical history, not only in the information which it actually gives, but in the means which it affords, by its numerous citations and references, of pursuing the enquiry to a still greater extent. We earnestly hope that Mr Brown will find sufficient encouragement to enable him to proceed in his promised work down to the latest period.

From the evidence which he has adduced on the first of these questions, he arrives at these, among other, important conclu

sions.

"That the emperor required and received the same compliance with his commands, and submission to his authority, from the bishops and clergy of his dominions, which he required and received from his other subjects; their immunity from the discharge of secular offices being derived from concessions, limited in the extent of their operation, by the opinion which he had formed of the compliance of one of the opposing parties with the established rules of ecclesiastical discipline*; their attendance, as well on his secular courts, as in the ecclesiastical assemblies which he convened to determine their differences, being required and enforced in the same authoritative language t, and by the same compulsory measures, as those which he adopted to enforce the attendance of secular persons, in causes purely of a secular nature; their property, public and private, being liable to confiscation, and their persons being subject to arrest, imprisonment, banishment, and even death, in accordance with, or in opposition to, the decision of ecclesiastical commissioners, legally appointed by himself and to that of councils, or pretended councils, composed of the greater part of the clergy of a large portion of his empire f.

"Finally; that there are no traces of any distinction having then existed between the supreme head of the church and the supreme head of the state, as the emperor in his character of guardian of the peace of the former, convened those meetings of

"See Appendix A. and B. p. 1, 2.

"See Note XIX."

"Those of the Donatists of Africa."

See, upon these points, Prynne's Eccl. Jurisd. b. fi. c. 3, vol. i. p. 49, 50; Gibbon's Roman Emp. c. 21, vol. ii. p. 231—5,' "See Note XX."

ecclesiastics,

ecclesiastics, by whose deliberation he wished the disputes that might arise amongst the clergy of his empire to be determined, and for this purpose called the prelates and other interior members of that body from their dioceses and charges, at his pleasure, giving them directions for the preservation of order in their sees and churches, during their absence, through the medium of secular officers, to whose tribunal these disputes were occasionally referred by his rescripts, or originally brought by the clerical complainants themselves. From the decision of these assemblies he received and heard appeals in causes ecclesiastical, at least as they respected matters of external discipline, pronouncing a judgment upon them, from which there lay no appeal. In contradiction also to their decision, but to preserve the peace of the church, he delegated to certain prelates whom he himself selected, the power of deposing two rival bishops, one of them previously declared to be orthodox, the other schismatical; a commission which these prelates readily accepted, though their authority to act was solely derived from the emperor's commands +.

"But besides these points, which directly relate to the exercise of ecclesiastical jurisdiction by the supreme secular magistrate of the empire, the narrative seems to establish two others, closely connected with those discussions which have prevailed during so many centuries, on the precise limits of the jurisdiction of the pope, as supreme head of the Catholic Church, and the dependence of the ecclesiastical, on the temporal power of the state; namely,

"First, That offences committed by the clergy, from the highest to the lowest rank, against the civil institutions of the empire, were then regularly cognizable before the tribunal of a secular magistrate ‡.

"Second, That the bishop of Rome then possessed no authority over his fellow bishops, except that which might arise from the patriarchal dignity which he possessed in common with others, or from the voluntary respect which was paid to him, as presiding over one of the largest and oldest dioceses of the empire, generally believed to have been founded by St. Peter, and the chair

"See Appendix I. p. 15."

"See, upon this last point, Tillemont, Mem. Eccl. tom. vi. p. 59, 60. On the others, see further, Note XXI."

"As in the case of Silvanus, bishop of Cirtha, against whom an accusation of theft, or embezzlement, was made before the proconsul, by a deacon, or ex-deacon of his own church. See further, on this head, Giannone, Ist. Nap. lib. ii. c. 8, § 3, tom. i. p. 138, 9, 142; Gibbon's Roman Emp. c. 20, vol. ii. p. 222, 3; Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. cent. iv. part 2, c. 2, § 4, vol. i. p. 350, 1; Hist. Philos. des Papes, p. 7."

of which was seated in its ancient and venerated capital P. 21.

As a specimen of the deep research in which Mr. Brown has engaged himself in the present work, we extract his account of the character in which Constantine really appeared at the Council of Nice, which certainly bears very considerably upon the question before him.

"In what character did Constantine appear in the Council of Nice, is a question which has been very differently answered by different writers, according to the prejudices by which they have been influenced, or the conclusion which they wished to deduce from its resolution. He appeared there, says Hermant +, 'sachant qu'il estoit là comme témoin, et non comme juge; qu'il y estoit comme un des fidelles, ainsi qu'il l'écrivit luy-mesmet aux eglises chrestiennes, et non comme souverain.' As a consequence of this knowledge we are reminded that 'il se contenta d'un petit siege d'or qui estoit fort bas, et qui convenoit ainsi d'une part à la majesté du maistre de tout le monde, et de l'autre à l'humilité d'un prince qui estoit serviteur de JESUS CHRIST.' That he appeared there as a witness, in the legal sense of the word, there can be no pretence to say, for he certainly acted rather as an examiner of witnesses, or at least of accusers, and of the defenders of those who were accused. It must then be as a witness of the scene there exhibited, that the emperor is said to have repaired to Nice; and this is one of the motives which Tillemont, from whom Monsieur de Hermant borrowed much of his reasoning, as well as many of his authorities, assigns in the following passage §. Il vint tant pour voir ce grand nombre de Prelats, que pour s'y rendre le mediateur de la paix, y établir la concorde, et étoufer toutes les disputes ausquelles la folie d'Arius avoit donné le commencement.'

"Consult, upon this point, Dupin, Antiq. Eccl. Discip. diss. i. $7, p. 18, § 11, p. 39, 44; diss. iv. c. 1, § 3, and c. 2, § 1, p. 317 -331; Bibl. Eccl. tom. ii p. 367, 8; Maintenu des Princes Souverains, p. 260-276; Giannone, Ist. di Nap. lib. viii. tom. i. p. 126-9; Hist. Philos. des Papes, p. 9, 10; Hist. Eccl. Magd. cent. iv. c. 7, p. 549, 575; Balduinus, de Const. Leg. Eccl. lib. i. p. 41; Blondel, de la Primauté, p. 14, 15, 20-27, &c.; Cave on Church Government, Preface, c. 1, § 3, 4, p. 11-30, § 7, 8, p. 38-45; Sir John Hayward, on Supremacy in Relig. p. 50-55; Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. cent. iii. part 2, c. 2, § 2, cent. iv. part 2, c. 2, § 5, vol. i. p. 264, 5, 351-3."

"Vie de St. Athanase, liv. ii. c. 4. p. 119."

"Epist. Const. Ecclesiis, apud Theodoret, 1. i. c. 7 (10, p. 42), Euseb. 1. iii. c. 10 (17, p. 608).""

66

Mem. Eccl. tom. vi. p. 649."

1

He

He came then to moderate, by his presence, the heats which might arise in the Council, and to exert all his influence for the re-establishment of the peace of the Church. To this effect is a preceding passage in the life of St. Athanasius just quoted *. Le second mouvement qui le fit aussi venir à Nicée,' (the first assigned, being that of gratifying his curiosity, as Tillemont has already taught us,) fut qu'il souhaitoit de se rendre le mediateur de la paix et de l'union entres les Evesques. Il craignoit,' continues this biographer, comme prince politique, que les disputes de la foy et de la religion n'alterassent les espris de ses sujets et le repos de son empire; et il estoit affligé comme prince chrestien, de ee que le scandale de cette division exposoit la religion chrestienne aux railleries des payens et des bouffons, qui le joüoient mesme sur les theatres, et pouvoit porter plusieurs payens qui eussent voulu se faire chrestiens, à differer leur conversion; ce qui est un effet naturel de toutes les heresies.' He appeared then,-if we may anticipate a title conferred upon a monarch, who seems to have done little more than to restore the jurisdiction of the crown in ecclesiastical affairs, to the state in which Constantine left it—as the Defender of the Faith, of which we shall subsequently find that he took upon himself, in some measure, to be the interpreter.

"But the best means of ascertaining in what character Con. stantine came to this Council, will be to inquire what he did when he was there, as it is recorded by one who was an eye-witness of his conduct. After giving us the speech with which this emperor opened the solemn deliberations of the council, Eusebius informs us +, that' il permit aux presidens du Concile de dire ce qu'il leur plairoit. Alors,' he adds, les uns commencerent à former des accusations, les autres à y répondre, àet faire aussi des plain

"Hermant, Vie de S. Athanase, liv. ii. c. 1. p. 103." "Vita Const. lib. iii. c. 13. p. 605.”

« The original words are παρεδίδου τὸν λόγον τοῖς τῆς συνόδου podgor, and the use of the plural number has naturally given rise to an opinion that the Council had more presidents than one. Such is that of Launoy, who seeks to reconcile the conflicting testimo nies of the ancient writers, by sharing this office between Alexander, Eustathius, and Osius. This conjecture would derive some support from the Synodicon itself, if the number of errors which it commits in the short space of seven-and twenty lines of only one column of a page, did not deprive that register of every degree of credit. For we there read, that over the proceedings of that assembly præfuerunt et præsederunt Vito et Vincentius presbyteri locum tenentes Silvestri papæ Romani, ejusque successoris Julii : Alexander, Alexandriæ: Macarius, Hierosolymorum: Eustathius, Antiocha: vice Metrophanis, Constantinopolitani, Alexander presbyter Hosius, Cordubæ episcopus; et Constantinus inter Christianos imperatores apostolus.""

tes

tes.

Ces contestations-la ayant excité un grand bruit, l'Empereur écouta avec une extréme patience tout ce qui fut avancé par les partis differens, expliqua quelque-fois leurs raisons, et enfin les mit d'accord. Il leur parla,' he further tells us, "en grec dont il avoit quelque connoissance, loüa les uns, convainquit les autres par la force de ses raisons, et flechit les autres par la douceur de ses remontrances jusques à ce qu'il eut terminé leurs differens, et appaisé leurs quereles.' The differences which have arisen amongst modern historians as to who was the president of this convocation have already been noticed *, but it seems to be difficult to conceive a more correct description of the duties of this office, as it would have been exercised in times, when the share which the individual who filled it was to take in the debate was not so correctly ascertained as it now is, than that which this passage affords us, and from which I think we may safely conclude, that whilst present in the assembly, (and there is no reason to think that he was absent during any part of its solemn and public disputations,) the emperor himself presided over the deliberations of the Council, which he had unquestionably convoked t. It is not contended that he voted with the bishops; (if, indeed, from the general unanimity which he finally established there was any voting in the case,) but it must be remembered that, even in our times, the Speaker of the House of Commons, and the president of other assemblies, have only a casting vote, in case of an equality of voices.

"This point is very fully discussed by Pagi (An. 325, § 11 -18, tom. i. p. 406-8), and by Samuel Basnage (An. 325, § 19 -22, tom. ii. p. 700-3) to which I refer those readers who may wish for further information on the subject. The former of these writers argues in favour of Hosius, Vincent, and Vitus, as legates of the papal see; the latter in favour of Eustathius, patriarch of Antioch."

"The truth is,' says Dr. Comber (Roman forgeries, part ii. p. 86), Constantine himself was the president of this Council, and sat on a gilded throne (not as the preface saith falsely, below all the bishops; but) above all the bishops, as Eusebius an eye-witness relates; and the Notes at last own he sat in the chief place. Yea, the Annalist confesseth he acted the part of a moderator in it. Richerius,' continues our author, goes further, saying, It is clear, by undoubted testimonies, that the appointing and convening of this Council depended on the authority of Constantine, who was the president thereof. In fact the canon law itself makes the same admission; for in the canon Futuram, c. 12, p. 1, we read that Constantine præsidens in sancta synodo, quæ apud Nicæam congregata est, cùm querelam quorumdam conspiceret coram se delatam, ait: Vos a nemine dijudicari potestis: quia solius Dei judicio reservamini. Dii etenim vocati estis: et idcirio non potestis ab hominibus judicari.'"

When