anations
of those who approved of the decisions of that council." Vast as its
influence has been, "the ancient critics are neither agreed concerning
the time nor place in which it was assembled, the number of those who
sat in it, nor the bishop who presided. No authentic acts of its famous
sentence have been committed to writing, or, at least, none have been
transmitted to our times." The Church had now become what, in the
language of modern politicians, would be called "a confederated
republic." The will of the council was determined by a majority vote,
and, to secure that, all manner of intrigues and impositions were
resorted to; the influence of court females, bribery, and violence, were
not spared. The Council of Nicea had scarcely adjourned,--when it was
plain to all impartial men that, as a method of establishing a criterion
of truth in religious matters, such councils were a total failure. The
minority had no rights which the majority need respect. The protest of
many good men, that a mere majority vote given by delegates, whose right
to vote had never been examined and authorized, could not be received
as ascertaining absolute truth, was passed over with contempt, and the
consequence was, that council was assembled against council, and their
jarring and contradictory decrees spread perplexity and confusion
throughout the Christian world. In the fourth century alone there were
thirteen councils adverse to Arius, fifteen in his favor, and seventeen
for the semi-Arians--in all, forty-five. Minorities were perpetually
attempting to use the weapon which majorities had abused.

The impartial ecclesiastical historian above quoted, moreover, says
that "two monstrous and calamitous errors were adopted in this fourth
century: 1. That it was an act of virtue to deceive and lie when, by
that means, the interests of the Church might be promoted. 2. That
errors in religion, when maintained and adhered to after proper
admonition, were punishable with civil penalties and corporal tortures."

Not without astonishment can we look back at what, in those times, were
popularly regarded as criteria of truth. Doctrines were considered
as established by the number of martyrs who had professed them, by
miracles, by the confession of demons, of lunatics, or of persons
possessed of evil spirits: thus, St. Ambrose, in his disputes with the
Arians, produced men possessed by devils, who, on the approach of the
relics of certain martyrs, ack