remarkable that both the council of Nice, and the Apostolical Constitutions direct that ecclesiastical councils be held semi-annually, and at the same seasons of the year when the Amphyctionic council were wont to convene.3 The council of Nice only conformed to the established usage in settling upon these stated seasons for the convening of their body. This circumstance would show, beyond doubt, the influence of their political institutions in their ecclesiastical affairs, did not the letter of Firmilian above quoted, speak of their councils as being held annually, per singulos annos.

These councils of the Grecian states must, for a considerable length of time, have been circumscribed within very narrow limits. Tertullian knew nothing of them. Towards the beginning of the third century they began to be better known. The controversy between the Eastern and Western church relating to Easter, threw the whole christian world, with the exception perhaps of Africa, into commotion, and brought them together in opposing councils. Such councils were now held at Caesarea, or Aelia, and at Rome; in Pontus, and France; in proconsular Asia, in Mesopotamia, and probably in Achaia. Within the third century, councils began also to be held in Africa.

But without pursuing the history of these councils further, we will confine our attention to the following inquires relating to them. 1. What was the extent of their jurisdiction? 2. What was their peculiar organization? 3. Who were appropriately the constituent members of them?

1. What was the extent of their jurisdiction? At first they were, without doubt, provincial synods. This conclusion is fully implied from the fact, that nothing is said relating to this subject. Had their jurisdiction extended beyond the limits of their own provinces, it must have been mentioned. The synods of Asia Minor must be understood, therefore, to have been restricted to their own provin cial limits; such as that of Hierapolis in Phrygia, which was chiefly inhabited by the Montanists. Those of Anchiolus were probably limi ted in their jurisdiction to Thrace, but if not, they were only an exception to the prevailing custom. The councils which were held in many places respecting the controversy on the subject of Easter, were assuredly provincial synods. Such were also the synods which were held in Arabia in the third century, A. D. 243 and 246. The same is true also of the synod of Rome held by Cornelius in the

year 251; and of the synod of Antioch, A. D. 252 against the Novatians, and again at Rome, A. D. 260. Three provincial synods were also held at Antioch, from the year 264 to 269, against Paul of Samosata. Still it is not to be presumed that all these were organized on precisely the same principles; the clergy from neighboring provinces may have had a seat and a voice in some of them. Men of great weight of character, and whose counsels were highly respected, were particularly desired to attend from other places, and the convening of the council was, at times, delayed in order to secure their attendance. Origen, in this capacity, attended the council in Arabia, and, by his learning and talents, settled the point in dispute to the satisfaction of the council. The bishops of Antioch also were so much embarrassed by the learning of Paul of Samosata, whom they would convict of heresy, that they invited the attendance of certain bishops from the Grecian provinces in Asia, including Palestine and Egypt. The metropolitan of Alexandria excused himself by reason of his great age 4 but many bishops from those provinces attended the council,-Firmilian from Cappadocia, Gregory and Athenodorus from Pontus, Helenus of Tarsus, Nicomas of Iconium; and the archbishops Hymenaeus of Jerusalem, and Theotecnus of Caesarea, together with the bishop Maximus, from Arabia. Paul, however, by his talents withstood them all; and the council dispersed without gaining any advantage over him.5 Foreigners, in like manner, attended both the second and third councils which were held for the same purpose. In the last council, a presbyter, Malchion, bore a conspicuous part, and was the principal agent in putting an end to the discussion.

About the same period of time other councils were held which were sometimes more and at others less than provincial synods. The council of Iconium, A. D. 235, consisted of bishops from Phrygia, Galatia, Cilicia, and other neighboring provinces. Another council was also held in opposition to this in a neighboring town, Synnada, of which we know only that it had little or no influence against the first at Iconium. But this is sufficient to show that no established system of ecclesiastical jurisdiction at this time prevailed, even in the states of Greece, where such councils were first held.

In Africa, there was much less of system in these matters than in the Grecian states. Cyprian informs that he thought it necessary to convene a council of many of the clergy, to deliberate respecting

the common good, in which council many topics were proposed and discussed. But he adds, "I am aware that some will never change their minds, nor give over a cherished purpose; but however harmonious their colleagues may be, they will persist in the support of their own peculiar views. Under these circumstances it is not my business to attempt, by constraint, to give laws to any one; but, in the administration of the church, to leave to every one to the freedom of his own choice who must answer unto God for his conduct." Ep. 72.

The first ecclesiastical council. of Africa cannot be said to have been either provincial or general. Under Galba this country had been divided into three provinces. Constantine divided it into six. And yet it appears from Cyprian, Ep. 45, that the former division. of Galba was still observed in the organization of the council, and that one even of these provinces was not represented; but for what reason does not appear. All, however, by common consent appear to have accorded to Cyprian at Carthage the right of convening a general council at his pleasure. This is the more probable from the fact that in the year 255, several bishops who apparently composed a provincial synod, appealed to him for the settlement of certain subjects of discussion among them.

The other councils in Africa were, for the most part, provincial in their character. Such was the council which was held before the time of Cyprian, the date of which is not distinctly known. So also were the councils held by Cyprian in the years 249, 251, 252, 255 and 256.

From all which it appears, that most of the councils which were held in Africa were limited in their jurisdiction, and provincial in their character. Some, however, were more general; and such was generally the character of the councils which were held in that country after the third century.

2. What was the appropriate organization of the regular provin cial synods? In general, the ecclesiastic within the province, whether bishop, metropolitan, or patriarch, presided in these councils. The popular character of these assemblies would indeed have permitted any one to be elevated to the office of moderator. But the gradations of the priesthood, and the jealousy of the several orders were such that none but he that was highest in official rank could have been placed in the chair to the mutual satisfaction of all

classes. The presbyters would have claimed precedence of the deacons, the bishops of the presbyters; and so on until none should be found to dispute the claim with the highest dignitary of the province. The greatest number of the members of the council would also come from the diocese of the highest functionary, which circumstance would give him the strongest party in the election. And there are many other ways in which this seat might have been secured to him.

The results or decrees, of the councils were usually published in the name of the moderator. There are some instances in which the names of the attending bishops accompany the decree. Such, however, was not the usual custom. The metropolitans were jealous of their rights, and strove earnestly for a controling influence in the councils. For the same reason they insisted that the result should be published under the sanction of their authority, and in their name. They usually had the address to cause their own opinions to prevail; and few had the independence to dispute them. Thus the metropolitan of Alexandria had the influence to cause his synod to banish Origen, A. D. 230. Cornelius effected the excommunication of three bishops at Rome, A. D. 251, in the same arbitrary manner. By such strides did the principal ecclesiastics advance their spiritual hierarchy; and so tamely did the subordinate members of their councils suffer the most esteemed men in the church to suffer unjustly under this spiritual despotism. The councils were merely the or gan of the metropolitan to execute his arbitrary decrees.

3. Who were appropriately members of these councils? This inquiry is involved in much darkness and uncertainty. There is however satisfactory evidence that bishops and presbyters were entitled to bear a part in the deliberations of these assemblies. The letter of Firmilian, in the middle of the third century, makes distinct mention of presbyters, seniores. Origen, as a presbyter, attended the council of Arabia; and Malchion acted in the same capacity in the three councils of Antioch. Besides, there were very many churches under the care of presbyters, which, if represented at all in council as they evidently were, must send presbyters as their delegates.

Whether the laity were permitted to take a part in the deliberations of these councils as constituent members of them is an interesting and important inquiry. This is discussed at length by Walch, p. 121. He is clearly of opinion that the laity of the place where

the council was held had this right. Others are of opinion that, in the absence of their bishops, laymen of the province where the council was held were delegated to attend in their place. And yet it seems most probable that the laity did not enjoy the right of acting as members of these councils. One may indeed presume that, as representatives of the churches to which they belonged, they would be entitled to a place in the council; but on this point history is silent. Had they exercised this right, it must have been a circumstance of such interest to the clergy that we can hardly suppose that it would have been passed over in silence, especially in the earliest periods of the history of ecclesiastical councils. Party spirit would, at times, have appeared among them, and their influence manifested itself on one side or the other. It seems, therefore, that care was taken that the deliberations of the council should not be disturbed by the presence of the laity.

The councils were usually held in the churches, or in buildings adjacent, and belonging to them; and were open to the attendance of any as spectators.

A scribe or recorder is first mentioned as having attended the second council of Antioch against Paul of Samosata. They are also mentioned by Eusebius, 7. 29. Such clerks became common in the fourth century, who recorded at length the discussions and debates of the council.

We close this view of the early ecclesiastical councils by recapitulating the conclusions to which it has conducted us.

These councils were not formed after the model of that at Jerusalem which is described in Acts xv; but took their origin and character from the peculiar circumstances of the church in those primitive times.

They were first held in the Grecian states; and the political or ganization of these states probably had much influence in the formation of their peculiar constitution and organization.

They were convened at the call of the metropolitan, who also acted as the presiding officer of the assembly, and exercised a controling influence over their deliberations and decisions.

The several orders of the clergy, bishops, presbyters, and deacons, were regular members of these councils; but the laity were not entitled to a seat in them.

They were unknown in Africa in the time of Tertullian; but soon