recommends its observance. Before dismissing the bishops, Constantine again addressed them, exhorting them to maintain peace among themselves. He particularly recommends "those in high places not to raise themselves above their inferiors in rank; for," he adds, "it belongs to God only to judge the virtue and superiority of each one."[1] He gave them some further advice, and then permitted them to return to their churches. They all withdrew joyfully, ascribing to the intervention of the Emperor the peace that had been established between those who had differed in opinion.
In respect to the most serious question that had been discussed in the Council — that of Arianism — Constantine wrote of it to Egypt, where the discussion had birth, "confirming," writes Eusebius, "and sanctioning the decrees of the Council on this subject."[2]
Thus nothing is wanting in the intervention of Constantine at Nicea. It is he who convokes the Council, he who presides, and he who confirms the decrees. Eusebius, a contemporaneous historian, an eye-witness of the events, who took part in the Council, positively asserts it; while subsequent historians, all worthy of confidence — Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret — bear witness to the fidelity of his recital.
Gelasius of Cyzicus, author of a romance founded upon the Council of Nicea, who lived in the fifth century, is the first, as we have said, to make mention of the Bishop of Rome in the convocation and presidency of the Council of Nicea. His mistake was propagated in the East, and the sixth oroneral council in the seventh century did not protest against it when uttered in its presence. But it will be admitted that the erronous assertion of a writer who entirely contradicts history and the clearest traditions, cannot be received as truth because
