The materials for a complete history of the community sealed during the interval from A.D. 325 to A.D. 396, are very scanty. All that can be done is to glean a few scattered hints, principally to be found in the writings of their catholic adversaries, who maligned them as heretics and schismatics.

We find that in this period the Novatianist societies, which, as we have seen, originated in the middle of the third century, were numerous; and maintaining their original distinctiveness from what had now become the Religion of Rome by law established. The following incident shows this. The historian Socrates informs us that Constantine, anxious for peace and desirous to procure the concord and harmony of the churches of his empire, invited Acesius, one of the Novatianist bishops, to attend the Council of Nice, A.D. 325, which he did. When the Nicene creed had been composed and subscribed by the synod, Constantine appealed to Acesius, and asked him whether he assented with them to the creed? He replied: "The Synod has determined nothing new, my prince; for thus heretofore, even from the commencement and times of the apostles, I traditionally received the definition of the faith, and the time of celebrating Easter." When therefore the emperor further asked him, "For what reason then do you separate yourself from communion with the rest of the church?" he related what had taken place during the persecution under Decius; and referred to the rigidness of that canon which declares, that it is right to account unworthy of participation in the divine mysteries persons who, after immersion, have committed a sin, which the sacred scriptures denominate "a sin unto death" (1 John v. 16): that they should indeed be exhorted to repentance, but were not to expect remission from priests, but from the Deity, who is alone able and has authority to forgive sins. When Acesius had thus spoken, Constantine said to him, "Place a ladder, Acesius, and climb into heaven alone."

The Novatianists had now been before the public about seventy five years. They were very numerous, but seem to have abounded most in Rome, Constantinople and Asia Minor. Morally, they were a considerable improvement upon the adherents of the State Church, being careful to retain none among them whose characters were not reputable in the estimation of good men. Doctrinally, however, they do not appear to have differed materially from the so-called "orthodox." Indeed their close agreement with state-churchmen in opinion concerning the Deity, and the time of observing the Passover, exempted them from persecution in common with other sects. Persecution, however, sometimes afflicted them; but it does not appear to have befallen them because of their testimony for Jesus Christ against iniquity in high places, but, because of their sympathy with the Homoousians, or Consubstantialists, who were sure to come to grief when the Arians became the guardians of the imperial conscience.

The reply of Acesius to Constantine shows a unity of faith between the Novatianist Dissenter and the National Religionist, quite incompatible with the required intelligence of an angel-sealer of the servants of Deity in their foreheads. Had Acesius, as a type of his brethren, been "sealed in his forehead," he certainly could not have assented to the Nicene Creed as a scriptural definition of "the faith" taught by the apostles, nor would he have troubled himself about the celebration of Easter. The apostolic faith was as little comprehended by church and dissent at this crisis, as by their representatives in our day. Hence, the statement of it by the Nicene Fathers was poor and meagre in the extreme; and, as the symbol of their spiritual intelligence, justifies in a great degree the judgment of Sabinus, a bishop of the Macedonian sect contemporary with the council, who styles all that were convened there "idiots and simpletons," and "such as had no intelligence in the matter." The historian Socrates, however, is quite restive under this opinion, and cites the declaration of Eusebius Pamphilus who was present, that "some were eminent for the word of wisdom, others for the strictness of their life; and that the Emperor Constantine himself being present, leading all into unanimity, established unity of judgment, and conformity of opinion among them." But, with all deference to Socrates, the testimony of Pamphilus rather confirms the judgment of Sabinus; for, if the Nicenists had been truly wise in the word, it would not have required the superior wisdom of an unbaptized semi-heathen emperor to lead them into unanimity, and to establish unity and conformity among them. Imperial sunshine had more to do with the creed than "the wisdom from above, which is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, easy to be entreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy" (James iii. 17): which Constantine to his sorrow found was by no means characteristic of the three hundred and eighteen fathers of this Council of Nice.

It was the year next ensuing the termination of the Sixth Seal that Constantine convoked this first Oecumenical Synod. He hoped by it to quiet the discord in his church then in full blast between Alexander and Arius; and to allay the incessant strife and tumult among his catholic people. The emperor had great expectations from the council, which Pamphilus in his life of Constantine, styles, "a sacred edifice, dilated as it were by the Deity" -- "a convocation in imitation of the Apostolic Assembly" on Pentecost; which, he says, was inferior in this respect, that all present were not ministers of the Deity: whereas at Nice the number of bishops exceeded three hundred; while the number of the presbyters, deacons, and acolyths, (or young priests) who attended them was almost incalculable. "Many of the laity were also present, who were practised in the art of reasoning," or of darkening counsel by words without knowledge; "and each prepared to advocate the cause of his own party. For a short time previous to the general assembling of the bishops, the disputants engaged in preparatory logical contests with various opponents: and when many were attracted by the interest of their discourse, one of the laity who was a man of unsophisticated understanding, and had stood the test of persecution in his confession of faith, reproved these reasoners; telling them that Christ and his apostles did not teach us the dialectic art, nor vain subtleties, but simple-mindedness which is preserved by faith and good works." This man spoke like one of the Angel-sealers, the words of truth and soberness. "All present," continued Socrates, "admired the speaker, and assented to the justness of his remarks; and the disputants themselves, after hearing his ingenuous statement of the truth, exercised a far greater degree of moderation; and thus the disturbance caused by these logical debates was suppressed."

In the second chapter of the Acts, the reader may find the Pentecostian declaration of faith proclaimed by the Spirit through the Twelve Apostles. He can compare this with the creed concocted and published by the episcopal fathers of the Nicene Pentecost, and then say, if it would not have been more demonstrative of the alleged wisdom of these Constantinian Catholics to have reaffirmed "the Spirit’s" simple declaration; than to have given utterance to the Nicene speculations of their "great and holy synod." A comparison of the two is sufficient to convince any sealed servant of the Deity, that the opinion of Sabinus is correct; and that, clearly, "they had no intelligence in the matter."

As many of our readers may have no acquaintance with this celebrated symbol of the Apostasy, by the unintelligible jargon of which, the minds of beclouded bishops, presbyters, and peoples, were distracted, and the peace and safety of society fatally impaired, I have concluded to insert it in this place, as the declaration of The Faith of "the Woman Clothed with the Sun."