As for the Letter from the Council of _Nice_ to _Sylvester_, his Answer, the Acts of a Council of 275 Bishops, supposed to have been held by him, at the Request of the Fathers of _Nice_, to confirm their Canons and Decrees[N12], his Letter to the Bishops of _Gaul_, in favour of the Church of _Vienne_; the Acts of Two other Councils, said to have been held by him at _Rome_; they are all Pieces universally rejected by Men of Learning, and deemed no less fabulous than the Instrument of _Constantine_’s Donation, and that Prince’s Journey with _Sylvester_ to the Council of _Nice_, as it is related in the Acts of the latter, even in those which _F. Combesis_ published in 1660. They are in _Greek_, and that Writer undertakes to defend them as genuine[656]; but we need no other Proof than the Account they give of that Journey, to conclude them incapable of being defended. _Sylvester_ died on the 31st of _December_ 335. after having governed the Church of _Rome_ for the Space of Twenty-one Years, and Eleven Months[657]. ----- Footnote N12: The Style of the Letter from the Council to _Sylvester_ is quite barbarous and unintelligible. It begins thus: _Gloriam corroborata de Divinis Mysteriis. Ecclesiasticæ utilitatis quæ ad robur pertinent Ecclesiæ Catholicæ & Apostolicæ ad sedem tuam_ Romanam _explanata & de Græce redacta scribere confitemur--Nunc itaque ad vestræ sedis argumentum accurrimus roborari_. The rest is written in the same Style; the Consuls are called _Sovereigns_, and the Letter is dated Five or Six Days after the Opening of the Council. The Design of the Impostor was, to make the Fathers of _Nice_ recur to _Sylvester_ for a Confirmation of their Decrees. _Sylvester_’s Answer is of a piece with the Letter of the Council; it supposes him to have added something to the Council; mentions the Cycle of _Victorinus_, who was not born in _Sylvester_’s Time, nor many Years after; and bears a false Date. As for the Council said, and by some still maintained, to have been held at _Rome_, to confirm the Canons of _Nice_, it was utterly unknown to all the Antients. And who can believe, that none of the Antients should ever have heard of a Council held in the Metropolis of the Empire, and consisting, as we are told, of Two hundred and Seventy-five Bishops, or, if they had heard of it, that they would never have mentioned it? Besides, it is said to have been held at _Rome_, in the Presence of _Constantine_; and it is certain, that the Emperor was not in _Rome_ at the Time the Council is supposed to have been held. The Canons, which are supposed to have been made on this Occasion, contain Regulations repugnant to the Practice of those Times, and which it was then impossible to observe. The first Canon relates to the Time when _Easter_ was to be kept; but what is there determined no Man can know. The Second is no less unintelligible than