Emperor Constantine, in which he discourses at large respecting God and his providence, the incarnation of our Saviour, and the blessings we derive through him, he speaks of the Holy Scriptures as our great Teacher in these points. "Let the declarations of the Oracles, not those uttered by divination or rather foolish madness, but those uttered by the light of divine inspiration, be our teachers in the sacred mysteries; [let them teach us] concerning the kingdom itself, and concerning the supreme King, and the divine Guard which surrounds the universal King;, as also concerning that example of royalty which is among us, and concerning that which falsely counterfeits its character; and those things which accompany each rank. accompany each rank. From these [oracles] therefore, having learnt the sacrifices suitable to God, as from some Hierophantæ, let us thus commence handling the divine mysteries."1

THE COUNCIL OF NICE (a. 325.)

From Eusebius let us pass on to the consideration of the proceedings at the great Council of Nice, and see what is the testimony borne by the conduct of that assembly to the subject under discussion.

The Tractators with the Romanists would fain make us believe that the Fathers there assembled pronounced judgment not directly from Scripture, but from the interpretation given to Scripture by ecclesiastical tradition. Mr. Keble, in particular, has devoted many pages to the endeavour to prove that the Nicene Fathers were "earnest and constant in resorting to tradition in order to decide among conflicting interpretations of Scripture, and settle the fundamentals of our most holy faith," (p. 141,) and asserts that they " went to church tradition for the critical and decisive phrase of one substance with the Father,'" (p. 138,) all which I hope to prove is very far from the truth.

I shall now, then, first give the reader some extracts from the accounts remaining to us of the proceedings of this Council, and then offer a few observations on what appear to me the very incorrect and delusive statements of Mr. Keble.

After an address on the part of the bishops of the Emperor Constantine, the discussion was opened by a speech from Constantine to the assembly, at the close of which he makes the follow

1 Λογιων δε χρησμοί, ουκ εκ μαντείας μάλλον η μανίας παράφρονος, φωτος δ' επιπνοίας ενθεου προσπεφωνημένοι, των τελείων ήμιν γενεσθωσαν διδάσκαλοι αμφι βασιλείας αυτης αμφι το βασιλιάς του ανωτατου δορυφορὰς τε θείας αμφι των πάντων βασιλέα του σε καθ' ήμας βασιλικού παραδειγματος, και του το χαραγμα κεκιβδηλουμένου των θ' ἑκατέρω συνομαρτον των ταγματι, οἷς δε τας θεοπρεπείς τελετας ἱεροφαντούμενοι, ωδετη θειων οργίων εφάψάμεσα Præf. ad Orat. in laud. Constant. (Ed. Reading, vol. i. p. 716.)

ing remarks," It would be grievous," he says, "yea, very grievous, our enemies being destroyed, and no one daring to oppose us, that we should wound one another, and afford pleasure and laughter to our adversaries. And especially when we are discussing divine things, and have the teaching of the most holy Spirit fully committed to writing. For the evangelical and apostolical books, and the oracles of the antient prophets, CLEARLY AND FULLY TEACH US what should be our views respecting the Godhead. Let us, therefore, banish hostile contention and TAKE THE SOLUTION OF THE POINTS IN QUESTION FROM THE WORDS OF DIVINE INSPIRATION."1

Such were the sentiments of the Emperor Constantine, who was at that time not a novice in the Christian faith, and who had certainly had every advantage of instruction in it. A testimony more decisively in favour of the views for which we are contending could not have been pronounced, and whatever slight may have been put upon it by Bellarmine, in saying that Constantine was a great Emperor, but not a great doctor, or by Mr. Keble in passing it over in silence, there will be those who will regard it as evidence of something more than the mere private notion of an individual; not to mention that it is stated by Theodoret that immediately upon the conclusion of this speech, "the greater part of the synod assented to what he had said," and that the language in which he is spoken of by all who have written concerning him, point him out as no mean authority in the matter. I need hardly observe how completely this language proves that the Emperor Constantine recognised no other record of revelation or inspired teaching but the Holy Scriptures.

But further; we are not without ample evidence of the way in which the discussion was conducted. It will be remembered that the points in question, and upon which the Council was called to decide, were those which had been mooted by Arius; and of the conduct of the discussion on these points we have the following clear and particular account given us by Athanasius.

"The assembled bishops being desirous to reject the impious phrases invented by the Arians, namely [that the Son was created] from things that were not,' and the saying that the Son is a

1 Δεινον είη και αγαν δεῖνον. των πολεμιων καταλυθέντων, και μηδενος αντιτείνειν τολμαντος, αλληλους βάλλειν, και τοις δυσμενεσιν ἡδονην και γέλωτα προξενειν' άλλως τε και περι θείων διαλεγομένους πραγμάτων, και του παναγίου Πνεύματος την διδασκαλίαν αναγκαστον έχοντας. Ευαγγελικαί γαρ, φησι, βίβλοι και Αποστολίκαι, και των παλαιων προφητων τα θεσπίσματα, σαφώς ήμας ο χρη περι του θείου φρονείν εκπαιδευουσι. Την πολεμοποιον ουν απελάσαντες εμῖν, εκ των θεοπνεύστων λόγων λαβωμεν των ζητουμένων την λυσιν. Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. lib. i. c. 6. (Op. ed. Schulze Halæ, 1769 et seq. vol. iii. p. 757.) See also, Gelasii Cyzic. Comment. Act. Conc. Nic. lib. ii. c. 7. Ed. Balf. Lutet. 1599 pp. 84, 5.

2 Της συνόδω το πλείστον τις λεγομένοις επείθετο.. Theodoret, eod. loc. p. 757.

6

being created and made,' and 'there was a time when he was not,' and that he is of a changeable nature,' and to write words that were confessedly words of Scripture; namely, that the only-begotten Word is of God by nature, the Power, the alone wisdom of the Father, the true God, as John said; and as Paul has written, the brightness of the glory and the image of the Father's substance; the followers of Eusebius [of Nicomedia], being led astray by their own erroneous notions, said among themselves,-Let us assent to these things, for even we also are of God, for there is one God of whom are all things,' and 'old things are passed away, behold all things are become new, but all things are of God. And they thought also of that which is written in The Shepherd,' 'First of all believe that there is one God, who created and perfected all things, and brought them into existence out of nothing.' But the bishops seeing their deceitfulness and impious artfulness, used a plainer expression than 'of God,' and wrote, that the Son was of the substance of God; so that creatures, from their not being produced from themselves without a cause, but having a beginning of their existence, might be said to be of God, but the Son only to be properly of the substance of the Father, for this is peculiar to the only-begotten and true Word with respect to the Father. And this was the reason why those words were written of the substance. Again, the bishops asking those who appeared to be a small party, if they would say, that the Son was not a creature, but the Power, the alone Wisdom of the Father, and his eternal image, like to the Father in all things, and true God, the Eusebians were caught intimating to one another that these things also apply to us, for even we also are said to be the image and glory of God," &c. . "But here also the bishop, having observed their deceit, collected together out of the Scriptures these words, the brightness, the fountain, and the river, and the image of the substance, and that expression, In thy light shall we see light, and that, I and my father are one,' and then at last they wrote more plainly and compendiously, that the Son was consubstantial with the Father, for all the previous expressions have this meaning."1

1 Των συνελθέντων επισκόπων βουλομένων τας μεν παρα των Αρειανων εξευρεθεισας της απε βειας λέξεις ανελειν· το, εξ ουκ οντων και το λεγειν κτισμα και ποίημα τον υἱον και, ην ποτέ ότε ουκ ην και ότι τρεπτής εστι φύσεως σας δε των γραφων ὁμολογουμενας γράψαι ότι τε εκ του Θεού τη φύσει μονογένης ἐστιν ὁ λόγος, δυναμις, σοφία μόνη του Πατρός, θεός αληθινος, ως εἶπεν ὁ Ιωάννης και ως έγραψεν ὁ Παύλος, απαύγασμα της δόξης, και χαρακτηρ της του Πατρος ὑποστάσεως· οἱ περὶ Ευσέβιον ὑπο της ίδιας κακοδοξίας ελκομένοι, διελάλουν άλληλοις· συνθωμεθα και γαρ και ήμεις εκ του θεου εσμεν εις γαρ θεος εξ ού τα παντα και τα αρχαία παρηλθεν, ίδιου γέγονε τα πάντα καιναι τα δε πάντα εκ του θεου· ἐλογίζοντο δε και το εν τω Παι μενι γράφεν πρώτον πάντων πιστευσον, ὅτι εἰς ἐστιν ὁ θεος, ὁ τα πάντα κτίσας και καταρτι σας, και ποιήσας εκ του μη οντος εις το είναι Αλλ' οι επισκοποι θεωρήσαντες την πανουργίαν εκείνων, και την της ασέβειας κακοτεχνιαν, λευκοτερον ειρήκασι το εκ του θεου, και εγραψεν, εκ

This account is repeated by Athanasius in another place in almost the same words, the last sentence being, if possible, still more clear in favour of the cause being determined directly from Scripture. "But the bishops having observed their hypocrisy in this ⚫ were compelled again to collect the sense of the matter from the Scriptures, and to repeat in plainer words what they had said before, and write that the Son was consubstantial with the Father.”1

..

How, with this clear and particular account of the mode in which the discussion was conducted, any one can affirm that the matter was determined by a reference to the traditional interpretation of the Church, is almost inconceivable. And yet, in the face of these passages, Mr. Keble scruples not to affirm that "the three hundred bishops who joined in its [i. e. the Nicene Creed's] promulgation, did not profess to have collected it out of the Bible, but simply to express the faith which each of them had found in the Church which he represented, received by tradition from the Apostles." (p. 35.)! And these passages, containing a plain and clear account of the way in which the discussion was conducted, though occurring in Treatises from which Mr. Keble has quoted, are passed over in complete silence; and his evidence as to the conduct of the debate is derived wholly from inferences drawn from indirect sources of information. The case is so important, that it may be worth while to sift that evidence, and it will afford an opportunity of strengthening the conclusions to which the preceding extracts necessarily lead.

The representation which Mr. Keble has given us of the matter is this; "The method of proceeding at Nicæa appears to have

της ουσίας του θεου είναι τον υἱον, ἵνα τα μεν κτίσματα, δια το μη αφ' έαυτων χωρις αιτίου είναι αλλά αρχήν έχειν του γενεσθαι, λεγεται εκ του θεου, ὁ δε υἱος μονος ίδιος της του Πατρός ου σιας· τούτο γαρ ίδιον μονογένους και αληθινου λόγου προς Πατέρα και περί μεν του γεγραφ θαι εκ της ουσίας, η πρόφασις αύτη. Πάλιν δε των επισκόπων ερωτώντων τους δοκούντας ολι γους, είπερ λέγοιεν, τον υίον ου κτισμα, αλλά δυναμιν, σοφίαν με την του Πατρός, και είκονα αίδιον, απαράλλακτον κατα παντα του Πατρις, και θεον αληθινόν, κατελήφθησαν οἱ περὶ Ευσε βιον διανεύοντες αλλήλοις, ότι και ταυτα φθάνει και εις ήμας, και γαρ και ήμεις και είκων και δοξα θεου λεγομεθα, κ. τ. λ. Αλλά και ενταυθα οἱ Επισκοποι θεωρήσαντες εκείνων το δολίον, συνήγαγον, εκ των γραφών, το απαύγασμα, την τε πηγήν και τον ποταμον, και τον χαρακτήρα προς την ὑπόστασιν, και το, εν τω φωτί σου οψόμεθα φως, και το, εγω και τὴν ἐν εσμεν· και λευκύτερον λοιπον και συντομως εγραψαν, ὁμοούσιον τω Πατρί τον υίον τα γαρ προειρημένα πάντα ταύτην έχει την σημασίαν. ATHANAS. Ad Afros Episc. Epist. §§ 5, 6. Ed. Bened. tom. i. pp. 895, 6. This passage is quoted by Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 7.

Πα

1 Αλλ' οἱ επίσκοποι και εν τούτω θεωρησαντες την ὑποκρισιν εκείνων, και ότι, κατα το γεγρά μμένον, εν καρδίαις των ασεβών δύλος εστι τεκταινομένων κακα, ηναγκάσθησαν και αυτοί αυτ θις συναγαγειν εκ των γράφων την διανοιαν, και απερ πρότερον έλεγον, ταυτα παλιν λευκότερον είπειν και γράψαι, ὁμοούσιον είναι τω Πατρί τον υίον. De Decret. Synod. Nic. 5 20. tom. i. pp. 225, 6. In accordance with this statement of Athanasius, it is said by Phæbadius, "Quid egistis, O beatæ memoriæ viri, qui ex omnibus orbis partibus Nicæam congregati, et sacris voluminibus pertractis perfectam fidei Catholica regulam circuminspecto sermone fecistis.” Phæbad. Contra Arian. lib. i. 5. 6. Bibl. Patr. V. 251. ed. Galland.

been nearly as follows; each bishop was required to rehearse the faith which he and his Church professed, and into which they were baptized," and when all, with but few exceptions, "agreed substantially in the orthodox interpretation," "the burthen of proof was of course thrown on the heresiarch, and he was required to make good his theory by allegations from Scripture," " but his allegations being overthrown by large arguments from Scripture itself, the orthodox creed was considered as sufficiently established," and "the orthodox TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION was incorporated into a written creed, being first thoroughly vindicated both in the substance and wording of it, and also in the annexed anathema, by reasoning out of Holy Writ. The result was the Nicene Creed with its anathema." (pp. 119, 23.)

66

Now all this as to the bishops " rehearsing their faith," and this "orthodox traditional interpretation," in which they "agreed substantially," being " incorporated into a written creed," is a pure fiction, utterly destitute of any testimony in its favour in all, the various accounts given us by the antients of this Council, and clearly opposed to the accounts quoted above of its proceedings. Not one of those who have left us an account of this Council, has given us the slightest hint that the bishops there assembled so gave in their confession of faith; and Bishop Taylor, after saying, "it is not certain that they at their meeting recited any other creed than the Apostolical," adds, "for that they did not, Laurentius Valla, a Canou in the Lateran Church, affirms, that himself hath read in the antient books of Isidore, who collected the canons of the antient councils." (x. 462.)

Further, as to the notion that these creeds, containing the "orthodox traditional interpretation," were incorporated, and thus formed the Nicene Creed, we have demonstrative evidence that it is incorrect, for Eusebius, in his Letter to his own Diocese, giving an account of the proceedings of the Council, gives us the creed which he proposed to the Council as that which he had received from the bishops who had preceded him and his early instructors, and had professed at baptism, and "learned from the Holy Scriptures," and which he tells us was approved (i. e. as far as it went) by the bishops there assembled, and in which those very phrases, which alone were obnoxious to the Arian party, and were controverted in the Council, were not to be found; and which is condemned by Athanasius as unsatisfactory on the points in question; and by the extracts given above from Athanasius, we see clearly in what way, and by what considerations, the Council was induced to add to this proposed and approved creed of Eusebius the words which alone decisively condemned

7

See ATHANAS. De Decret. Synod. Nic. § 3. tom. i. pp. 210, 11.