show more clearly how completely Scripture was made the sole authoritative rule of faith by Eusebius, and as far as his testimony goes by the Bishops at Nice? We shall hereafter see that the introduction of the word "consubstantial" into their Confession is not inconsistent with this decision, for that word was made use of as one immediately flowing from the language of Scripture, and only equivalent to that which was clearly expressed in Scripture.

Again; in the disputation with the Philosopher in the Council of Nice recorded by Gelasius, Eusebius replying in the name of the bishops there assembled, makes in one of his answers the following observations, “Believe those things which are written, the things which are not written neither consider nor enquire after;" and shortly after, having expounded what he considered the true doctrine respecting the Son, he adds, "which we, knowing by faith, preach according to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures."

Still more plainly in the Preface to his Oration in praise of the 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

γραφής το, εξ ουκ οντων, και το, ην ποτε ότε ουκ ην, και τοις εξης επιλεγομενοις κεχρημένης, ουκ ευλογον εφανη ταυτα λεγειν και διδασκειν. ᾧ και αυτω καλώς δοξαντι συνεθεμεθα. EUSEBII Epist. ad. Cæsariens. in Socrat. Hist. Eccles. lib. i. c. 8. (Ed. Reading, vol. ii. p. 26.) See also Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. lib. i. c. 12, et Gelas. Cyzic. Comment. Act. Conc. Nic. P. 2. c. 36. Ed. Balf. p. 185.

2 Τοις γεγραμμένοις πιστευε, τα μη γεγραμμενα μη εννοει μηδε ζητει . όπερ ἡμεις πιστει νοούντες κηρυττομεν, κατα την διδασκαλίαν των ἱερων γραφων. Euseb. ad. Philosoph. in Gelas. Cyzic. Comment. Act. Conc. Nic. P. 2. c. 19. Ed. Balf. p. 124. It is right that I should here add that some modern authors have doubted the authenticity of the statements made by Gelasius as to what took place in the Council of Nice, that is, those which rest upon his authority alone. The Romanists, in particular, find it convenient to call his statements in question. As to this particular passage, therefore, I leave the matter to the reader's judgment. See respecting Gelasius, Mirai Auctarium De Scriptor. Eccles. p. 21. in Fabric. Biblioth. Eccles. Hamb. 1718, and Cave Hist. Liter.

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. 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.

5 Λογιών δε χρησμοι, ουκ εκ μαντειας μαλλον η μανιας παραφρονος, φωτος δ' επιπνοίας ενθεου προσπεφωνημένοι, των τελείων ήμιν γενεσθωσαν διδασκαλοι αμφι βασιλείας αυτης αμφι τε βασιλεως του ανωτατου δορυφορίας τε θειας αμφι των παντων βασιλεα του τε καθ' ἡμας βασιλικου παραδείγματος, και του το χαραγμα κεκιβδηλουμένου των θ' ἑκατέρω συνομαρτούντων ταγματι. οἷς δη τας θεοπρεπεις τελετας ἱεροφαντούμενοι, ὧδεπη θειων οργιων εφαψωμεθα. Praef. ad Orat. in laud. Constant. (Ed. Reading, vol. i. p. 716.)

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 to the Emperor Constantine, the discussion was opened by a speech from Constantine to the assembly, at the close of which he makes the following 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

1 Δεινον ειη και αγαν δεινον, των πολεμίων καταλυθέντων, και μηδενος αντιτείνειν τολμώντος, αλληλους βαλλειν, και τοις δυσμενεσιν ἡδονην και γέλωτα προξενειν αλλως τε και περι θείων διαλεγόμενους πραγματων, και του παναγιου Πνεύματος την διδασκαλίαν αν αγραπτον έχοντας. Ευαγγελικαί γαρ, φησι, βιβλοι και Αποστολίκαι, και των παλαιων προφητων τα θεσπίσματα, σαφως ἡμας & χρη περι του Θείου φρονειν εκπαιδεύουσι. Την πολεμοποιον ουν απέλασαντες έριν, εκ των θεοπνεύστων λογων 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.

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 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

1 Της συνόδου το πλείστον τοις λεγομενοις επείθετο. Theodoret. eod. loc.

p. 757.

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 bishops, 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 συνελθοντων επισκοπων βουλομενων τας μεν παρα των Αρειανών εφευ ρεθείσας της ασεβειας λεξεις ανελειν' το, εξ ουκ οντων και το λεγειν κτισμα και ποιημα τον υἱον· και, ην ποτε ότε ουκ ην· και ότι τρεπτης εστι φύσεως τας δε των γραφων ὁμολογουμενας γράψαι ότι τε εκ του Θεου τη φύσει μονογενής εστιν ὁ λόγος, δυναμις, σοφια μονη του Πατρός, θεός αληθινος, ὡς ειπεν ὁ Ιωάννης· και ὡς έγραψεν ὁ Παυλος, απαύγασμα της δόξης, και χαρακτηρ της του Πατρος ύποστασεως· οἱ περὶ Ευσέβιον ύπο της ίδιας κακοδοξίας ἑλκόμενοι, διελαλουν αλληλοις· συνθώμεθα και γαρ και ήμεις εκ του θεου εσμεν εις γαρ θεος εξ οὗ τα παντα και, τα αρχαια παρηλθεν, ιδου γεγονε τα παντα καινα" τα δε παντα εκ του θεου ελογίζοντο δε και το εν τω Ποιμενι γραφεν πρωτον παντων πιστευσον, ὅτι εἰς εστιν ὁ θεος, ὁ τα παντα κτίσας και καταρτίσας, και ποιησας εκ του μη οντος εις το είναι. Αλλ' οἱ επισκοποι θεωρήσαντες την πανουργιαν εκείνων, και την της ασέβειας κακοτεχνίαν, λευκότερον ειρηκασι το εκ του θεου, και εγραψεν, εκ της ουσίας του θεον ειναι τον υἱον, ἵνα τα μεν κτισματα, δια το μη αφ' ἑαυτων χωρις αιτίου είναι αλλα αρχην εχειν του γενεσθαι, λέγηται εκ του θεου, ὁ δε υἱος μόνος ίδιος της του