universal tradition in the question; and if there were not such an one, as good none at all; for it could not be such a foundation as was fit to build our faith upon, especially in such mysterious articles. But it is remarkable what Eusebius (Eccl. Hist. lib. 5. c. 28) recites out of an old author, who wrote against the heresy of Artemon, which afterwards Samosatenus renewed, and Arius made public with some alteration. They all say,' says he, ‘that our ancestors and the Apostles themselves not only received from our Lord those things which they now affirm, but that they taught it to others; and the preaching or tradition of it run on to the days of Pope Victor, and was kept entire, but was depraved by Pope Zephyrinus. And truly that which was said by them, might seem to have in it much of probability, if the divine Scriptures did not first of all contradict them; and that there were writings of some brethren older than the times of Victor.' The brethren, whose writings he names, are Justin, Miltiades, Tatian, Clemens, Irenæus, and the psalms and hymns of divers, made in honour of Christ. From all which it is evident that the questions at Nice were not, and could not be determined by tradition. 2. That tradition might be, and was, pretended on both sides. 3. That when it is pretended by the contradicting parties, with some probability, it can effectually serve neither. 4. That the tradition the Samosatenians and Arians boasted of, had in it much probability, when looked upon in its own series and proper state. 5. That the divine Scriptures were at that time the best firmament of the Church, and defended her from that abuse which might have been imposed upon her, under the title of tradition," &c. (Dissuasive from Popery, Pt. 2. bk. 1. §3. Works, vol. x. pp. 428-30.)

Such is the clear statement of Bishop Taylor, in opposition to the account given us by Mr. Keble.

The quotation from Dr. Jackson is certainly more in his favour. But of course no statements of modern writers can have any authority in the matter, except so

far as they are borne out by the reports left us by the antients of the proceedings of the Council.

The statement quoted from Leslie, referring, not to the Council of Nice, but to the preceding provincial Synod at Alexandria against Arius, is so glaringly incorrect, that it is worth no one's picking up. "This," says Leslie, "was the method taken in the Council called at Alexandria against Arius; it was asked by Alexander, the Archbishop, who presided, Quis unquam talia audivit? Who ever heard of this doctrine before? And it being answered by all the bishops there assembled in the negative, it was concluded a novel doctrine, and contrary to what had been universally received in the Christian Church." Let the reader only compare this statement with the extracts given above from Alexander's letter, from which it professes to be taken, and he will then be able to judge how far he can trust to such loose references to antient writings, even when made by men of the highest integrity. The whole statement about the bishops answering in the negative, and its being therefore concluded a novel doctrine, &c., is not only a complete fiction, but directly contrary to the representation actually given in the letter of Alexander; to which we may add that Sozomen expressly tells us that the matter was so hotly debated in this Council, that its members could not agree among themselves in the matter; but that Alexander at last decided in favour of those who supported the view of the Son's consubstantiality and co-eternity with the Father.1

Mr. Keble concludes with three more references to

1 Κριτης καθισας [i. e. Αλεξανδρος] συν τοις απο του κληρου εις άμιλλαν αμφότερους ηγαγεν· ὡς δε συμβαινειν φιλει περί τας ερίδας των λόγων, ἑκατέρος επειρατο νικαν. Συνισταται δε Αρεος μεν τοις παρ' αυτου ειρημένοις· οἱ δε, ως ὁμοούσιος και συναίδιος εστιν ὁ υἱος τω Πατρι. Συνεδριου δε παλιν γενομένου, τοσαύτας διαλεξεις ανακινησαντες ου συνέβησαν αλληλοις. Αμφήριστου δε της ζητήσεως ετι δοκουσης είναι, πεπονθε τι και Αλεξανδρος τα πρώτα, πη μεν τούτους πη δε εκείνους επαίνων τελευτών δε, τοῖς ὁμοουσιον και συναιδιον είναι τον υἱον αποφαινομένοις έθετο, και τον Αρειον ὁμοιως φρονειν εκέλευσε. SOZOMEN. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 15. (al. 14.) pp. 31. 2. ed. Read.

Athanasius, and one to Epiphanius, upon which it is necessary to offer a few remarks.

The first passage is adduced to prove "the instinctive and inevitable comparison which the new doctrines underwent with those before received," and (as I suppose Mr. Keble would have us conclude) the consequent rejection of the new. But the passage is merely an appeal to the reader whether he had not always understood the word Son, learned in his first catechism, as implying identity of substance with the Father, and consequently whether he had not been surprised at the doctrine of Arius, as something different to what he had been always taught; an appeal which the strongest opponents of Mr. Keble's views would not hesitate to make in a similar case, and which, therefore, we may pass over without further remark.

"Secondly," adds Mr. Keble, "he [i. e. Athanasius] presents the creed to the Emperor Jovian, not merely as the judgment of the present Church on the meaning of the Scriptures, but rather as her testimony to the fact that this faith had all along been known to all in the Church, being learned and read out of the divine Scriptures. For in this, the saints being perfected, endured martyrdom.""&c. (p. 140.) Now, in the original, there is not one word to authorize the observation with which this citation is introduced, as to the presentation of the creed to the Emperor Jovian, as the Church's testimony to the fact, &c.; nor anything corresponding to the apparent quotation that "this faith had all along been known to all in the Church." The passage, with the preceding context, is this. "Your piety, therefore, being desirous of learning from us the faith of the Catholic Church, having given thanks for this to the Lord, we have thought good above all things to bring to the remembrance of your piety the creed confessed by the Fathers at Nicæa. 1 Orat. 2a. contra Arian. § 34, tom. i. p. 502. B. See Keble's Serm. pp. 139, 140.

For some having rejected this, have in various ways plotted against us, because we do not assent to the Arian heresy, and have become the causes of heresy and schisms in the Catholic Church. For the true and pious faith in the Lord hath stood forth evident to all, being known and read out of the divine Scriptures. For in this, the saints being perfected, endured martyrdom," &c.1 Now this passage, so far from being favourable to Mr. Keble's view, is directly opposed to it; for it expressly tells us that the true faith is evident to all, as being known and read out of the divine Scriptures.

66

The next quotation stands thus ;-"The Fathers inserted the clause of the Son's consubstantiality with the Father, and anathematized those who affirmed a diversity of substance, not in terms which they had framed for themselves, but which they too had learned from the Fathers before them. . . . . which being so, the creed of Nicæa is sufficient, agreeing as it does also with the antient bishops." This," adds Mr. Keble, "shows in what light the framers of the creed wished it to be viewed." Now the real passage, as it stands in Athanasius, is in more than one point very different, and runs thus;-"The Fathers, having taken this view of the matter, wrote that the Son was consubstantial with the Father, and anathematized those who say that the Son is of a different substance, not having invented phrases for themselves, but having themselves learnt them from the Fathers before them, as we have said. These things,

Θελησασης τοινυν της σης ευσεβειας μαθειν παρ' ἡμων την της καθολικής Εκκλησίας πιστιν, ευχαριστησαντες επι τούτοις τω Κυρίω, εβουλευσάμεθα μαλλον πάντων την παρα των Πατερων εν Νικαια ὁμολογηθεισαν πιστιν ὑπομνησαι την στην ευσέβειαν ταύτην γαρ αθετήσαντες τινες, ημιν μεν ποικίλως επεβουλευσαν, ότι μη επειθόμεθα τη Αρειανη αίρεσει αιτιοι δε γεγονασιν αἱρέσεως και σχισματων τη καθολική εκκλησια· ἡ μεν γαρ αληθης και ευσεβης εις τον Κυριον πιστις φανερα πασι καθεστηκεν, εκ των θείων γραφων γινωσκομένη τε και αναγινωσκόμενη εν ταύτη γαρ και οἱ ἅγιοι τελειωθέντες εμαρτυρησαν, κ. τ. λ. ATHANAS. Epist.

ad Jovian. § 1. tom. i. p. 780. The Benedictine translation of the latter part is, nemini tamen obscura esse potest vera et pia in Dominum fides, ut quæ ex divinis Scripturis haberi et internesci queat.

therefore, being thus demonstrated, their Synod at Ariminum is superfluous; and the other Synod concerning the faith named by them, is superfluous; for that at Nicea is sufficient, being also in agreement with the antient bishops, in which also their Fathers subscribed." Now, here all is consistent with the accounts we have already quoted from Athanasius. The Fathers, taking that view of the matter which is laid down in Scripture, which Athanasius has been just before describing, wrote, on that authority, that the Son was consubstantial with the Father; and in so doing, did not use an expression which was entirely new; for some of the earlier Fathers had used it, which, of course, as far as it went, was an argument in its favour. And these matters having been in the Nicene Council fully investigated, and demonstrated to be as the Nicene creed represented them to be, it was unnecessary that any other Council should be called upon the same matter; the decision of the Council of Nice having also the argument in its favour, as it appeared to him, that it was in unison with that of the antient bishops. The reader will observe, not only the different turn given to the sentence by the words omitted by Mr. Keble at the beginning of it, but more especially that the stringent words, "which being so, the Creed of Nicaa is sufficient," are a complete (however unintentional) misrepresentation of the passage.

To these three passages of Athanasius, quoted by Mr. Keble, I would add for his consideration the two following. In his Letter concerning the decrees of the Nicene. Council, Athanasius, after discussing the points controverted at Nice, adds these words,-" And of these things we are certified, not from any external source, but from

1 Οντω νοήσαντες οἱ Πατέρες εγραψαν ὁμοούσιον είναι τον υἱον τω Πατρί, και ανεθεμάτισαν τους λεγοντας, εξ ἑτερας ὑποστασεως είναι τον υἱον· ουχ ἑαυτοῖς πλασαμενοι λέξεις, αλλα και αυτοί από των προ αυτών πατέρων μαθόντες, καθαπερ ειπομεν. Τούτων δε ούτω δεικνυμένων, περιττη αυτων ἡ Αρίμηνος, περιττη και ή αλλη παρ' αυτων ονομαζόμενη περί πίστεως συνοδος αρκει γαρ ή εν Νικαια, συμφωνος ουσα και τοις αρχαιοις επισκόποις, εν ή και οἱ πατέρες αυτων ὑπέγραψαν. ATHANAS. Epist. ad Afios Episc. § 9. tom. i. p. 898.