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,"1 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 * Της συνόδου το πλείστον τοις λεγομενοις επείθετο. Theodoret. eod. loc. p. 757. 6 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 * Των συνελθοντων επισκόπων βουλομένων 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 δ λόγος, δυναμις, σοφια μονη του Πατρός, θεος αληθινος, ὡς ειπεν ὁ Ιωαννης και ὡς έγραψεν ὁ Παύλος, απαύγασμα της δόξης, και χαρακτηρ της του Πατρος ὑποστασεως· οἱ περὶ Ευσέβιον ύπο της ιδιας κακοδοξίας ἑλκομενοι, διελάλουν 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, ότι είς εστιν ὁ θεος, ὁ τα παντα κτισας και καταρτίσας, και ποιησας εκ του μη οντος εις το είναι. Αλλ' οἱ επισκοποι θεωρήσαντες την πανουργίαν εκείνων, και την της ασεβειας κακοτεχνίαν, λευκότερον ειρηκασι το εκ του θεού, και εγραψεν, εκ της ουσίας του θεου είναι 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 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 were having observed their hypocrisy in this 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 Πατρος ουσίας· τουτο γαρ ιδιον μονογενους και αληθινου λόγου προς Πατερα. Και περι μεν του γεγράφθαι εκ της ουσίας, ἡ προφασις αύτη. Παλιν δε των επιστ κοπων ερωτώντων τους δοκούντας ολίγους, ειπερ λεγοιεν, τον υἱον ου κτισμα, αλλα δυναμιν, σοφίαν μόνην του Πατρος, και εικονα αίδιον, απαράλλακτον κατα παντα του Πατρός, και θεον αληθινόν, κατελήφθησαν οἱ περι Ευσεβιον διανεύοντες αλληλοις, ότι και ταυτα φθανει και εις ήμας, και γαρ και ήμεις και είκων και δοξα θεου λεγόμεθα, κ. τ. λ, ... Αλλα και ενταυθα οἱ Επισκοποι θεωρησαντες εκείνων το δόλιον, συνηγαγον εκ των γραφων, το απαύγασμα, την τε πηγήν και τον ποταμον, και τον χαρακτηρα προς την ὑποστασιν, και το, εν τω φωτί σου οψόμεθα φως, και το, εγω και ὁ Πατηρ έν εσμεν και λευκοτερον λοιπον και συντομως εγραψαν, ὁμοούσιον τω Πατρι τον υἱον τα γαρ προειρημενα παντα ταυτην εχει 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. .... 1 Αλλ' οἱ επισκοποι και εν τούτω θεωρήσαντες την ὑποκρισιν εκείνων, και ότι κατα το γεγραμμενον, εν καρδίαις των ασεβών δολος εστι τεκταινομένων κακα, ηναγκάσθησαν και αυτοι αυθις συναγαγειν εκ των γραφων την διανοιαν, και ἅπερ πρότερον έλεγον, ταυτα παλιν λευκότερον ειπειν και γράψαι, ὁμοούσιον είναι τω Πατρι τον υἱον. De Decret. Synod. Nic. § 20. tom. i. pp. 225, 6. 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 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, 20.) 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 confessions 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 Canon in the Lateran Church, affirms, that himself hath read in 6 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 the heresy of Arius, and in which more particularly the Nicene Creed differs from the Apostolical, namely, by reasoning drawn directly from Scripture. Indeed it is obvious, that if the baptismal creeds of the Churches had contained a condemnation of the errors of Arius, there would have been no need of the Council of Nice. Nay, Mr. Keble himself tells us that " additions" were made at Nice to "the old baptismal creed." (pp. 137, 8.) How, then, can he say at the same time that the Nicene Creed is merely an incorporation of a number of different forms of " the old baptismal creed ?" And further, the agreement of the bishops assembled at Nice respecting the doctrine there debated upon, is expressly attributed by Constantine to their being under the influence of the Holy Spirit. 1 See ATHANAS. De Decret. Synod. Nic. § 3. tom. i. pp. 210, 11. |