66

Nay, even a Romanist may be found giving the same account of the matter. "The Council," says Tillemont, perceiving their hypocrisy, collected together all the Scriptural expressions which related to the Son, and comprehended them all under the word consubstantial, which is to say of the same substance; and all the bishops, after long considering it, agreed to that term. It was thus that, after having thoroughly examined all the doctrine of the Evangelists and Apostles, the Prelates, grounding their determination upon the Holy Scriptures, settled ⚫ with great caution the perfect rule of the Catholic faith. They had likewise a more particular reason for using that term. For the Council having seen, by the Letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia, which we spoke of before, that the Arians looked upon the consubstantiality as diametrically opposite to their heresy, they were willing to make use of that sword against them which they had drawn out of the scabbard themselves."

The same reference to Scripture as the sole authority upon which our faith is to rest in this matter, is observable in the passage of Dionysius Romanus, given to us by Athanasius on this subject,, from a work of his against the Sabellians. Not less also," he says, "must one blame those who think that the Son is a creature, and suppose that the Lord was made like any one of things truly made, since the divine oracles bear witness that his generation was such as was meet and fitting for him, and that he is not a creature formed and made. It is no slight, but rather the greatest blasphemy, therefore, to say that the Lord was in any way made by hands. For if the Son was made there was a time when he was not; but he was in existence always, if he is in the Father, [Jo. xiv. 11.] as he himself says: and if Christ is the Word, and Wisdom, and Power; for the divine Scriptures say, that Christ is these, as ye know. . . . To the absurdities that follow, from saying that the Son is a creature, the leaders, of this opinion do not appear to me to have attended, and consequently to have erred altogether from the truth, having understood the passage, The Lord created me in the beginning of his ways' [Prov. viii. 22.] contrary to the meaning of the divine. and prophetic Scripture in this respect. For the word 'created,' as ye know, has more than one signification. . . . And any one may see that the Son is often said by the divine oracles to have been begotten, but not to have been made; by which they who embrace false notions respecting the generation of the Lord, are evidently condemned, who dare to say that his divine and unutterable generation was a creation. Therefore, we must not

6

1 History of the Arians, by Tillemont, translated by Deacon, vol. ii. p. 623. The last statement in the above passage is derived from Ambros. De fide, lib. iii. c. 7.

divide the wonderful and divine unity into three divinities, nor diminish by the notion of creation the dignity and excellent greatness of the Lord, but believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ his Son, and in the Holy Ghost, and that the Word is united to the God of the Universe; for he says, I and my Father are one;' [Jo. x. 30.] and, I am in the Father and the Father in me.' [Jo. xiv. 10.]""

There is not in the whole passage the slightest allusion to anything but Scripture; not one word to lead us to suppose that he knew anything of ecclesiastical tradition as the authoritative interpreter of Scripture.

2

In conclusion, I will add a few words on an argument which, as it has been used by the Romanists, may possibly be resorted to by the Tractators. They will perhaps be disposed to reply, True, these Fathers did go to Scripture only for their proof, and appeared to draw their conclusions directly from Scripture, but this was only because their adversaries refused and rejected ecclessiatical tradition, but the authority upon which they rested in their own minds for their interpretation of Scripture, and which they felt themselves bound in conscience to obey, was ecclesiastical tradition. This is in fact their last hold, and, like the Romanists, they studiously endeavour to make us suppose that the heretics rejected ecclesiastical tradition, but it is a refuge wholly untenable. For the supposed fact upon which the argument is founded is anything but a fact. The heretics were remarkable for appealing to tradition. In the case of Arius, now before us, we find him making a direct appeal to the testimony of antiquity as in his favour, and in a Letter of his to Pope Alexander, preserved by Epiphanius, he introduces his creed as the creed which he had learnt from his ancestors. This is a point, however, to which we have already directed the reader's attention, and therefore I would only observe here, that it is a complete reply to any such objection as we have supposed to our availing ourselves of the full value of the testimony which the conduct of the Nicene Council bears to the correctness of the views we are advocating. And hence we may estimate the accuracy of Mr. Newman's statement, that "when the history of Arianism is examined, this peculiarity will be found respecting it, that it appealed only to Scripture, not to catholic tradition;" which from

1 DIONYS. ROM. adv. Sabell. cit. in Athanas. De Decret. Nic. Synod. § 26 tom. i. p. 231.

2 See Newman, Lect. 7; &c.

3 Η πίστις ήμων ή εκ προγόνων, ἣν και απο σου μεμαθήκαμεν μακαρις Παπα, έστιν αυτή Epiphan. in hær. Arian. § 7. Ed. Petav. tom. I. p. 732.

4 See vol. i. pp. 310-313. See, also, besides the passages there mentioned. Socrat. Hist. Eccl. i. 26.

5 Lect. P. 205.

one who professes to have examined its history, and has published a book on the subject, is somewhat extraordinary.

The Tractators must pardon me for saying, that their statements, when taken as a whole, incontestably prove that they have received their views not from a careful and impartial perusal of the Fathers themselves, but from the works of Romish and semi-Romish writers, for they are involved in almost all their misrepresentations and mistakes.

In the preceding observations I have abstained from noticing the statements of Gelasius respecting the proceedings of the Council, because their authority has been questioned by some; but I may here add some passages from that author, showing that his account agrees with the view we have taken above, or rather, I should say, with the account we have quoted from Athanasius, of those proceedings; and certainly they afford a probable testimony of at least the principles by which the Council was governed; for even supposing that we are indebted to the inventive powers of Gelasius, or the more antient author from whom he professes to quote, for much of the matter contained in his details, yet the great principles by which the Council was governed are surely not likely to be misrepresented so soon after it was held.

Thus, then, speaks Gelasius ;-"That divine assembly of orthodox priests of God that, with the Holy Spirit, investigated and set forth through the Prophetical and Evangelical and Apostolical Scriptures concerning the Word of Life, that is, the Son of God, that he is truly uncreated in his Divine nature, and not a creature, as that most impious enemy of God, Arius, blasphemously said against him, is truly Sion, and Jerusalem, and the high mountain of the Lord, and the house of the God of Jacob... ... And this venerable and holy rule of the spotless faith hath been to us in very deed a high mountain of God from above according as the word spoken by the Lord himself first manifested, and which was delivered by the Apostles, and has now been declared by his priests assembled at Nice by scriptural testimonies." "And they [the Fathers at Nice] proclaimed him to be the Maker and Former of the things visible and invisible, according to the Apostolical faith delivered to his Church from the beginning, having set forth the proofs by Scriptural

1 Αληθώς γαρ Σιων και Ιερουσαλήμ και ορός Κυρίου υψηλότατον και οίκος του Θεου Ιακωβ, ὁ θεῖος εκείνος των του Θεου ορθοδοξων ἱερέων όμιλος πνευματι αγίω διασκεψαμένων και παρασ τησάντων δια το γράφων Προφητικών και Ευαγγελικών και Αποστολικων περί του λόγου της ζωής, τουτ' εστι του υίου του Θεου, ως αληθώς ακτιστος τη της θεότητος φυσει, και ου κτίσμα καθώς ὁ θεομαχος και ασεβέστατος κατ' αυτού εβλασφήμησεν Αρείος.

Και αλήθως ύψηλον προς Θεού ανωθεν ήμιν, καθα προεδήλωσεν ὁ λόγος παρ' αυτού του Κυρίου, δια των Αποστ πόλων δόθεις, και νυν δια των αυτου ερετών κατά την Νικαίων γρατικούς μαρτυρίαις τραγωθεις, ὁ προσκύνητος οὗτος και άγιος της αμωμήτου πίστεως όρος GELAS. Cric. Comment. Art. Conc. Nic. Ed. Balf. 1599, lib. i. c. 9. pp. 28, 9,

testimonies." Further on having spoken of the disputation between the bisbops and a philosopher who was advocating the cause of Arius, he says, "By the divine word, as with fire, they consumed all the subtle pretences of the philosopher like tow." And so in a response made to the philosopher by Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, in the name of the Council, we find the bishop speaking thus, "We have already admonished you that we must not by any means use the word, 'how,' with respect to the divine mysteries. For they are unutterable and incomprehensible. But according as we have been taught out of the sacred oracles, we will speak, so far as words will enable us to set them forth."

193

The weight necessarily attaching to the proceedings of such a Council will, I am convinced, render any apology needless for the space here given to it; and I trust that the testimonies adduced above can leave no doubt on the mind of the impartial reader what was the authority, the sole authority recognised by the bishops there assembled, in their deliberations respecting the faith.

How little the notions of Dr. Pusey and his party respecting this Council, either as to the nature of its proceedings, or its authority, agree with those of the Fathers, may be judged from the following passage of the excellent Hilary. "As in winter, in a stormy sea, it is the safest course to be observed by mariners, that when a storm rages they should return to the port whence they set out; or, as it befits careless youths, that when, in maintaining their own family, having exceeded the mode of living adopted by their parents, they have made an undue use of their liberty, there should be a return, as the only safe and necessary course, under fear of losing their patrimony, to parental habits; 30 amidst these shipwrecks of the faith, the heirship of the heavenly patrimony being almost lost, it is safest for us to retain the first and sole evangelical faith confessed and understood at baptism, [which he tells us elsewhere was not the Nicene creed, which he did not hear of till long after,] and not to change that which alone as received and heard I am disposed

1 Κτίστην τε αυτόν και δημιουργον ὁρατων τε και αοράτων εκήρυξαν, κατά την ανέκαθεν παραδοθεισαν τη εκκλησία αυτού αποστολικήν πίστιν, γραφικαις μαρτυρίαις τας αποδείξεις εκδωσανTS. Ib. lib. ii. c. 11. p. 94.

2 Πασάς γάρ τας του φιλοσόφου πολυπλακους προτάσεις, ως πυρί, τω θείω λόγω, στυππιου Sixиv, naravnλionov. Ib. lib. ii. c. 13. p. 99 (misprinted 89.)

3 Ηδη ειρηκαμεν σοι, ω βελτιστε, μηδαμως επι των του Θεου μυστηρίων λεγειν το όπως Απόρρητα γαρ είσι και ανεπιλογιστα. Ως δε εκ των ἱερων λόγων διδαχθημεν, έρουμεν ὅσον ὁ λογος παραστησαι δυνήσεται Ib. lib. ii. c. 24. p. 154.

4 Regeneratus pridem et in episcopatu aliquantisper manens, fidem Nicænam nunquam nisi exsulaturus audivi. HIL. PICT. De Synod. § 91. Col. 1205. Ed. Bened.

Z*

to accept as my creed; not indeed that those things which are contained in the Creed agreed to at the synod of our Fathers are to be condemned as irreligiously and wickedly written, but because through the boldness of men they are used as a handle for objections... [and having added an intimation that one emendation leads to another, he proceeds thus ;] How much do I now admire thee, Lord Constantius our Emperor, for your blessed and religious resolve, who dost wish to know the faith ONLY ACCORDING TO THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN ; and deservedly address yourself to those very declarations themselves of the only begotten of God, that your heart charged with the cares of empire may also be filled with the knowledge of the divine words. He who repudiates this is antichrist, and he who feigns it is anathema."

A passage more completely condemnatory of the views of Dr. Pusey and his party could hardly be penned. So far from telling us that the additions made to the Creed at Nice were derived through tradition from the oral teaching of the Apostles, he very pointedly intimates that it would have been better to have made no change at all in the Creed commonly received, and he praises the Emperor for looking to Scripture alone for the faith.

ATHANASIUS. (fl. a. 326.)

From the Council of Nice we proceed to the writings of Athanasius, who is so confidently claimed by the Tractators as maintaining their views, that an appeal to some passages in his writings, by one who is now a prelate of our Church, against them, was thought worth only a contemptuous sneer." Whether it was wise, or becoming, or suitable to their own proficiency in Patristical learning to assume such a tone, I leave the reader to

1 Quod hieme undoso mari observari a navigantibus maxime tutum est, ut naufragio desæviente, in portum ex quo solverant revertantur ; vel incautis adolescentibus convenit, ut cum in tuenda domo sua, mores paternæ observantiæ transgressi, profusa libertate sua usi sunt, jam sub ipso amittendi patrimonii metu solus illis ad paternam consuetudinem necessarius et tutus recursus sit; ita inter hæc fidei naufragia, cælestis patrimonii jam pæne profligata hæreditate, tutissimnm nobis est, primam et solam evangelicam fidem confessam in baptismo intellectamque retinere, nec demutare quod solum acceptum atque auditum habeo bene credere: non ut ea, quæ synodo patrum nostrorum continentur, tamquam irriligiose et impie scripta damnanda sint, sed quia per temeritatem humanam usurpantur ad contradictionem ... In quantum ego nunc beatæ religiosæque voluntatis vere te, Domine Con. stanti Imperator, admiror, fidem tantum secundum ea quæ scripta sunt desiderantem; et merito plane ad ilia ipsa Unigeniti Dei eloquia festinans, ut imperatoriæ sollicitudinis capax pectus etiam divinorum dictorum conscientia plenum sit. Hoc qui repudiat, antichristus est; et qui simulat, anathenia est. HILAR. PICTAV. Ad Constant. Aug. lib. ii. §§ 7, 8. Col. 1229, 30. Ed. Bened.

....

2 See Review of Dr. Shuttleworth on Tradition, in the British Critic.