« AnteriorContinuar »
which is set forth as having assembled in the year A. D.' 314, soon after the conversion of the emperor Constantine. . The passage is as follows. (See Mansi's Councils, 2 vol. p. 472.)
(i) 'It was decreed that if any one came to the Church from the heretics, they should examine him in the Creed, and if they found that he had been baptized in the Father the Son, and the Holy Ghost, he should only have hands laid upon him that he may receive the Holy Ghost. But if, on heing interrogated, he does not answer this Trinity, he should be baptized.'
This Canon clearly shows the regard paid to the Creed, and the established custom of appealing to it as the standard of the Christian faith, at a period only two centuries from the death of St. John.
§ 9. Another interesting statement of the Primitive Creed is that which Eusebius, Bishop of Cesarea, made in his public epistle addressed to his Diocese after the final decree of the Council of Nice, in which he explains his reasons for adopting the word consubstantial. The passage to which we refer is as follows. (See Mansi's Councils 2 vol. p. 914, letter C.)
(k) 'As we received it from the Bishops who preceded 'us, when the foundations of the faith were first placed in our minds, as we heard it when we were washed in the laver of baptism, as we learned it from the Divine Scrip
(i)" placuitutsi ad ecclesiam aliquis de haeresi venerit, interro
gent eum symbolum, et si perviderint eum in Patre, et Filio, et Spiritu sancto esse baptizatum, manus ei tantum imponatur, ut accipiat Spiritual sanctum. Quod si interrogatus non responderit hane trinitatem, baptizetur.
(k) Ka&big naQtXufioutv nuQa Rwv T150' T'uwv tirtoxunwv, xat iv rvt TtQwrt, xartj/^att, xat 0V1 Ro' XurQotv iXaft(lavofttv, xat xa&tbg into* rwv ^tuwv yQatpwv utua9t^xafttv, xat ilig iv Rw Trgt«|?ur«gt'ffl.iv avrvi rf Ttttaxo
of the existence and substantial unity of the Creed, prior to the conversion of the Emperor Constantine, we pass on to the celebrated formulary decreed by the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, which was more precise than the others on the great point of Christ's Divinity, on account of the newly broached heresy of Arius. It will be evident, however, that it does not differ at all from what has already been cited,- being, indeed, only intended to enlarge upon and guard that fundamental doctrine which appears more or less prominent in them all. It may be found in various authors—Athan. in Epist. ad Jovian. Socrat. 1. 5. Theod. 1. 12. Mansi Concil. torn. 2. p. 666. Rufin. appendic. ad hist. Euseb. lib. 1. c. 6.—and is as follows, viz.
(1) 'We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the Substance of the Father: God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made which are in heaven and m earth. Who for us men, and for our salvation, descended, and was incarnate, and made man; he suffered, and 'the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven: and he shall come again to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. But those who say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, and that before
(1) Utgivoutv ttg tva ©tov, nartQa navtoxQurooa, navrwv Oqttrwv R* arut uooarwv nottrr^v zat itg tva xvQtov Tvfiavv XQtguv rov vtov ron ©tn, ynnftivra ix ru narQog ftovoytvijtfrovrigtv ix rjjg ovaiag rov narQog. ©tov ix ©tov, tpwg ix tpottog, ©tov aXtfttvov ix ©ta aXtj&tvtr ytvvvftivra, ao nottj&irratoftoovgtov rw narQt, di ov R' U navra tytvtro, ra Rs tv ra arfQavw, xat tnt ritg yijg' rov <Jt \uag reg av&Qwnovg, xat dtu rwv ^utrtQttv awrv^tav xart/.&uvra, xat oaQxw&tvra, xat tvavdQam^aavra. na&ivraSxat avagavra rri rgtrji t/utQa, xat avtX&ona tig rotlg ovQavovf xat tQ/Cutvov