Braopnuías, both of whom state it to have been torn in pieces by the Council as soon as read.

A question of some moment is connected with this document, involving in a great degree the credit and orthodoxy of Eusebius of Cæsarea. Tillemont and Valesius think it to be the creed which that Bishop offered, as we know from his letter to the people of his See, to the Council, and which he says the Emperor received as orthodox, and exhorted all to assent to and subscribe, with the addition merely of the term of one substance.' If the above historians are correct, it is clear that Eusebius is guilty on the one hand of flagrant heresy, (for Eustathius says that its perversion caused immeasurable grief to the hearers, and irremediable shame to its author,') and, on the other hand, that in his account of its reception he has committed one of the most gross and palpable falsehoods recorded in history of a Christian Bishop.

Tillemont founds his opinion on the words of S. Athanasius, (§ 3, De Decret. Syn. Nic.) that the Council rejected the Eusebian statements, avéλovтes pýμara, which however, as he half admits, do not bear him out in his opinion that Athanasius meant by these words to refer to the creed of Eusebius of Cæsarea, or that his creed was so destroyed.

Valesius, in his notes on Theodoret's seventh and eighth chapters, takes the ypáupa Evoeßiov of Eustathius to mean the Creed of Eusebius, as ypáupa is undoubtedly used by him soon after of the Creed of Nicæa, and from the accusation of Eusebius of Cæsarea by Eustathius [reported by Socrates, i. 23 (ad fin.)], of having depraved that creed, he concludes that the Eusebius mentioned by him in Theodoret was the Bishop of Cæsarea, rather than his namesake of Nicomedia.

But, 1st, although ypáupa may mean 'creed' in one instance, there is no necessity that it should do so in another; and, 2dly, it is plain that there is no such connexion between the two passages of Eustathius as Valesius contends for, and as would compel us to his conclusion. We should remember, too, that Eusebius denied the charge brought against him by Eustathius; which it is impossible to imagine that he could have done had he been publicly known as the author of doctrines so ignominiously repudiated by the Council: nor can we suppose that in this case Eustathius, who had suffered so much at his hands, and the hands of his party,' and was in consequence his determined enemy, would, by confining his accusation to Eusebius's perversion of the Nicene Creed, have lost the opportunity of striking what must have proved a fatal blow to his reputation.

Theodoret, Hist. i. 21.

But, to put the matter beyond doubt, the creed of Eusebius is extant; and it is certain that the terms in which Eustathius describes the torn document are wholly inapplicable to it; 'there being nothing in that confession,' to use the words of Cave, 'that deserves so bad a character-nothing that savours either of heresy or blasphemy.' Indeed, we will say more even than this; we will put his creed side by side with that of the Council, and our readers will then see that the two are almost one and the same, the only material difference between them consisting of the addition of the words ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας and ὁμοούσιος in the latter; and, therefore, that Eusebius's account of its reception is strictly true: from which it surely follows that the Fathers of the Council could not have stopped their ears against as blasphemous, and torn as heretical, a creed which so evidently formed the groundwork of their own.

CREED OF THE COUNCIL. Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἑνὰ Θεὸν, Πατέρα παντοκράτορα, πάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀορατῶν ποιητήν· καὶ εἰς ἑνὰ Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ γεννηθέντα ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς μονογενῆ, τουτέστιν ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρὸς Θεὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί. Δι ̓ οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο, τά τε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ γῇ τὸν δι' ἡμᾶς τοὺς ἀνθρώπους, καὶ διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν κατελθόντα, καὶ σαρκωθέντα, καὶ ἐνανθρωπήσαντα παθόντα, καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τριτῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἀνελθόντα εἰς τούς οὐράνους· ἐρχόμενον κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. Καὶ εἰς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον. Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας· ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτε ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ἐγένετο ἢ ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι ἢ τρεπτὸν, ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ ἁγία καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία. S. Athanas., de Decret. Syn. Nic. Appendix § 4; Sccrates, i. 8 ; Theodoret i.

12.

CREED OF EUSEBIUS.

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεόν, Πατέρα παντοκράτορα, καὶ τῶν ἁπάντων ὁρατῶν τε καὶ ἀορατῶν ποιητήν· καὶ εἰς ἑνὰ Κύριον Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ λόγον, Θεὸν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ, φῶς ἐκ φω τὸς, ζωὴν ἐκ ζωῆς, Υἱὸν μονογενῆ, πρωτ τότοκον πάσης τῆς κτίσεως, πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων, ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεγεννημέ νον. δι ̓ οὗ καὶ ἐγένετο πάντα· τὸν διὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν σωτηρίαν σαρκωθέντα καὶ ἐν ἀνθρώποις πολιτευσάμενον, καὶ παθόντα καὶ ἀναστάντα τῇ τριτῇ ἡμέρᾳ, καὶ ἀνελθόντα πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα, καὶ ἥξοντα πάλιν ἐν δόξῃ κρῖναι ζῶντας καὶ νεκρούς. Πιστεύομεν καὶ εἰς ἐν Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, τούτων ἕκαστον εἶναι καὶ ὑπάρχειν πιστεύοντες, Πατέρα ἀληθινῶς Πατέρα, καὶ Υἱὸν ἀληθινῶς υἱὸν, Πνεῦμα τε ἅγιον ἀληθινῶς Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, καθὰ καὶ ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν ἀποστέλλων εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ μαθητὰς, εἶπε· πορευθέντες μαθητεύ σατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτ τοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ, καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος. κ.τ.λ. -Socrates, i. 8; Theodoret, i. 12; S. Athan.de Decret. Syn. Nic. Appendix § 3.

In fact, the γράμμα Εὐσεβίου βλασφημίας of Eustathius may very well refer to the Epistola Eusebii Nicomediensis' of S. Ambrose; a supposition which is strengthened by the facts, that its description by the former exactly coincides with

1 Theodoret, ap. Schulze, reads lcss correctly γεγενημένον.

the extract from it of the latter; and, that that extract not only bears, as our readers will have seen, no manner of resemblance to anything found in the creed of Eusebius of Cæsarea, but in fact expresses a doctrine on the Son totally different from that contained in the latter formula. Certain it is that the document mentioned by S. Ambrose cannot have been a formal creed; for, as his Benedictine Editors see, he expressly terms it Epistola.1

2

We will venture to offer another and a final reason for considering the torn document to have been the production of the Bishop of Nicomedia or his partisans. Eustathius, in the eighth chapter of Theodoret, already referred to, describes the party from which it proceeded as οἱ ἀμφὶ τὸν Εὐσέβιον, a mode of expression which seems to us to have been intended to convey to the mind of the reader the fact that the Eusebius there mentioned was not the Bishop of Cæsarea, but of Nicomedia; for it was the latter, and not the former, who proved their most active correspondent, and most resolute champion.3 It was he who took the lead among them on all occasions, and from whom they were often named, (e. g. by S. Athanasius continually, and by S. Ambrose in the passage cited above, who calls him Auctor eorum,') whose position too as the Bishop of a city which, since the days of Diocletian, had been a royal residence, gave him more power to promote the heresy, and to annoy the Church, than was possessed by any other of the faction. To him also, through abuse of the influence which he possessed over the Emperor, is to be ascribed the renovation of the heresy after its condemnation at Nicæa, together with the ceaseless attempts of Arius to be restored to communion, and the endless insults and injuries heaped on the head of S. Athanasius, for no other crime than that of refusing, as was his plain duty as the heresiarch's Bishop, to receive him. In a word, it was he, and not his namesake of Cæsarea, who was the Eusebius of the party, the mainstay of the cause, the state champion of the whole heresy.

We conclude, therefore, that the document torn by the

The note of the Benedictines on this passage of S. Ambrose is sufficiently in favour of the view which we have here taken to induce us to make from it an extract of some length: Ambigitur inter eruditos quænam sit illa Euseb. Nic. Epistola, cujus mentio fit ab Ambrosio. Hermanus, lib. ii. vitæ Sti. Athii. cap. 8, post Cardinalem Baronium ad annum 325 putat eam esse cujus Theodoretus, lib. i. cap. 8, edit. Valesii commeminit. Valesius vero in eundem locum non de Epistola Nicomediensis, sed de libello fidei ab Euseb. Cæsar. patribus concilii oblato, hunc Theodoreti locum defendit, allatis in hanc rem quibusdam rationibus, quæ sane tanti non videntur ut ejus opinio omni careat difficultate. Verum quicquid sit, certum est Ambrosium non de formula seu libello fidei, sed de Epistola hoc loco loqui.'-De Fide, iii. 15.

2 Socrates, i. 15.

Socrates, i. 6; Sozomen, ii. 22.

Council was the letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia; or, if a creed, that it was one which emanated from the faction of which he was the head, and was not that of the Bishop of Cæsarea: and, in consequence, that whatever else the latter is to be charged with in this controversy, he was guiltless of the twofold offence of the glaring heresy of that torn document, and of stating publicly a falsehood equally detestable in itself, and insulting to the members of a great and venerable Council.

Before proceeding, we may be allowed to point out some other inaccuracies which certain of the historians have committed on the subject. Tillemont falls into an error in making the Benedictines, in their life of S. Athanasius, say that the torn document was the creed of Eusebius of Cæsarea. These learned authors having stated, on the authority of Theodoret and Eustathius, that Eusebius of Nicomedia offered a 'rescriptum,' which the Bishops forthwith destroyed, continue thus, Verum Ariani, conspecta Catholicorum et frugi homi'num indignatione, mox Arium Eusebiumque cum sociis 'damnatum iri prospicientes, novam ineunt insidiarum viam, rogantesque silentium, ementito pacis concordiæque nomine, 'priores ipsi oblatum libellum, qui omnibus offensioni fuerat, damnant et proscribunt, aliumque mox libellum, omnium consilio adornatum, muniunt suffragiis suis... Hæc ex Theodoreto, lib. i. 7. Qui eadem ipsa, c. 8, ex Eustathio confirmat. 'Hallucinantur porro, qui libellum, capite 7 memoratum, diversum esse putant ab alio de quo c. 8, nam idipsum utrobique narrari, nemini accuratius legenti, dubium. Hic ipse libellus extat in Epistola Eusebii Cæsariensis estque fidei formula." It is scarcely to be wondered at that Tillemont should have been misled as he was by these historians, for the grammatical meaning of their very confused statement is in fact that which he supposes. But unless they are to fall into a palpable selfcontradiction by stating in the beginning of their section, from Theodoret and Eustathius, that the torn document was the rescript of Eusebius of Nicomedia; and at the end, from the same authorities, that it was the 'alius libellus' to which the Arians and the whole Council gave their assent; we must refer their paragraph commencing with the words Hæc ex Theodoreto,' not to the sentence immediately preceding, to which it ought grammatically to belong, but to the commencement of the section; and understand the hic ipse libellus' following, not of the libellum cap. 7 memoratum,' to which it should properly refer, but to the alium libellum' mentioned previously: and conclude

6

Vita Sti. Athanasii, § xiv. p. 8.

their meaning to be that the torn document was in truth the rescript of Eusebius of Nicomedia: and the "alius libellus' was the fidei formula' which they seem to identify with the creed of Eusebius of Cæsarea found in his letter referred to. But in this case, they will be guilty of the fault, inexcusable in them as historians, of stating not merely as their own opinion, but as a positive fact, that Eusebius' creed was supported by the universal consent of the Council, when they have no authority whatever for so sweeping a statement.

Fleury, after mentioning the letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia, which he admits to have been torn, continues, The Arians likewise presented to the assembly a confession of faith which 'they had drawn up, but as soon as it was read they' (the Council) tore it, declaring it to be false and illegal, and a great clamour was raised against them, every body accusing them of betray'ing the truth."

Fleury here commits a twofold mistake. First, he understands Theodoret and Eustathius to speak of two different documents; and secondly, he is in consequence obliged, against all ancient authority, to assert that two documents were torn instead of one. In the latter opinion he is followed by Tillemont, who says, Whilst they were debating what determination they should come to touching the faith, a letter of Eusebius, says S. Athanasius, was produced, which was a plain proof of his blasphemies. It was very probably the same letter as that of 'which S. Ambrose speaks. This letter being read in full 'Council confounded him who wrote it, and gave no less concern 'to the saints who heard it, and saw the destruction of those wretches, for it discovered all the party. The horror they had of it made them tear it publicly. Soon after, relating the account given by Eusebius of the reception of his creed, he adds, Theodoret, without regarding the praise which Eusebius gives himself, assures us that as soon as it was read, it was torn in pieces.' Theodoret, we need not observe, says nothing of the kind. On the contrary, his 13th chapter consists of an attempt to confute the Arians from the writings of Eusebius. Valesius, in his notes on Theodoret, is clear, as are also the Benedictines, that Theodoret and Eustathius refer to one and the same document. The Benedictines in particular speak, as we have seen, very strongly on the subject.

The Creed of Eusebius of Cæsarea, which we have already cited in the Greek, is thus translated by Bishop Kaye:—

We believe in One God, Father Almighty, Maker of all things, visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God,

1 Book xi. § 11.