Light of Light, Life of Life, the only-begotten Son, the first-begotten of every creature, begotten of the Father before all ages, by whom all things were made; who for our salvation was incarnate, and lived (TOTEU gáμevov) among men; who suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come again in glory to judge both the quick and the dead. We believe also in one Holy Ghost. Each of them we believe to be and to subsist-the Father truly Father, the Son truly Son, the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost; as our Lord, when he sent forth his Apostles to preach, said, "Go, make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Pp. 42, 43.

We will here observe by the way, that one of the terms of this creed has not escaped some severe, and evidently unjust censure. Suicer, in his Symbolum Nicæno-Constantinopolitanum,' says that the term πоλтevσáμevov, as used by its author of our blessed Lord's stay upon earth, and which the Bishop translates 'lived,' may have been intended to convey a heterodox idea; inasmuch as S. Gregory Nazianzen uses it to express the doctrines of the Apollinarians, who held that Christ was not actually made man, as the Nicene Creed teaches in the word evaveρwnoavra, but that He only appeared in the guise of man.' To say nothing of the palpable injustice of condemning one author for the ordinary use of a term, because of its extraordinary application by another after his time, Suicer, when bringing this charge against Eusebius, must surely have overlooked the fact that he had immediately before used the emphatic word σaркwlévтα, which is actually the term adopted by the Council. If, however, his creed be free from heretical statements, we can by no means say as much of the letter in which he informed the people of Cæsarea of his motives for having signed the creed of the Council. This letter is suspected even by Bishop Kaye, whose censure is of the more weight from the fact that the singular mildness of his character induces him to be even too sparing of its use.

The whole letter,' he says, 'is of an apologetic character, and implies a consciousness on the part of the writer, that his subscription to the Nicene Creed required explanation, as if there were expressions in it not in perfect agreement with his former teaching. He states, therefore, that the different expressions were carefully weighed and canvassed; and gives his reasons for assenting to the word ouoovotos, and to the expression "begotten, not made," as well as for concurring in the anathema at the end. He had never, he says, himself used the expressions condemned; nor are they to be found in Scripture. I have noticed the very meagre account given by him of the proceedings of the Synod. The preference shown to the confession of faith finally adopted over his own, and a consciousness, that in subscribing, he had, in some measure, compromised his own opinions, may have contributed to indispose him to dwell on the subject.'— Pp. 40, 41.

1 Symbolum Nicæno-Constantinopolitanum, p. 213.

The Bishop dismisses, indeed, to a note, a portion of this letter, given by Theodoret, and referred to by S. Athanasius; De Decret. Syn. Nic. § 3, and De Synodis § 13; but omitted by Socrates, and on that account thought to be spurious by Bishop Bull. It is as follows:-Moreover, we did not think it strange to anathematize (the words) "before His Generation He was not," since it is admitted by all that He was the Son of God, ' even before His birth according to the flesh. Indeed, our 'most religious emperor then proved by argument that He was, ' even according to His divine Generation, before all ages; for ' even before He was begotten in fact, He was in the Father in an unbegotten manner by power, the Father being always the Father, as also always King and Saviour; and being all things in power, and always existing in the same manner and in the same way.' Of course, if these words were really penned by him and their repeated mention by S. Athanasius is a greater proof of the affirmative than their omission by Socrates is of the negative-his faith, so far, cannot be defended.

He says, moreover, that he agreed to the terms ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας and ouoovotos, because they were not taken by the Council to signify that the Son was any part of the Father, os pépos ὑπάρχειν τοῦ Πατρός, but merely that He was from the Father. Giving Eusebius credit then for demurring to the term ouoovolos, lest it should signify that the Son was 'by division of substance, or by severance, or by any passion, or change, or alteration of the Father's essence or power,'-all of which are foreign to the nature of the Unbegotten Father;and supposing that if the Council took oμoovotos in the sense he says it did, it was also to avoid the appearance of admitting any division of the one Indivisible Divine Essence: we yet cannot excuse his saying, like the Semi-Arians afterwards, that the term begotten signified merely that the Son of God bore no resemblance to creatures that were made,' whilst Tonlévтa was common to the other creatures that were formed by Him:-and still less, if possible, can we admit his treatment of the Arian expressions ἦν πότε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν and ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, as mere terms which were to be dealt with as such, and rejected simply because they were not found in Scripture; an evasion which, by confining the anathema of the Council to the words alone, would evidently allow the doctrines which they symbolize to be held with, and in despite of it.

We must take leave to differ from Bishop Kaye on a point of

1 Socrates reads yevvouévwv.-Theodoret and the Benedictines in their edition of S. Athanasius, more correctly, yerouévwv. The former, however, immediately after, for τὰ γενητὰ κτίσματα of the Benedictines, has γεννητὰ, in which Socrates agrees with him.

some moral weight, and one which affects in no slight degree the chief term of the Creed of the Council. He has followed, without protest, the assertion of Eusebius, which may at least be taken to mean, if it do not necessarily imply, that the introduction of the term oμoovoios originated with the emperor, whilst he adds decidedly that it was he who explained it to the Council;' no doubt desiring, as Valesius says, to shelter his own signature of the creed under the imperial authority. Now, we are expressly told that Constantine laid down no laws for the Bishops beforehand, but gave each of them free will to decide," and S. Athanasius says, as we shall shortly see, that the term was adopted by the Bishops after much discussion, as the only way of effectually meeting the sophistries of the Arians; he also gives an account of the preliminary questions, and of the manner in which it was determined to use the word; but without the slightest indication that the emperor had anything to do with its adoption,-if, indeed, he were at that time present in the council.

The next document to be noted as having been presented to the council by the Arians, is the Thalia of their leader, which he had composed when with Eusebius of Nicomedia. tains such blasphemies as the following:

It con

'The Unoriginate made the Son an origin of things generated,
And advanced Him as a Son to Himself by adoption;

He has nothing proper to God in proper subsistence, [or substance-
hypostasis" substantia Benedictines]

For He is not equal-no, nor one in substance with Him.'

It will be matter of surprise to few to hear that the Fathers of the council stopped their ears when it was read."

We now leave the Arians, and glance at the acts of the Catholic Bishops. S. Athanasius is here our chief and almost sole authority. He tells us to condense his accounts in some degree that the Council at first defined the Son to be from God, not a creature, or a work, but the proper Son of the Father. On this the Eusebians took the expression "from God" to apply to Christ, in the same sense as that in which it applies to men, "One God, from Whom are all things." (1 Cor. viii. 6.) The council were then compelled to a more 'clear definition, and said He was from the Essence of God, for 'this appertains to no creature. And when the Bishops said that

1 Having said that the Emperor directed the Council to receive his Creed, he continues : ἑνὸς μόνου προσεγγραφέντος ῥήματος τοῦ ὁμοουσίου ὃ καὶ αὐτὸ ἡρμήνευσε. -Letter to Cæsareans. Soc. i. 8; Theodoret i. 12.

2 S. Ambrose, Epist. xxi. § 15.

3 S. Athanasius, De Synodis, § 15. Oxford translation. S. Athanasius's Treatises, vol. viii. p. 95. S. Athanasius, Ad. Afros, § 13.

the Word ought to be described as the true Power and Image of the Father; and that He was like the Father in all things, and unvarying and unchanged, and that He was always, and in Him without division ..... the Eusebians endured it, not daring to contradict them for shame's sake... but they were ' detected whispering, and signaling to one another with their eyes, that the expressions "like" and "always," and the word "power" and "in him are common to us and the Son, and we can have no hesitation in agreeing to them. For with regard to "like," it is written of us, "Man is the image and glory of God," (1 Cor. xi. 7 ;) and also "ever," for it is written, For we which live are alway," (2 Cor. iv. 11;) and "in Him,” "In Him we live, and move, and have our being," (Acts 'xvii. 28;) and "unchanged," "Nothing shall separate us from the love of Christ," (Rom. viii. 39;) and of "power," that the caterpillar and locust are called "power" and "great power," (Joel ii. 25;)' and it is often written of all the people, as "All

6

the power of the Lord came out of the land of Egypt," (Exodus xii. 41.) And others are heavenly powers, for He says, "The Lord of powers is with us, the God of Jacob is our refuge.' (Psalm xlvi. 7, 8.)1 But the Bishops, secing in this their hypocrisy . . . . were compelled again to collect together 'the meaning of the Scriptures, and what they said before to repeat and write again more clearly, that "the Son was of one substance with the Father," that they might signify that 'the Son was not only like the Father, but the same in likeness, and show that the Son's likeness and immutability are 'different from the resemblance which is said to be in us, and 'which we attain from virtue on account of our observance of the commandments. And after they had thus written, they ' immediately added, "Those who say that the Son of God is 'from nothing, or is created, or changeable, or a work, or of ' another essence.. the Holy Catholic Church anathematises.'" In fact, none of the subsequent branches of the worst Arians could go further than Arius himself had gone before the Council, or show more fearlessness in carrying out the principles of their heresy to their proper and legitimate results, however shocking and detestable, for he had previously admitted to Alexander, when questioned in the Council at Alexandria, that the Word of God could be perverted as the devil was, because He is created, and therefore susceptible of change. An admission like this, from the mouth of the originator of the heresy, does more to show its true character than volumes penned by an opponent.

Septuagint Version.

De Decret. Nic. § 19, &c.

2

3

The fate that befell the holders of opinions so monstrous and revolting, may be easily imagined. In a Council composed, as we learn from S. Athanasius and the best authorities, of upwards of three hundred Bishops,' (to say nothing of the exact specification of 318, with its mystical signification, in the coincidence with the number of Abraham's servants, Gen. xiv. 14, though that idea is as old as the Council itself;) seventeen alone, as Sozomen says, or five according to Socrates, at first refused to sign the creed; and of these but two were found at last to persist in their resolution- Secundus of Ptolemais, and Theonas of Marmarica. Eusebius of Nicomedia, awed by the threats of the emperor, and seeing clearly that there was no alternative but subscription or banishment, subscribed with the rest. Philostorgius, the Arian historian, tells us that he and Maris of Chalcedon had, by the advice of Constantina, the sister of the emperor, furtively substituted oμoiούσιος for ὁμοούσιος in the copy of the creed which they signed, and thus pretended to assent to the Council. On this, Secundus said to him, 'You have signed to save yourself, and I trust in God that you will be banished before a year.' He was right, Eusebius's hypocrisy and falsehood did not save him; he was banished within three months from the time of the Council." Eusebius of Cæsarea had refused his signature on the first day, but affixed it on the second. He pretended,' to adopt the words of Tillemont, that the explication which the Council had given of the Consubstantiality, and the love of peace, made 'him sign it, without changing his opinion, the latter part of 'which point seems very true.'"

6

Arius himself met the most severe fate of all. The Synodical letter informs us that his definitions ήν πότε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, ἐξ

1S. Athanasius, Ad. Afros, § 2, says 318; De Decret. Syn. Nic. § 3, more than 300; In Apol. § 23, 300; Soc. i. 8, says 318; so Theodoret, i. 7, 11; Soz. i. 17, says about 320; Eustathius, 270, ap. Theodoret, i. 8. See Tillemont, note 2, on the Council of Nice.

2 Sozomen, i. 20.

3 Socrates, i. 8.

♦ Philostorgius, i. 9; Theod. i. 7, 8. We can scarcely agree with Bishop Kaye in his assertion, page 45, note 4, that Philostorgius was an Homœeusian; such, at least, is not the general opinion of writers, ancient or modern,-Nicetas, Photius, Gothofred, Cave, and others; all of whom rank him among the Anomoans: and it is certain that he blames Eusebius of Cæsarea for saying that God cannot be known or comprehended (i. 2), which an Homœeusian would not have done; the idea that the Son was fully comprehensible having been held only by the very lowest Aëtian or Anomoan division of the heresy. The passage of Eusebius, to which Philostorgius makes allusion, seems to be that contained in the fifth section of the first book of his Theologia Ecclesiastica: Let all unspeakable argument about the Son of God be silenced, and to the Father alone be ascribed the knowledge of His generation from Himself; nor let any one proceed further in inquiring about a nature and essence that are ineffable.'

Philostorgius, i. 9, 10; Theodoret, i. 19, 20; Socrates, i. 8; Sɔzcmen, i. 21. 6 Council of Nicæa, § 10.