§ 4, 5. riato. answered by statements of Constantine and Eusebius. 7 that is, with the creeds and confessions of faith, by which, as by marks and watch-words, Christians and Catholics, during the first three centuries, used to be distinguished from unbelievers and heretics-" And if the truth must be spoken, they ought to be regarded as precipitately framed from excitement, if not fury, and a maddened and unblessed' party malefespirit, on the part of bishops who were wrangling and contending with one another with excessive rivalry, rather than as what issued from composed minds." And that you may understand that the Nicene Creed, especially, is glanced at by him in this passage, he presently adds, "Who does not know, what keen contests, and obstinate bickerings, were raised amongst the bishops at the Nicene council?" Nay, rather I would say, who is there that does not perceive that all this issues from a mind far from sound or composed? Was it so clearly the part of a sober and moderate man, to tear and rend with revilings the venerable prelates of that most august council? But to proceed to the matter itself. He is not ashamed to say that the Nicene Creed was precipitately framed by the bishops out of fury and maddened and unblest party spirit." Yet Constantine the emperor, who himself presided as moderator in the Nicene council, expressly testifies of it, in his Epistle to the Churches, that in his presence "every point had there received due examination." Again, in the letter which he specially addressed to the Church of Alexandria, he says, that being present amongst the bishops assembled at Nice, as though he were one of their number, and their fellow-servant, he had undertaken the investigation of the truth, in such a way, as that "all points, which appeared to raise a plea either of ambiguity2," (for it is clear that this is the true reading from the audiosame clause being soon after repeated by Socrates,) "or difference of opinion, were tested and accurately examined." On this letter of Constantine, Socrates makes these observations?; "This account the emperor wrote to the people of • ἅπαντα τῆς προσηκούσης τετύχηκεν erάoews.-Euseb. de Vita Constant. iii. 17. • ἠλέγχθη ἅπαντα, καὶ ἀκριβῶς ἐξήτασται, ὅσα ἢ ἀμφιβολίαν, [ Bull read aupiBoxías, as Socrates has it in com menting on the letter, p. 31,] ἢ διχο- 4 ὁ μὲν δὴ βασιλεὺς τοιαῦτα ἔγραφε 2 λίας. [8] 1 ἁπλῶς. τασιν τοῦ δόγματος. 3 ἁπλῶς. 8 Statements of Zuicker and Sandius, 3 INTROD. Alexandria, to inform them that the definition of the faith had not been made lightly' or carelessly, but that they had put it forth after much discussion and strict testing; and it was not the case that some points had been mentioned at the council, whilst others had been passed over in silence, but that all things, which were meet to be alleged for esta2 πρòs σúσ- blishment of the doctrine', had been mooted, and that the matter had not been hastily defined, but had been first discussed with exact accuracy." Nay, Eusebius himself, an author of the utmost integrity, and of temperate disposition, and not unfair towards the Arian party, and who seems to have had the chief place next to the emperor in the Nicene council', expressly states, that all the bishops subscribed with unanimous agreement to the creed drawn up in that council, OVK ȧVEŽETασTŵs, "not without examination," not hastily and inconsiderately, but after an exact, deliberate, and careful in[9] vestigation, in presence of the emperor, of each separate proposition, (and, as he specifies by name, of the clause relating to the homoousion, "of one substance.") See Eusebius' letter to his own diocese, in Socrates, Eccles. Hist. i. 8. [pp. 22, 23.] At the opening of the council, indeed, there were considerable disputes among some of the bishops, but, as Eusebius also informs us, they were soon and easily settled and lulled by the pious and mild address of the emperor. 4 4 Nucleus Eccl. Hist. 6. The anonymous authors of a book published some time ago under the title of Irenicum Irenicorum,' &c., boldly proclaims, that the Nicene fathers "were the framers of a new faith;" and this he labours to prove, throughout his work, by heaping together such testimonies, out of the remains of the ante-Nicene fathers, as have the appearance of being inconsistent with the Nicene Creed. This book is said by Stephen Curcellæus to contain "irrefragable testimonies and arguments." The like web has been woven over again, very lately, by Christopher Sandius, in what he calls his 'Kernel of Ecclesiastical History,' now in the second edi 4 πίστεως· ἀλλ ̓ ὅτι μετὰ πολλῆς συζητή r Vid. not. Vales. ad Euseb. iii. de Vita Const., c. 11. See s Page 84. [Daniel Zuicker. the Introduction to the Primitive and Apostolical Tradition, § 2.-B.] Quat. Dissert. Theol. Dissert. i. 118. in fine. and of Petavius, on the Ante-Nicene Fathers. 9 tion, and enriched by a very copious addition of fables and §5-7. contradictions. In this book, the shameless author is entirely bent upon persuading such readers as are unlearned, and have very little acquaintance with the writings of the ancients, that the ante-Nicene fathers, without exception, simply held the same doctrine as Arius. [10] 7. There is, however, one great man fully furnished with learning of every kind, Dionysius Petavius, at whom I cannot sufficiently wonder; for, whilst he professes the utmost reverence for the Nicene council, and on all occasions declares that he receives the faith therein affirmed against the Arians, as truly catholic and apostolic, still he freely gives up to the Arians, that which (if true) would very greatly tend to confirm their heresy, and to disparage, nay, rather, utterly to overthrow, the credit and authority of the council of Nice; I mean, that almost all the bishops and fathers before the council of Nice held precisely the same opinions as Arius. For thus he writes, (Of the Trinity, i. 5. 7.) " Accordingly there was this settled opinion in the minds of some of the ancients, touching the Godhead and the diversity of Persons in It, viz., that there is One supreme, unbegotten, and invisible God, who put forth, without, from Himself, as vocal and sounding, that Logos", that is, that Word, which He had laid up within (évdiáßeтov), yet not, like a voice or sound, passing away and capable of being dissipated, but of such sort, as that, as though embodied and subsisting, It might in turn afterwards create all other things. Moreover, they said, that the Word was put forth by the Supreme God and Father at the time when He determined on creating this universe, in order that He might use Him as His assisting Minister. This opinion some intimate more clearly, others more obscurely. But these may be specially mentioned'; Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus, Tertullian, and 'sed isti Lactantius. Both these authors, however, and the rest, whom fere. nem. sim. 10 Petavius' statements tend to encourage Arianism; INTROD. I have mentioned," (and which of the primitive fathers had he not before mentioned?) "thought that the Father was superior to the Word, in age, dignity, and power; and, although they asserted, that the Son was of the substance or nature of the Father, (in which point alone they made His mode of exist1 conditio- ence1 to differ from that of all other beings, which are properly called creatures ;) still they conceived that He had a beginning no less than the creatures; in other words, that He had 2 hyposta by no means been a distinct Person2 from eternity." But in the second section of the eighth chapter of the same book he speaks still more plainly. "It is most clear," he says, "that [11] Arius was a genuine Platonist, and that he followed the opinions of those ancient writers, who, while as yet the nondum point had not been developed and settled3, had fallen into patefacta the same error. For they also taught that the Word was constitutaque re. produced by God the Father, yet not from eternity, but before He formed the world, in order that He might use Him as His assisting Minister for the accomplishment of that work. For they conceived that He had not created all things by Himself, and without the intervention of any 4 sine inter- one 1; a doctrine which Philo also followed in his book on jecto alithe Creator of the World. And therefore I take it to have been in a rhetorical and exaggerated way of expression, that Alexander, in his epistle, and others of the fathers, who wrote against this heresy, complained that Arius had been the 5 architec- author of that opinion, the like to which had been unheard tum dog- of before his time; inasmuch as we have brought forward a great number of early writers who previously taught the same doctrine as Arius." quo. matis. 8. If, therefore, reliance is to be placed on Petavius, we shall have to lay down, first, that the heresy of Arius, which was condemned by the Nicene fathers, agreed, in the most important point, with the commonly received view of the ancient Catholic doctors, who preceded him; secondly, that the doctrine concerning the true divinity of the Son was not 6 constitu- settled and developed before the council of Nice; thirdly, tum et pa- that Alexander, and the other Catholics, who accused Arius, as the author of a doctrine which was new and unheard of previously in the Catholic Church, said this in a rhetorical and an exaggerated way; that is to say, (if the thing is to be tefactum. 6 from a wish to establish the authority of the later Church. 11 σιον. more plainly stated,) that they uttered a notable falsehood, § 7, 8. I suppose in the Jesuit fashion, to subserve the Catholic cause. Unlucky Arius! that Petavius was not yet born, to become the patron and advocate of his cause in the conflict at Nicæa. It is not, however, easy to say, what Petavius had in view when he wrote thus. Some suspect [12] that in his heart he cherished the Arian heresy himself, and wished craftily to pass on the cup to others. This was the opinion of Sandius', whom I have just before mentioned, who thus remarks of Petavius; "But when I recollect that Petavius asserts, that the ante-Nicene fathers taught the same doctrines as Arius, and, also, that the articles of the faith are to be proved by traditions, I think it impossible but that Petavius must have been persuaded of the truth of the conclusion, which infallibly follows from these premises, namely, that the Trinity which the Arians hold, and not the consubstantial Trinity', is an article of the faith. And as to 'Trinitahis wresting the argument to a contrary conclusion, I pre- tem ὁμοούsume he did this with a twofold view; 1. To escape the inconveniences2 which commonly fall on those who secede from 2 adversa. the Roman Catholic to the Arian party; 2. That the Arians might be able to derive a stronger proof of their doctrine from a father of the Society of Jesus, as from an adversary; especially since it is sufficient to prove premises, from which any person of sound mind can draw such a conclusion, as will make it plain what his opinion is about the Trinity." These are the words of Sandius; in my opinion, however, it is most clear from the writings of Petavius himself, that the conjecture of this most vain writer is entirely false. If indeed it must be said that Petavius wrote thus with any sinister purpose, and not merely from that bold and reckless temper which is his wont in criticising and commenting on the holy fathers, I should say that, being a Jesuit, he wished to promote the papal, rather than the Arian, interest. For, from the fact (for which Petavius contends) that almost all the Catholic doctors of the first three centuries fell into the selfsame error which the Nicene council afterwards condemned as heresy in the case of Arius, these two things will easily follow; 1. That little authority is to be assigned to the Sandius' Nucl. Hist. Eccl. i. p. 156. last edition [1676.] 5 |