!;ni;r,;!; \y.> DDAN & PILSDN, 54 MONTGOMERY STREET, JERSEY CITY. N J , U S. A. if? SCRIPTURE A. CHURCH AUTHORITY FOR THP: SIX COUNCILS OF THIC WHOLE CHURCH. SCKIPTUKIi; AUTHORITY FOR THEM. Matt. XVIII., 17; " If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican." I Tim. III., 15, "The Church of the living (jod, tlie pillar and ground of the truth." CHURCH .'VUTHORITY. Ho2i' they are trspecled among the viass 0/ those ivho claim to be Christians. I. AMONG THE REFORMED COMMUNIONS. 1. The Voice o/run Angi,ican Communion /or them. "Those vSix CounciIvS which were allowed and received of all MEN," (The Second Part of the Church of England Homily Against Peril of Idolatry which is in that Book of Homilies of which the Thirtj'-Fiflh .Article teaches that it " doth contain a godly and 7vholesoine doFlrine, and necessary for these tivies.'") 2. The American Presbyteri.\n.s on the Si.v Ecumenical Councils. Pius the Ninth, Bishop of Rome, in an Encyclical Letter dated Sept. 13, 1S6S, invited "all Protestants" to join the Roman Communion at the Vatican Council to be held A. D. 1869. "The two General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America " by their Moderators, M. W. Jacobus and Ph. H. I'owler, replied in 1869, and among other things said, with reference to their refusal to participate in that Council of the Vatican, which began eoon after, on Dec. 8, 1869, as follows: " It is not because we reject any article of the Catholic T'aith. We are not heretics * * * * . We regard as consistent ivith Scripture the doctrinal decisions of the first Six Ecumenical Cou7icils; and because of that consistency we receive those decisions as expressing our oivn faith. We believe the docflrines of the Trinity and Person of Christ, as those dodlrines are set forth bj- the Council of Nice, A. D. 325; by that of Chalcedon, A. D. 451; and by that of Con- .stantinople, A. D. 680." Then follows an excellent .summing up on the Trinity and on the Incarnation and Christ's sole Mediatorship, which agrees with the Six Synods, and is found on page 5 below. Then they speak well of the Third Ecumenical Council. Below they condemn heresies condemned by necessary implication by the Six Councils; that is, Tran.substantiation, the Roman doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Adoration of the Host, the Wor- ship of the Virgin Mary, the Invocation of Saints, and the Worship of Images; and, towards the end, well say. "Loyalty to Christ, obedience to the Holy Scriptures, consistent respect for the early councils of the Church, and the firm belief that pure religion is the foundation of all human society, compel us to withdraw from fellowship with the Church of Rome. " The utterances of the Continental, Reformed, that is, Continental Presbyterians, as well as of the Lutherans. The Declaration of Thorn approves the two Ecumenical Creeds, and the Confessions of the Six Ecumenical Councils. See pages 156, 157 below. 3. As to the z'lews of the Lutherans on the Doflrines of the Six Ecu- menical Councils, see further, below, pages 128 to 131. AMONG THE UNREFORMED COMMUNIONS. I. How the Greek Church covimeuiorates them. '•Be mindful, O, Lord * * * * of the Holy, Great, Ecumenical Six Synods, the First of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Holy Fathers in Nicaea; the Second of the One Hundred and Fifty in Constantinople; the Third of the Two Hundred in Ephesus; the Fourth of the Six Hundred and Thirty in Chal- cedou," etc., (Diptychs in the Messina Manuscript, of A. D. 984, of the Greek Liturgy of St. James of Jerusalem, in Assemani's Codex Liturgicus Ecclesiae Universae.) II. Hozo the Bishops of Rome formerly received them. In the Indicnluin Pontifcis or Profession of Faith of a Roman Pontiff after A. D. 680, the date of the vSixth Ecumenical Council, and dtiring Century VIII., those Bishops swore as follows: "IWII.1. KEEP UNMUTILATED, TO A SINGLE LONG MARK OVER A VOWEL, the holy Universal Councils also the Nicaean, the Constantinopolitan, the first Ephesian, the Chalcedonian, and the second Constantinopolitan, which was cel- ebrated in the times of Justinian, a prince of pious memory. And together with them, and with equal honor and veneration, I promise to keep, TO The very MARROW AND FULLY, the holy Sixth Council which lately assembled in the time of Constantine, a prince of pious memory, and of Agatho, my apostolic prede- cessor, and I promise in very truth to proclaim what they have proclaimed, and with mouth and heart to condemn what they have condemned. But if anything shall arise against Canonical Discipline, I promise to amend it, and to guard THE SACRED Canons, and the constitutions of our Pontiffs, as Divine and Celestial mandates." The Second P-ofession of Faith of a Bishop of Rome in the end of Century VII. and in Century VIII., as given in the Daily Book of the Poman Pontiffs, after a full and excellent confession of do(5lrine, reads thus: "Wherefore, whomsoever or whatsoever the holy Six Universal Councils have cast off, we also smite v.ith a like condemnation of anathema. But whom- soever or whatsoever the same Six Holy Councils received, we, as sharers of the right faith, receive, and, with the same reverence, venerate with mouth and heart." This language is general and absolute. It excepts nothing. Authoritative Christianity. THK FIRST KCUMENICAL COUNCIL; THAT IS. THK FIRST COUNCIL OF THE WHOLK CHRISTIAN WORLD, WHICH WAS HELD A. D. 325 AT NICAEA IN BITHYNIA. VOI^. I. WHICH CONTAINS ALL ITS UNDISPUTED REMAINS IN GREEK AND ENGLISH; THE EINGLISH TRANSLATION. — BY — " If he neglect to hear the Church, let liiiii be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican. Verity I say unto you. Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and zvhntsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'" — Matt. XVIII. , 17, 18. Christ's utterauce to the whole bod}- of His Apostles, not to oue of them aloue ; aud through them to their successors the sound God-alone worshipping, auti-creature invoking and anti-image worshipping Bishops (and to no idolatrous Bishops, who cannot Ije saved, (/. Cor. VI., 9, 10; Gal. V., 79, 20, 21, and Rev. A'.V/., S); and to sound Bishops only He has prom- ised His Holy Spirit " forever" to guide them into all "truth," {John XIV., 16, i-,; John XVI., 13''; with whom He has promised to be in teaching not for one age only but " always, even unto the end of the world. Amen," (.Malt. X.WIII., ig, 20); and only where thej' govern according to the VI. Synods in all things, is the Church now, in the full sense, as in the Apostles' days, "the pillar and ground of the truth," (/. Tim. III., j^). Aud no other than they have any right to teach and rule; for the decisions of those Synod , depose all others. JArvlES CHRYSTAIv, PUBlvISHKR, 255 Grove Street, Jersey City, New Jersey. U. S. A. July, 1891. Sold to Subscribers at $3.00 a Volume ; to others at $4.00. tu?^ Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1S91, b} JAMES CHRYvSTAL, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress. at Washington, D. C. Right of translation reserved. > •A3 :i: to oj V 4. i r 1 p h s— ^ DEDICATION OF THIS VOLUME — TO — THE TWO GRKAT ENGLISH-SPEAKING NATIONS, WHO AMIDST MANY FAUI^TS AND FAII.INGS, HAVE NF.VRRTHKI.RvSvS FOR CKNTURIIuS BRKN ZKAI.OUS TO PRRIIv LIFE AND TREASLIRl': FOR THE CHIEF TRUTH OF THI'; CHRISTIAN RRIvIOION THAT AIJ, WORvSHIP LS PRERO(iATIVE TO GOD ALONE (Matt. IV., lo); FOR WHICH HE IN RETURN HAvS GIVEN THEM VICTORY ON FIELD AND FLOOD, AND VAST EMPIRE AND WEALTH AND ALL BLE;SSINGS. ^ MAY THEY NOT DEGENERATE AND LOSE THEM. §— ^ -1 ' * h (^ —8 - ^"^ 366331 PREFACE. Ours is au age of agitation of inquiry, and of sifting; aye, of changes, some for the better, others for the worse. The agitations have reached even the Greek communion, and some at least in it are growing weary of the abuses, of the superstitions, and of the idolatry and creature- worship of the middle ages. To some extent the same is true of the Roman Communion, though its strong government, like that of the Orientals, represses the outward manifestation of dissent. In the Nestorian Communion, and in that of the Monophysites, there are some few signs of a leaning, on the part of some at least, to Or- thodoxy. In the Protestant world the agitation is widespread, and the changes are many. In the Anglican Communion especially the old foundations are broken up, and we see three parties at least in its pale, instead of the old High and Low : 1. A party professing to hold to the Trinity, the Atonement, to the truth that God alone is to be worshipped, and to the other tenets of its Reformed faith; and, more or less, to the Six Synods. 2. A distindlly idolatrizing, creature-worshipping and Roman- izing party; and so an Anti-Six Synods party; 3. A distin(5lly infidelizing party; and, perhaps, we may add, 4. A distin(5lly Methodistic party or parties, who are united in the grievous error of putting feeling for faith, denying the necessary connedtion of regeneration with baptism, and making the rebirth to be merely a quickening of the Holy Ghost in the heart in non-infant years, and that without any baptism at all. This heresy has become more prevalent since the ancient, and still rubrical dipping has been laid aside, and with it that baptismal emersion, which the ancients deemed the rebirth itself (*). As a result of such errors of ignorance, which alas! dominate our land, of the fifty-five millions of Protestants in this land only about thirteen millions are regarded as members of any Church, and millions of them are without anything that is called baptism, and crowds of them are daily dying unbaptized, and without hope. Rome's forces in the fight are united; but those of Protestant- ism are fighting endlessly among themselves. (*). So St. Justiu the Martyr, soon after the Apostles, in Sedlions LXXIX, and IvXXX. of his First Apology; Hippolytus on the Holy Theophany, SecSliou X.; Cyril of Jerusalem, Lecture XX., Chapter IV., etc. vSee Chrystal's History oj the Modes of Baptism, pages 59, 60, 62, 63, 70 and 71. ii Preface. The Anglican Communion, owing to the terrible sin of its mainly married episcopate, who shirk their bounden duties to depose heretics and to excommunicate them, and owing also to the too little power in their hands to enforce any dodtrine or discipline or rite, and owing to the temporal power's interference with sound men, is a wreck, and multitudes of its people have left it for other forms of Protestantism, and some for Rome. The lyUtherans and the Reformed on the Con- tinent of Europe have, in places, sunk so low as to deny the Trinity, the Atonement, and other fundamental dodlrines of the Faith. In our own country and in England non-Episcopal Protestantism has been rent into about one hundred and thirty differing and warring sedls, some of them holding to much of Orthodox truth, while others like the opponents of infant-baptism, the Universalists, and the Anti- Trinitarians are in fact enemies of Christ and of his Church and his Religion. This book and this series are an Irenicon and a Guide to Ecu- menical Orthodoxy at the same time. We begin with this volume of Nicaea which contains all its Genuine Documents. It will be followed in due time, if means be given us to publish with, by another volume or volumes which will contain, 1. The matter on Nicaea, which has been doubted hy some; and 2. That which is confessedly spurious. Probably there will be two or three more volumes on Nicaea; one of which will contain information and references on its Twenty Canons; and that, or another volume on Nicaea, will contain a Dis- sertation on the Attempt of Rome in the Fifth Century to obtain Ap- pellate Jurisdi(5lion over the provinces of Latin Africa and the resist- ance of Carthage and its suffragans to that attempt at usurpation. One volume of Nicaea will contain another long Dissertation on the meaning of the following remarkable words in the Creed of Nicaea, which have so engaged the attention of Theologians: " The Universal and Apostolic Church anathematizes those who say that * * * the Son of God * * * 2i'as 72 ot before He was born.'" In that Dissertation an account will be given of the differences among the Ante-Nicene and some later Christian writers, who, while holding the Orthodox tenet that the Logos is co-eternal and consub- Preface. in siantial with the Father, nevertheless diflfered as to ivhen He was born out of the Father; some, like Origen and Athanasius and the Alexandrian School after them, asserting that He was eternally born out of the Father; whereas, others, like St. Justin the Martyr, St. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, and seemingly all the Ante-Nicene writers outside of the jurisdicftion of Alexandria held that He was born out of Him, not eternally, but only just before the worlds were made and to make them, St. Zeno of Verona, in the Post Nicene period, held that view as we shall see. St. Theophilus of Antioch, in accordance with this dodlrine, teaches that the consubstantial Logos was eternally in the Father, that is that He was the Endia- thetic Logos till just before the worlds were made, when to make them He was born out of Him, and so became the Pivphoric Logos, that is the Bome-Forth Logos. Yet, whether E7idiathetic, that is within the Father, or Prophoric, that is Bome-Forth out of Him, He was eternally co eternal and consubstantial with the Father. So that both parties held that He is no creature, but very and eternal God. I will endeavor to give in full every Ante-Nicene passage which repre- sents St. Theophilus' do(5lrine, and to quote St. Zeno of Verona after Nicaea. An account of Origen' s opinions on that matter and of St. Athanasius' will be added. Another Dissertation in one of the volumes on Nicaea will treat of the differences among the ancient Christians as to whether God has a body or not; and passages from them on it will be quoted; as, for instance, Tertullian will be quoted for it, and Socrates against it; and an account will be given of the difficulty between St. Theophilus of Alexandria, and the m^ajority of his monks on that theme, and of the variance on it between St. Epiphanius and St. Theophilus, and afterwards between them and John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constan- tinople. We will, in the same Dissertation, treat of that question as bearing on the teaching of the Nicene Creed that the Consub.stantial Logos has a(5lually come '' out of the Father, that is out of ihc: sub- Stance of the Father, * * * very God out of very God. ' ' We will inquire also in that connecflion whether any of the Six Ecumen- ical Synods have decided any thing on such matters. Of course the first volume of any set like this must contain much preliminary and explanatory matter. But when we come to the Third Ecumenical Council, the Fourth, the Fifth, and the Sixth, iv Preface. the Ac5ls, that is Minutes, will make up a large part of the volumes. The Minutes of the First and the Second are lost, though happily their Decisions remain. And we hope that the Dissertations and the Notes and Prefatory Matter found in the different volumes of the series will prove both) acceptable and useful to every Orthodox reader. And for the success' of our eflfort to put the Sole Decisions of the whole Church before the Christian public I ask the sympathy, the prayers, the contribu- tions, and the a(5live co-work of every soul who is true and loyal to Christ and His Holy Church. In this volume, in the first two chapters, I have shown how far the different Communions, West and East, claiming to be Christian, stand committed to the Six Synods and to their Dodrines, Discipline and Rites. In Chapter III. I show that Arianism. was a distindl return to the fundamental pagan and anti-Christian errors of Polytheism and Creature-Worship; and that St. Athanasius and St. Epiphanius and others of the Orthodox so regarded it. I have quoted quite a num- ber of passages from the works of some of the Orthodox to that effect. If .space permitted, I could give more from others. In Chapter IV. , I have given an account, from the original sources, of the Council itself. Chapter V. contains important Documents which bear on the Synod. Chapter VI. treats of its Synodal Letter; Chapter VII. of its Creed; and Chapter VIII. of its Canons. The Letter, the Creed, and the Canons, are given in Greek and English. The indexes follow. I can not close this Preface without expressing my heartfelt and deep gratitude to Almighty God that he allows me to put to press this first volume of a series of perhaps twelve or fifteen volumes, which I began, at least, as far back as 1864, and on which I have labored in winter's cold and summer's heat, till my hair and beard are growing gray in my task for God. Of late years my income, never large, has become so small that but for the aid of kind friends, to whom I here express my warmest thanks, I could not publish even this one volume. Two or three volumes, comprising all the inesti- Preface. v mably precious Acfls, that is Minutes, of the Third Ecumenical Coun- cil, so valuable to every theological student, have been ready for the press for years. God move the hearts of His servants to publish them! They are the first translation of them all into English. I pray God the Father that I may be spared by His mercy for his adorable Son's sake to see all the English of the Six Councils in print, and enlightening and blessing his people before I die. Before closing, I ought, in justice to the donors to the Publica- tion Fund for the Six Councils to state that for all opinions expres.sed in this work I alone am responsible. As the donors belong to differ- ent parties in the Anglican Communion, some of them would differ from some of them as they differ from each other. I here gratefully acknowledge my great indebtedness to their aid. They are: Right Rev. HENRY CODMAN POTTER, D. D., LL. D., Bishop of New York. Right Rev. WILLIAM PARET, D. D., LL. D., Bishop of Maryland. Right Rev. BOYD VINCENT, D. D., Assistant Bishop of Southern Ohio. REV. MORGAN DIX, D. D., D. C. L., New York City. Rev. JOHN W. BROWN, S. T. D., " REV. JOHN HENRY HOPKINS, S. T. D., i " Rev. D. PARKER MORGAN, D. D., " REV. D. H. GREER, D. D., " Rev. CHAUNCEY B. BREWSTER, Brooklyn, New York. Rev R. H. L. TIGHE, Rev. I. NEWTON STANGER, D. D., New York City. REV. GEORGE R. VAN DE WATER, D. D., " Rev. CORNELIUS B. SMITH, D. D., " Rev. JAMES MULCHAHEY, D. D., " Rev. ARTHUR BROOKS, " Rev. H. Y. SATTERLEE, D. D., " Rev. ISAAC H. TUTTLE, D. D., '< Rev. PHILIP a. H. brown, " Rev. THOMAS M. PETERS, D. D., " Rev. E. WINCHESTER DONALD, D. D., " Mr. FRANCIS GURNEY DO PONT, Wilmington, Del. Mr. JAMES FLEMMING, Esq., Counselor-at-Law Jersey City, N. J. I deem it just to myself, and necessary, to add also that I have aimed in all my expressions to follow closely and stri(5lly. 1. All the Doctrine, Discipline Rite and Custom of the Six Ecu- menical Councils; and, 2. Where they have not spoken, to follow just as closely and vi Preface. just as stridlly, according to Vincent of Serins' saying, all in Doc- trine, Discipline, Rite and Custom which has been held ' ' Always, every where, and by all:' Those two principles condemn the Host Wor- ship, the image worship, the invocation of creatures, and all the other errors on Docftrine, Discipline, Rite and Custom, of Rome, and of the Orient, as well as all the heresies of those so-called Protestant writers and speakers, who are really infidelizing and anarchizing, and pro- test much oftener against the inspiration of Holy Scripture, and its great do(5lrines enshrined in the Decisions of the Six Councils, and against what is best and most primitive in the Anglican Reformation of the sixteenth century, than they do against the soul-damning idolatry of Rome, and the equally soul-destroying unbehef of the Christ-reje(5ting and Christianity-hating Jews. Contents. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS OF THIS VOLUME. PREFACE, Page I-VI. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page VII. CHAPTER I. A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE vSIX ECUMENICAI, COUNCII^S OF THE UNDIVIDED CHURCH. PAGE. Section i. — What they are, 1-2 Their Authority and Reception in different Communions, ..... 2 Section 2. — How their Dodlrines are regarded by Trinita- rian Scholars, ...... 8 Section 3. — How they compare in Importance with Local Councils and the mere Opinions of Indi- vidual Writers, ..... 9 Section 4. — What part of them has been translated into English, 9 Section 5. — Their value to the mere historic student, and to the man who does not profess Chris- tianity, ....... 9 Section 6. — To what extent their Adls are well and thor- oughly known, . . . . . 10 Section 7. — Prospe(5lus of this work, . . . . n "viii Contc7its. CHAPTER II. A FULLER ACCOUNT AS TO HOW FAR THE SIX ECUMENICAL SYNODS ARE RECEIVED IN DIFFERENT COMMUNIONS EAST AND WEST; AND AS TO HOW FAR THEIR TWO CREEDS ARE IN USE AMONG THEM. INCIDENTAL INFORMA- TION IS GIVEN AS TO THE USE OP LOCAL SYMBOLS ALSO. Page. Division I. — As to the Reception of the Six Ecumenical Councils in the Oriental Communions, and as to the Use of their two Creeds there, 21 The Orientals on the Filioque and on the Six Synods, ...... 21 Section i. — Symbols used in the Greek Church. The two Ecumenical Creeds, ... 24 Subsection I. — That is, the Creed of Nicaea, ... 25 And the Creed of I. Constantinople, . . 25 Subsection 2.— How the Greeks stand as to Local Symbols of the East, 26 Subsection 3. — And as to Local Symbols of the West; that is, as to the Apostles' Creed, . . 26-32 And the Athanasian, .... 32-36 What the Greek Church should do now, . 36-42 Additional Reference to the Oriental Com- munions, ...... 42 Section 2. — The Nkstorians on the two Ecumenical Creeds, on Local Creeds, and on the Third Ecumenical Council, and on the Three Ecumenical Councils after it, . . . 42-50 Their errors, ibid, ...... 42-50 Section 3. — The Mononphysite Copts and Abyssinians on the two Ecumenical Creeds, on Local Creeds, and on the Six PvCumenical Councils, ...... 50-54 Their errors, . . .... 50-54 Contents. ix PAGE Section 4. — The Monophysite Armenians on the two Ecumenical Creeds, on Local Creeds, and on the Six Ecumenical Councils. Their errors, ....... 54~7i Section 5. — The Syrian Jacobites, that is Monophy- siTES on the two Ecumenical Creeds, on Local Creeds, and on the Six Ecumenical Councils; their errors, .... 71-85 Division II. — As to the Reception of the Six Ecumenical Synods, their two Creeds, their do(5lrine and discipline, in the Western Commun- ions, and as to the use of Local Creeds among them, ...... 85 Section 6. — Among the Latins, 85-90 Their errors; the proper course for the Latins to pursue, and for the whole West, . . 85-95 Section 7. — As to the Reception of the two Ecumenical Creeds; Local Creeds, that is the Apostles' and the Athanasian, and the Reception of the Dodlrine and the Discipline of the Six Ecumenical Councils in the Anglican Communion. Its faults, . . . 95-128 Its present duty, ..... 102-128 Section 8. — How the Lutherans regard the two Ecumen- ical Creeds, the Six Ecumenical Councils, and their DoArine and Discipline; and Local Creeds, that is the so-called Apostles' and the Athanasian, .... 128-130 Their Faults and present Duty, . . 128-130 Section 9. — How the Refor3ied regard the two Ecumen- ical Creeds; the Six Ecumenical Synods, and their Dodlrine and Discipline; and local Creeds, that is the so-called Apostles' and the so-called Athanasian; and their utter- ances as to Proper Deference to the Fathers, ...... 1 31-163 Contents. Section 9; Part I. — A Synopsis, that is, a summary of their utterances, on the two Ecumen- ical Creeds; that is, ... . 1. On THAT OF THE 318, . . . . 2. On that of the 150, . Section 9; Part II. — A Synopsis, that is, a Summary of Utterances of the Reformed on Local Creeds; 1, On the Western or Roman, . 2. On the Athanasian, . , . . SecTiON 9; Part III. — Fuller Quotations from cer- tain Confessions of the Reformed, or of Parts of the Reformed, on the two Ecumenical Creeds, that is, on the Symbol of the First Ecumenical Council, and on that of the Second, and on two local Creeds, that is, on the Western Creed which is commonly called the Apostles' and on the so-called Athanasian, (i). From the French Confession, (2). From the Belgic, that is, Holland, (3). From the Bohemian, (4). From the Agreement of Sendomir, (5). From the Margrave's Confession, or Confession of John Sigismund Eledlor of Brandenburg, (6). From the Leipsig Colloquy in the year 1631, .... (7). From the Declaration of Thorn; Augusti on the last two documents, A remark of doubtful meaning in the Bohe mian Confession, .... Degeneracy of many of the Reformed in for- saking much of the Orthodox and funda- mental dodlrines of the Six Councils which are embodied in their Confessions, . 131 131 132 132 133 134 136 137 139 140 141 143 145 145 146 Cojitaits. xi Augusti's testimouy as to that fact, and his lament over it, . . . . . 146 Sad and absurd results in England and in America, and elsewhere, of the mad op- position to the use of the two Ecumenical Creeds, and of the neglect or utter rejec- tion of the Docflrines and Discipline and Rites of the Six Ecumenical Councils, . 147 Utterances of John W. Nevin, D. D., Ger- man Reformed, in favor of Creeds, and against the patrons of ' ' the Anti-Creed heres}^" ...... 148 Section 9; Part IV. — Quotations from Confessions of the Reformed on the Six Ecumenical Synods, and on the Reception of their Norms of Definition on the two Ecumenical Creeds; that is, on that of the First Ecumenical Synod and on that of the Second, . . 149 (i). From the Helvetic, .... 149 (2). From the Scotch, .... 151 (3). From the Tetrapolitan, . . . 154 (4). From the Leipzig Colloquy, . . 156 (5). From the Declaration of Thorn, . 156 (6). From the Westminster, . . . 157 Summary as to how far the Presbyterians agree with the dodlrines of the Six Ecu- menical Synods, . . , . . 158 Section 9; Part V. — Quotations from the Reformed on Proper Deference for such utterances of the Fathers as are in agreement with Scripture, . . . . . 158 Introdudlory remarks by the author; cautions and distindlions, . . . . . 158 Utterances of the Reformed on deference to Scriptural opinions of Fathers, . 158-160 (i.) From the Helvetic Confession, . . 160 (2.) From the Gallican Confession, . . 160 Xll Conte7tts. Need among the Reformed of Church Authority as set forth in the Six Synods, Count Dmitry Tolstoy's testimony as to the causes of the ruin of Protestantism in Lithuania, ...... i6i i6i CHAPTER III. ARIUS AND HIS HERESIES. Authorities and References, ..... Section i. — Arius, ....... Section 2. — His Character and Personal Appearance, Section 3. — His Talents, Section 4. — His Pride of Intellect Section 5. — Cheerful Aspect of the Church just before the Arian Heresy arose. Section 6. — The Beginning of the Arian Controversy, Arius' Heresies, ..... Section 7. — Arius' own account of his Heresies, Other old Arian Statements, . Section 8. — Persecutions, by the Arians, of the Orthodox and wide spread of the Heresy. St. Athan- asius brands Arius' Heresy as resulting in Polytheism and Creature- Worship, . Thirteen Passages from St. Athanasius against Arian Polytheism and Creature Worship, etc., ....... St. Epiphanius and other Fathers to the same effect; Epiphanius, six passages, IvUcifer of Cagliari, two passages, Faustin of Rome, two passages, PAGE. 163,164 164-166 7 ''•. ". 176 209 217 240 247 249 Contents. xiii PAGE. Soreness of the Arians when charged with Polytheism and Creature-Worship, . 252 Section 9. — Spread of Creature-Service the result of Arian teaching, 253 CHAPTER IV. THE SYNOD ITSEI' with ^ mx invitation, or participate in the dehberations of the approaching Council. " It is not because we reject any article of the Catholic faith. We are not heretics; we receive all the dodtrines contained in the ancient Symbol known as the Apostles' Creed ; we regard as consistent zvith Scripture the doctrinal decisio7is of the first Six Ecumenical Councils ; and because of that consistency we receive those decisions as expressing our own faith. We believe the doctrines of the Trinity ayid Person of Christ, as those doctrines are set forth by the Council of Nice, A. D. 325: by that of Chalccdou, A. D. 4.5 1; and by that of Constanti^iople, A. D.'68o. With the whole Catholic Church, therefore, we believe that there are three persons in the Godhead : the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ; and that these three are one God, the same in substance, and equal in power and glory. ' ' We believe that the Eternal Son of God became man by taking to Himself a true body and a reasonable soul ; and so was, and continues to be, both God and man, in two distincfl natures, and ont Person forever. We believe that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is the Prophet of God, whose teachings we are bound to receive, and in whose promises we confide. He rs the High Priest of our profession, whose infinitely meritorious satisfacflion to divine justice, and whose ever prevalent inter-'^ssion is the only ground of our justification and acceptance before God. He is our King, to whom our allegiance is due, not only as His creatures, but as the purchase of His blood. To His authority we submit; in His care we trust; and to His service we and all creatures in heaven and earth should be devoted. "We believe, moreover, all those do(5lrines concerning sin, grace, and predestination, known in history as Augustinian. Those doc- trines were sanctioned by the Council of Carthage, A. D. 416 ; by a more general Council in the same place, A. D. 418; by Zosimus, Bishop of Rome, A. D. 418 ; and by the third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus, A. D. 4.31. It is impossible, therefore, that we should be pronounced heretical without including the whole ancient Church in the same condemnation. We not only 'glory in the name of Christians, but profess the true faith of Christ, and follow the com- munion of the Catholic Church.' Still further to quote your own words, 'Truth must continue ever stable and not subject to any change.' " At the end of this document they refer to certain errors which are really condemned by the Six Councils. I italicize them : "Although this letter is not intended to be either objurgatory or controversial, it is known to all the world, that there are doctrines 6 Chapter 1. and usages of the Church over which you preside, which Protest- ants beheve to be not only unscriptural, but contrary to the faith and practice of the early Church. Some of those doArines and usages are the following, viz.: The doBrine of transiibstayitiation and the sacrifice of the mass ; the adoration of the host ; the power o." judicial absolution (which places the salvation of the people in the hands of the priests); the do(5lrine of the grace of orders, that is. that supernatural power and influence are conferred in ordinatioti by the imposition of hands; the dodtrine of purgatory; the zvorship of the Virgin Mary; the ijivocation of saints; the worship of images: the dodlrine of reser\^e and of implicit faith, and the consequent withholding the Scriptures from the people, etc. ' ' So long as the profession of such docStrines and submission to such usages are required, it is obvious that there is an impassable gulf between us and the Church by which such demands are made. "While loyalty to Christ, obedience to the Holy Scriptures, con- sistent respedt for the early Councils of the Church, and the firm belief that pure 'religion is the foundation of all human society," compel us to withdraw from fellowship with the Church of Rome : we, nevertheless, desire to live in charity with all men. We love all who love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. We cordially recognize as Christian brethren all who worship, trust and serve Him as their God atid Saviour according to the inspired Word. And we hope to be united in heaven with all who unite with us on earth, in saying. ' Unto Him who loved us, and washed us from our sins in His own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God; to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.' — Rev. i., 6. "Signed in behalf of the two General Assemblies of the Presby- terian Church in the United States of America. M. W. Jacobus, Ph. H. Fowler, Moderators. ' " The issue of 77z^ ^z'^w^^//^/ for September ii, 1869, which con- tains the above, has the following editorial on it: "PRESBYTERIANS AND THE POPE. "We publish this week a letter addressed 'To Pius THE Ninth, Bishop op Rome,' in the name of the two General Assemblies which met in this city last May. At the first blush the writing of such a letter might seem to be a superfluous labor, an officious and almost impertinent intrusion upon one who considers himself the head of the Christian World, But any such impression is removed by considering that the first motion did not come from us, but from him; and that however august a personage he may be, inasmuch as he has made a Account of the Six Eaimenical Councils. formal communication to us, it is on our part but civil to reply. One year ago the Pope sent forth a letter to all non-Catholic communions, inviting them to return to the one true fold — the bosom of the holy Catholic Church. Being thus addressed, we must either ignore the invitation, thereby treating it with contempt, or return an answer assigning reasons why it cannot be accepted. To the latter no objecftion can be offered, provided the answer is dignified and cour- teous, such as might proceed from a great Christian body, that respects itself, and knows what is due from those who assume to speak not only for one Church, but in some degree for the whole of Protestant Christendom. ' ' On this point of courtesy we are happy to say there is no fault to find on either side. The letter of the Pope itself was not super- cilious or arrogant, except as arrogance may be implied in the assumption that he was the Bishop of the whole Christian world. But it was not offensive in language. On the contrary it vvas intended to be respecftful and conciliatory. Doubtless it was written with the sincere hope and belief that it would be the means of recalling some wandering sheep to the Roman fold. "To this patriarchal invitation, therefore, we now return our answer, and though Presbyterians are somewhat famous for a certain bluntness of speech which is not exadlly the language of ecclesias- tical diplomacy, yet in this case we think it will be agreed that they are not outdone in courtesy by the Pope himself. The letter does not contain a word of anger, or even of indignant rebuke. On the contrary, it is mild and gentle ; yet its arguments are none the less weighty because conveyed in respedtful language. Under the velvet glove we feel the grasp of the hand of iron. ' ' Thus temperate in phrase, and respe(5lful in address, the letter presents a concise Vindication of Protestantism — of the attitude of non-Catholic churches toward that vast ecclesiastical despotism, which boasts so much of its unity and its antiquity. So far from admitting its exclusive claims, an appeal to history is quite sufficient to demolish these lofty pretensions, and indeed to reverse the position of the parties, to show that WE are the True Catholics, the true successors of the Apostles, the inheritors of their faith, their order, and their worship. The letter shows very clearly, that we are neither heretics nor schismatics — neither erring from the truth, as taught in the Scriptures, nor rending asunder the body of Christ. We hold to the early faith in its simplicity and its integrity, before it was overlaid and smothered by the traditions of men. We believe in the Apostle's creed, the most ancient symbol of Christian faith, a7id accept the decisions of the first six Ecumenical Coiuicils as not inconsistent with the higher authority of the Word of God. " Hence, we may claim justly that we are the true successors of the Primitive Church. We have a part in the inheritance of the 8 Chapter I. saints. The glorious compan}- of martyrs belongs to us. We have the goodly fellowship of those who worshipped Christ in caves and catacombs. The faith of Augustine was the faith of Calvin, and to no communion of modern times does that great name — the greatest of the fathers of the Church — so truly belong as to the Presby- terians of Scotland and America. "On the other hand, it is the Church of Rome which is the innovator on the ancient purity of faith and worship. By bringing in new do(ftrines unknown in the apostolic age; engrafting strange dogmas on the simple teachings of Christ; by its gorgeous worship, borrowed from Pagan temples and Jewish synagogues ; and above all, by its monstrous assumption to be the only true Church, claim- ing supremacy and infallibility — setting up its head as the Vicar of Christ on earth, who has power to open and shut the kingdom of heaven — it has departed widely from the simplicity of the Church founded by Christ and His Apostles, and has earned the title of the Great Apostacy. vSo that when the Holy Father summons Protest- ants to return to 'the one true fold,' they may without offence respond by calling upon him, and upon all ' who profess and call themselves Catholics, ' to return to a purer faith and a simpler worship. " With this introduction, we commend to our readers this truh- Christian Letter, addressed to the Bishop of Rome, which may be taken as a model by all who wish to take part in the Romish con- troversy. It is a model of manly argument, of plain truth expressed with Christian frankness, and yet with courtesy, and even with tenderness. This is the only way in which we can ever hope to reach our Roman Catholic brethren. It is not by denouncing or abusing them, or holding them up to ridicule or to public indigna- tion. We are sorry to say that some of our Protestant advocates have gone to work in the wrong way. They have been so belliger- ent in tone, and have waged war with such relentless severity, that they have put every Romanist at once on the defensive. Thus they have alienated those whom they sought to win, have disgusted and offended where it was their duty to conciliate ; and done no good to the cause of Protestant Christianity." The Nestorians receive only the first two of the vSix Ecumenical Councils ; the Monophysites only the first three. So much on their Authority and Reception. I. Hoiv are their doctrines regarded by Trinitarian scholars ? Answer. — All Trinitarian scholars, Greek, lyatin, and Protestant, profess at least loyalty to their doctrines on the Trinity against Arianism and Macedonianism ; and on the Incarnation and the two natures in Christ against Apollinarianism, Nestorianism, Monophysi- Account of the Six Ecume^iical Councils. tism, and Monothelism. No other assemblies ever held bear such widespread and general authorit}^ in what professes to be of the Chris- tian World. J. How do they compare in i?nportance with local coiaicils and the opifiions of individual zvriters f Answer. — They are, of course, of vastly greater importance than the decisions of mere local synods, or of individual writers, some of which they approve as orthodox and others of which they condemn as heretical. They do, indeed, profess to follow the written historic tratismissioji of the Fathers from the beginning, but expressly brand as heretical some peculiar and individual, or merely local opinions, of some at first deemed Fathers by some — as, for instance, Theodore of Mopsuestia — and impliedly condemn some opinions and actions of others. The Six Synods stand vastly above all other Christian writings except the Bible, on whose teachings the bulk of Christians — in A. D. 680, the date of the last of them — held they alone had un- erringly and authoritatively decided with the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. 4. What of them has been t)'anslated into English? Answer. — Probably not one-tenth part of the entire matter in them. 5. What is their value to the mere histo?ic student, and to the man who does not profess Christianity? (A). Tlic}- show what alone the Universal Church recognized as ITS authoritative; decisions in the period of the undivided CHURCH — in other words what ecumenically decided Do(5lrine, Discipline and Rite was, as distinguished from what was merely local. When a Christian went from the East to the West, or from the West to the East, he would find some variety in local church cus- toms ; but the faith as set forth in the Ecumenical Councils was ever the same, as were also the Universal Discipline and Rites, so far as ordered so to be by them. (B). They were the bond of union between all parts of the Church, so that he who received them was everywhere, East and 10 Chapter I. West, recognized as a Christian; whereas he who rejected them, or any of them, as did the Nestorian or the Monophysite, was because of that rejection cut off from the Universal Church and rejected by all, and that in accordance with Christ's own teaching in Matthew i8; [7, 18. (C). So long as the Western Roman Empire lasted, as it did till A. D. 476, Ecumenical Councils were recognized by the State to such an extent that no bishop could hold any see or enjo}^ its tempor- alities till he had accepted them. And as late as the eighth century the Popes of Rome swore to receive and to maintain their dogmas and canons. And the State received their canons as. laws on Eccle- siastical matters. The same was the case in the Eastern Empire till its fall, A. D. H53- The Christian Emperors obligated themselves to maintain them ; and, generally speaking, could not long hold their thrones without so professing. (D). Till A. D. 787 all Christian history and great Christian events may be said to have revolved around them, as indeed they do to a great extent still. They affect the law, the life and policy of Christian nations now ; of some more, of some less. (E). In projecfls for union among the great sundered parts of Christendom their reception has ever been made the first point. If any of them was rejected, union at once failed. 6. To what extent are their acts well and thoroughly known f Answer. — To a small extent only, though many bishops and clergy have a smattering of knowledge on their decisions. But the ]jrice of the originals is so high, owing to their being in Greek; or sometimes, parts of them, in a Latin translation only; or to their rarity; and so few of the clergy were ever adepts in Conciliar and Patristic Greek, and of those who were, so few can find time for study in a constant round of parish or teaching duties, that it is safe to say that not more than a third or a fourth or a tenth of the prelates of the Christian World, and not more than one-tenth or one- twentieth of the lower clergy of the different Communions have ever read through these basic Decisions of their Faith. Actouni of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 11 The majority of the prelates and clergy of the professedly Christian World do not even know what some of their Definitions are, and large numbers of them hold some of the very errors for which the Third Ecumenical Council justly deposed the creature-server Xestorius. The density of the ignorance prevailing everywhere as to the decisions of that Universal Church which in Matt. i8, 17, Christ co-.nmands us to hear, under pain of being regarded ''as a heathen man and a publican,'' and the consequent prevalence of heresies opposed to it, are simply appalling, and call for prompt remedy by their publication. 7. What 'do ive propose to do f Prospectus of this series, and what 7ve ask of learned Christians. We propose to translate into English every scrap of the Acts. that is, to put it in plain words, every scrap of the Minutes of the Six Ecumenical Councils, including, of course, all their Decisions and Canons, so that the reader may feel sure that he has the whole of the Ecumenical Dociunents before him ; in other words, an English Translation of the Entire Acts of the Six Ecumenical Synods, com- prising all the Decisions of the whole Church, East and West, before its Division in the ninth century. Those Councils, as has been said, are: I. Nicsea, A. D. 325. II. First Constantinople, A. D. 381. III. Ephesus, A. D. 431. IV. Chalcedon, A. D. 451. V. Second Constantinople, A. D. 553. VI. Third Constantinople, A. D. 680. The Acts, that is the Minutes as we would say, of the first two are lost; but we have their official utterances; that is, a Synodal Epistle, a Creed, and Canons from each. We begin with the First Ecumenical Synod, and God willing, will give first, its genuine documents ; secondly, the doubted matter ascribed to it ; and thirdly, the spurious matter ascribed to it. The Acts of the third Ecumenical Synod are, for the most part, extant in the Greek original (i). The Fourth and the Sixth remain Note i. P. E. Pusey, in his edition of the Works of St. Cyril of Alexan- dria, vol. vii., pt. i., Prcpfat., pages vii. and viii., tells us where some of them are. 12 Chapter I. in the Greek. The Fifth, so far as its Decisions are concerned, is still extant in the Greek ; but much of the Acts exists only in a Latin translation, which is, however, ver>' ancient. I have seen it said that in France, or in the whole world, of that Synod there were only two manuscripts ktiown just before the French Revolution, and one of them is now lost. When we consider the fact that some parts of such all-important writings have perished in the original, owing to the dense ignorance and corruptions and idolatries of the Church in the middle ages, we are reminded of how near the Law of Moses, the law of the Israelitish Church, came to being utterly lost in its period of ignorance, corruptions and idolatry, as told us in 2 Kings, xxii., and in 2 Chronicles, xxxiv. Oh ! that among the bishops of the Christian Church, its high-priests, apyup^l^, to use a common Greek title of our time for bishops; and among Christian Kmperors, and Kings, and Presidents, and Governors, and people, there may be as keen a sense of the due value and importance of these Ecumenical Decisions in their proper place which have been practically lost to most of them for many centuries, and as sincere and active and thorough obedience to them as there was in the pious high -priest, the reforming and restoring Hilkiah, and in the reforming and restoring and godly King Josiah, and in the reformers and restorers among the Jewish people, of the value and importance of their Church Law in its due place ! God grant it, so far as it is right and wise. Then, as the renewed knowledge of their Law and obedience to it brought them the abolition of creature service and of image worship, the restoration of all their do(5trine, discipline, rite and custom, and consequent blessing for both worlds; so the renewed knowledge of our Law, defined with the Christ-promised assistance of the Holy Ghost, and obedience to it, will bring Christians everywhere the abolition of creature service and of image worship, the healing of schisms. West and East, the restoration of all their primitive and Ecumenically -defined do6trine, discipline, rite and custom, and con- sequent blessing for both worlds. Then will the Universal Church be one again. East and West, and regain those vast portions of the earth, which she lost by violating the Decisions of those Six Councils ; I mean those areas of Europe and Asia and Africa which yet groan under the yoke of the unbelieving Turk and Moor; and she will re-people them with Christians again. Then the Church of Holy Wisdom, at Constantinople, and so many hundreds of Churches Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 1 3 and monasteries and nunneries and other Church property wrested from her by violence shall be restored, and shall echo again to prayer and chant to Christ ; and the heavenly King shall have his own again, and the true Jehovah, triune and blessed, and none other than He, shall be invoked and worshiped. Amen, and Amen. After Nicsea, we expect to put to press the Authentic Utterances of the Second Ecumenical Council, and other matter on it, in one- volume ; and then, or perhaps before, the Acts, that is the Minutes, of the Third Ecumenical Synod, the first of the Four whose Acts have reached us, which we have had ready for the press for years but cannot as j-et publish owing to lack of funds. Can you not aid us in getting subscribers as well as by subscribing yourself? The decisions of Ephesus deal with the vastly important questions of the Incarna- tion; the controversy as to worshipping both Natures of Christ; and incidentally and yet clearly as to the sin of Relative Worship, the true anti -man -eating Doctrine on the Eucharist; the questions as to the Real Presence of the actual substance of Christ's Divinity and as to the real presence of the actual substance of his humanity on the Holy Table, and as to their oral manducation ; the rights of provinces, and of autocephalous metropolitans under the canons ; how we are to regard a valid succession's right to obedience when it falls into heresy ; the almost forgotten doctrine of the Eco- nomic Appropriation to God the Word of the sufferings of the Man put on by Him; and the church teaching on God the Word as the Mediator; and on the sin of service to creatures; and on the XII Chapters ot Cyril of Alexandria — in brief on most or all of the chief controversies involved in the Reformation, and against Roman crea- ture-worship. No man can profess to be intelligent on Ecumenically authorized doctrine, discipline, or rite who does not know them. Besides the notes in English, Greek, or Latin, we purpose to give large translations from the chief participants in the Nestorian contro- versy ; from St. Cj'ril of Alexandria, and others, on the Orthodox side ; and from Nestorius, Theodoret, and others, on that of the here- tics ; and a series of Dissertations on the chief points involved. The works will contain notes, English, Greek and Latin. The Greek and Latin will make the work more costly, but also much more valuable to the scholar. And in documents so valuable the best is always the cheapest in the long run ; indeed the only thing 14 Chapter I. that the scholar will be sure to get. It will be sold to subscribers at three dollars a volume, to others at four dollars. Another matter : Learned theologians are few, and so works of a learned theological character seldom pay. The Oxford Library of the Fathers, the most erudite patristic collection, the best and most ably annotated translations of their kind in English, and the most critical, notwithstanding a few Romish blemishes in Newman's notes, are said, with some exceptions, not to have paid. The Ante- Nicene Christian Library, which in places at least is most wretchedly and most uncritically done, may have paid better ; but, if it has, it has been because it is the only translation which has professed to cover the whole of the Ante-Nicene field, and because a large part of those who bought it were themselves not aware of its glaring de- fects. To take two instances only which have fallen under my own cognizance incidentally. I . The great and inexcusable outrage is committed of fathering on the anti-creature-serving Methodius, Bishop of Tyre, who died a martyr for Christ about A. D. 312, one of the productions of the creature-serving Methodius of Constantinople, of the ninth century, that is, his creature-invoking " Oration concerning Simeon and Anna on the day they met in the temple, ' ' and that without a hint of its spuri- ousness (i), though years before, Murdock's Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History, volume i, page 172, note 14, had well warned scholars that "Several Discourses of the younger Methodius, Patriarch of Con- stantinople in the 9th century% have been ascribed to the senior Methodius." That it was written centuries after the martyr Methodius' death is clear also from the fact that, as its very beginning shows, it was delivered on the Festival of the Meeting of Simeon and Anna in th^- temple, which was not instituted till the reign of Justin, Emperor of Constantinople, in the year of our Lord 526, or by his son Justinian, in the year 541 or 542. See in proof on that matter, the article '' Mary the Virghi, Festivals of ,'" page 11 40, right hand column, vol- ume 2 of Smith and Cheetham's Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, Note i. Page 184, vol. xiv., The Writings of Methodius, etc., Ante-Nicene Christian Library. For most nauseating and sickening creature-worship in the shape of creature-invocation see the end of the Oration on pages 208 and 209, where the Virgin and Simeon are prayed to. Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 15 text and note; and note 7, page 414, volume i, of Murdock's Mo- sheim's Ecclesiastical History. A 2nd instance of the uncritical nature of part of the translation in the Ante-Nicene Christian Library occurs in the translation of section 2 of TertulHan's work'stal, 255 Grove st., Jersey City, N. J. It is $3 a volume. It is wholly as yet a subscription work. These valuable Documents, are thus practically put within the reach of the poorest clergyman, for the price to non -subscribers, $4 a volume, is only a little over a cent a day, and $3 is less than a cent a day. As translations of Fathers have found sale, it is hoped that the 20 Chapter I. vastly more important Decisions of Universal Christendom may find sale also ; and may be deemed essential to every cleric's library, be it large or small. Remember, the Documents themselves are Jiext in importance to the Scriptures. Account of the Six Ecumeiiicab Cotincils. '21 NIC^A, A. D. 325: THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL Introductory Matter. CHAPTER II. A FULLER ACCOUNT AS TO HOW FAR THE SIX ECUMENICAL SYNODS ARE RECEIVED IN DIFFERENT COMMUNIONS EAST AND WEST ; AND AS TO HOW FAR THEIR TWO CREEDS ARE IN USE AMONG THEM. INCIDENTAL INFOR- MATION IS GIVEN AS TO THE USE OF LOCAL SYMBOLS ALSO. DIVISION I.: AS TO THE RECEPTION OF THE SIX ECUMENICAL COUNCILS IN THE ORIENTAL COMMUNIONS, AND AS TO THE USE OF THEIR TWO CREEDS THERE. At the start it should be premised, I. That no Eastern Communion, the Greek, which claims to be the Orthodox, the Monophysite or the Nestorian, receive either the words ' ' and the Son ' ' interpolated by some Westerns, or the doctrine which they contain. This will appear from the following testimonies from an American Episcopalian Clergyman who spent some time in the Orient, and had considerable intercourse with Ori- entals of different Creeds. 22 - Chapter II. Rev. Horatio Sozithgate, in his Visit to the Syrian Church, page 220, note, has the following statement : ' ' All the Eastern Churches receive the Nicene Creed in what they affirm to be its original form, that is, without the words, and the Son. By the Eastern Churches I mean the Greek, the Armenian, the Syrian, the Nestorian, the Coptic, and the Abyssinian. In all of them the creed reads substantially thus : ' I believe in the Hoh Ghost * =!« * who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together,' etc." The same writer adds in the second note on the same page: "The Eastern Christians freely acknowledge that the Holy Spirit is both of the Father and the Son. They only deny that he proceeds from both. He is of the Father, they say, hy procession, and of the Son by mission, giving to procession a definite and limited meaning, viz., that of issuing; and to mission that of being sent as a messenger. Thus they commonly express their belief, in these words : ' Proceed- ing from the Father, and sent by the Son.' They allow, however, procession from the Son in a different sense from that of the proces- sion from the Father. The latter is Hypostatical or Personal, the former external or official." The gist of the whole matter is that they do not believe in the eternal procession of the Holy Ghost /r^/;/ the Son, which the Latin doctrine affirms. It will be noticed that Bishop Southgate speaks of this denial as that of ' ' the Eastern Christians. ' ' 2. This large Communion at least professes to receive the Six Ecumenical Councils and one other, that of Nic^ea, A. D. 787, which they deem the Seventh (3). It receives all the normal Epistles, (3) Wilson's Lands of the Bible, Edinburgh, A. D. 1847, vol. 2, p. 462. A letter of a Patriarch there quoted mentions "the customs and canons of the Seven Holy and Ecumenical Councils." This would imply that they receive no more than seven synods as ecumenical. See also p. 120 of Baird's Modern Greece, where, speaking of the Greek Church, he states: "It acknowledges but seven general councils, whose authority is binding on Christians, the last in A. D. 786 being that which condemned the docfbrinesof the Iconoclasts. ' ' Plato, Metro- politan of Moscow, in his Orthodox Instructioji, Part I., Sect. 29, enumerates only seven, the first being Niciea, A. D. 325, and the last Nicaea, A. D. 787. But Macarius, Rector of the Ecclesiastical Academy of St. Petersburg and Bishop of Vinnitza, in his Introduction a la Theologie Orthodoxe, Paris, A. D. 1857, p. 671, speaks of '■Hhe eighth Ecumenical Council under Photius, in ttie year SSj,'" Account of tiic Six Ecumenical Councils. 23 Definitions, Canons, and ev^erything else decreed by them, and is now the only Eastern communion whicli does. For the Nestorian heretics reject the last four synods of the Christian world, and the Monophys- ites the last three. Many or most of the canons have fallen into desue- tude in the West, and the clergy of the lyatin, and Anglican, and IvUtheran and other Western communions know too little of the other ecumenically approved data. The Greek Church, however, does not reall}' hold to some of the Doctrines of the Six Ecumenical Synods. I mean those which in effect condemn all worship of created persons and of mere things, nor has it vSince it became idolatrous. Indeed, since A. D. 787, it has rejected them by accepting the creature-wor- ship and image- worship and relative-worship of the so-called Seventh S3aiod. (^"Huitieme concile oecumenique, sous Photius, A. D. 867.)" But, nevertheless, the same prelate, in his Theologie Dogmatiqice Orihodoxe, t. i, Paris, A. D. 'S59, p- 17, 18) note 2, mentions only seven. " L' Eglise orthodoxe s' appuie en effet d' une maniere fenne et inebranlable sur les sept conciles oecumeniques ; lomme sur les sept colonnes sur lesquelles la sagesse divine a bati sa demeure Prov. IX., I.); 1' Eglise orthodoxe n' a jamais altere ni rejete un seul des dogmes confirmes par les conciles oecumeniques, et u' en a jamais admis un seul qui fut incounu a' 1' ancienne Eglise cecumenique : voila pour quoi elle ,-,' appelle ortho- doxe. * * Bien plus, se conformant toujours en tout point aux sept conciles (Kcumeniques, etc. The Longer Catechism of the Russian Church mentions only seven. The (Question and answer on this point are as follows : Q. "How many Ecumenical Councils have there been ? A. "Seven; i, of Nice; 2, of Constantinople ; 3, ofEphesus; 4, of Chalce- don ; 5, the Second of Constantinople ; 6, the Third of Constantinople ; 7, the Second of Nice." See page 17 of Blackmoi c" s Harmony of Anglican Doctrine -vith the Doctrine of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East ; and id., p. 141, etseq. This Catechism is "examined and approved by the most Holy Governing Synod, and published for the use of schools, and of all Orthodox Christians by order of his Imperial Majestv. Moscow, at the Synodal Press A. D. 1839. " ' And Smith in his Account of the Greek Church, p. 217, informs us that the Greeks "acknowledge but seven general councils. " That is, as he afterwards states, those from Nicsea, A. D. 325, to Nicaea, A. D. 7S7 against the Iconclasts. But p. 219, 220 id., he remarks that they speak of the council held at Constanti- nople, in the year 879, in which all the acts against Photius, who was restored to the patriarchal dignity not long before, were rescinded and abrogated ; "and the creed recited and fixed without that addition' ' [that is, the Filioque]. But because nothing relating to matter of doctrine was established anew in this council, which was held chiefly in favor of Photius, tiie Greeiis content themselves with the acknowledgement of seven only.''' 24 Chapter II. Furthermore, even in the Greek Church much of the discipline of the canons of the first four Ecumenical Councils is in desuetude and has long been. In Russia we find instead of the old half-yearly meetings of the provincial councils commanded by a canon of Nicaea and by one of Chalcedon, a Holy Governing Synod composed of a few bishops only, at which, I think I have read, a presbyter and a laic are present with bishops, though I know not that they are coordinate. Similar is the case in Greece, to some extent. Such uncanonical bodies are apt to become sometimes too much like mere state-ruled machines. SECTION I. SYMBOLS USED IN THE GREEK CHURCH. This Church, though now, alas ! idolatrous and creature-invok- ing, claims to be the one, holy. Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Orthodox. (4). REFERENCES. 1 . The Euchologium and other Church books of the Greeks. 2. The Ui^ddhov of the Greeks, Athens edition of A. D. 1841. 3. The Orthodox Instruction QOpdodo^o^ AtdaffxaXia) of Plato, Metro- politan of Moscow, Greek translation, Munich edition, A. D. 1834. English translation under the title of the Doctrine of the Greek Church, L,ondon, 1857. 4. Modern .Greece by Henry M. Baird, A. M., Harpers, New York, A. D. 1865. 5. An Accoufit of the Greek Church by Thos. Smith, B. D. and Fellow of S. Mary Magdalen College, Oxon. I,ondon, A. D. 1680. 6. Some Account of the present Greek Clnuxh by John Covel. D. D., and Master of Christ College in Cambridge. Cambridge, A. D. 1722. 7. A Harmony of Anglican Doctrine with the Doctrine of the Catholic arid Apostolic Chiuxh of the East, by Blackmore. But this author iniquitously attempts to salve over the guilt of the creature - \yorship and creature-invocation of the Easterns and their icon-wor- ship, — that is their idolatry, to put it in plain English. (4) This title is from the irT/ddliov which contains the canons of that Church. See the title page of the Athens edition of A. D. 1841. Accoiuit of t]ie Six Ecumenical Councils. 25 8. Introdiccliofi a la Theologic Orthodoxe de Macaire, Docteur en Theologie, evcqtie de Vinnitza, recteur de 1' Academie Ecclesiastique de Saint Petersbourg, traduite par uii Russe. Paris, 1857. 9. Theologie Dogmatique Orthodoxe, two vols., by the same pre- late, traduite par un Russe. Paris, A. D. 1859, i860. 10. The Creeds of Christendom, by Philip Schaff, D.D,, L,I,.D., Professor of Biblical Literature in the Union Theological Seminary, New York City, three volumes, 1890, Harper & Brothers, New York. SUBSECTION I : ECUMENICAL SYMBOLS. The Ecumenical Symbol of the 318 holy Fathers of Nicaea. The Eastern Orthodox receive this, but I am not aware that it is now used at all in any public service. One of the shouts raised at the Fourth Ecumenical Council, A. D. 451, shows that it was then the Baptismal Creed of the East. For the bishops there state that they were baptized into it, and that they baptized into it. This June, 1890, I have consulted two of the best informed Greeks in the United States, one of New York City, and the other of r.roooklyn, N. Y., and both assure me that the Greek Church now u jCS only the Creed of the Second Ecumenical Synod in its public services, only that now they recite it in the singular, IIiTrenio^ I believe, instead of the plural of the original, Ihazeuu/isv. Neither of them ever heard in the public service, the Nicene, the Athanasian, or the so- called Apostles, or any Creed but that of the Second Synod. The Orthodox Instruction of Plato, Metropolitan of Moscow, recites the Creed of the Second Synod only, and uses the singular '' I believe f ' ' / acknowledge one baptism " etc ; " / look for the resurrection of the dead'' etc. II. THE SYMBOL OF I. CONSTANTINOPLE, THAT IS OF THE SECOND ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. This is used by the Greeks as the Ecumenical Church left it in A. D. 381. It is its glory that it has never permitted the addition of an iota to it, nor the subtraction of even a letter. It is the Baptis- mal and Eucharistic symbol of the Greeks (5). (5). See these offices in the Great Euchologium. 26 . Chapter II. SUBSECTION II. LOCAI. SYMBOLS OF THE EAST. I. In the Greek Church the Creed of Gregory the Wonder-worker is held in great consideration, (6) and is usually printed in Russia with the ''Orthodox Confcssioji of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East,'' (7), but I think is not publicly recited. SUBSECTION III. LOCAL, SYMBOLS OF THE WEST. I. THE WESTERN CBEED, TERMED IN THE OCCIDENT, THE APOSTLES. The Easterns have never used this, nor do they use it now. Macarius, Bishop of Vinnitza, expressly states this. In a note to his work on Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, speaking of the Creed before Nicaea A. D. 325, he says : "We here say nothing of the symbol called apostolic, which was in use during the first three centuries, especially in the Roman Church, and which to this day enjoys a high esteem in the West: We say nothing, because the Orthodox Church of the East has not used this symbol, either in the first three centuries, or at any later epoch ; so that, consequently, she never considered it, in a strict sense, as an apostolic symbol, and she never preferred it to the other ancient symbols of the faith, all of which, according to tradition, could equally derive their origin from the apostles, if not as to their letter, at least so far as their sense and the contents are concerned. (Hist. Bibl. of Philaret, Metrop. of Moscow, p. 600, 4th ed.) ' We neither have nof have see?i a symbol of the Apostles;'' such, at the council of Florence, (6) Macarius, Bishop of Viuuitza and rector of the Ecclesiastical Academy of .St. Petersburg, in his Theologie Dogmatic] lie Orthodoxe, Paris A. D. 1859, t. i, p. II, speaking of the symbols of the first three centuries, remarks : " L' uu de ces symboles est reste jusqu a present en grande consideration dans 1' Eglise orthodoxe: c' est celui de Saint Gregoire le Thaumaturge, qui expose, contre vSabellius et Paul de Samosate, la doctrine des attributs et de 1' egalitd parfaite de chacune des personnes de la tres-sainte Trinite." (7) Macaire, Introd. a la Theologie Orthodoxe, p. 604, note 771 on that page. It is quoted below in our remarks on the Athanasian Creed. Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 27 was the answer of the representatives of the Orthodox Church to the Latins, who, in showing their symbol, said that it came from the apostles themselves (Concil. Florent., sect, vi., cap. 6. (8). It was that great character, Mark of Ephesus, the staunchest champion of Orthodoxy at Florence, who remarked " We neither have nor have seen a Symbol of the Apostles.'''' It is found in Syropulus' Historia Concilii Florentini, Crej^ghton's translation, Hagse-Comitis, A. D. i66o, sect, vi., cap. 6, p. 150. Plato, Metropolitan of Moscow, writes to the same effect : "There is no use of the so-called Apostolic Symbol in the Greco-Russian Church except what is private " (9). The Greek, Syropulus, as Gibbon tells us the name should be spelled (10), in his The History of the jwttrue Ufiion between the Greeks and the Latins (11) in the Ferrara-Florence Council of A. D. 1438- 1439, secflion vi., chapter vi., tells how the Greek Emperor told the Patriarch of Constantinople when they were at Ferrara, ' ' the Pope will send some Cardinals to us to speak some words of the Pope. ' ' (8.) Macarius, Theologie Dogmatique Orthodoxe, t. i, p. 12 : "Nous ne disons rieu ici du Symbole dit Apostoliqiie, qui fut eu usage pen- dant les trois premiers siecles, surtout dans 1' Eglise roniaine, et qui jusqu' a ce jour jouit d' une haute estime en Occident; nous n' en disons rien, parce que 1" Eglise Orthodoxe d' Orient n' employa ce symbole, ui dans les trois premiers siecles, ou elle en avait d' autres, ui a. aecune ^poque posterieure ; que par con- sequent, elle ne le considera jamais dans un sens rigoureux comme un symbole apostolique, et ne le prefera jamais aux autres anciens symboles de la foi, qui tons, suivant la tradition, pouvaient ^galement tirer leur origine des apotres, sinon pour la lettre, au moins pour 1' esprit et le contenu. (Hist. Bibl. de Phi- larete, Metrop. de Mosc, p. 600, 4e ed. ) 'H//f/f, oire £xo/J-f:v ovte d6oftev, cv/x^oXor Tuv 'Ann(yT6?Mv : telle fut, au coucile de Florence, la r^ponse des repr^sentants de' r Kglise orthodoxe aux Latins, qui, en montrant leur symbole, disaient qu' il provenait des apotres eux-memes, (Concil. Florent, sect, vi., cap. 6.) (9) Archbishop Plato, in the supplement to M. Duten's Oeuvres Melees, part ii., p. 164-5, quoted in a note on p. 203, vol. i; of "Adam's Religious World Displayed,''' London, A. D. 1823. Usus Syniboli, ita dirti Apostolici, in EccL Graeco-Russica nonnisi privatus est. (10.) Gibbon, in his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Chapter Ixvi, in a note (on page 229, vol 7, of Bohn's seven volume edition of 1855, London) shows that. (11) Another note on the same page, states that the above title is Creygh- ton's addition, for the original from which he translated is without any. 28 Chapter II. The Emperor said, ' ' I therefore will be there, and let ours also be .gathered. The Emperor therefore came and sat with the Patriarch. And there were assembled the high priests [that is the Bishops] and the cross-bearers, and the hegumens, and the Emperor decreed, Those from the Pope shall speak words, but I know not of what sort ; only that it will be necessar>' for some of ours to reply in defence. L,et therefore some be seledled to make the defence for us, that they may hear attentively, and prepare to respond in our defence. And they chose the Bishop of Ephesus [Mark] and the Bishop of Nicaea [Bessarion]. And the Patriarch said, The Bishop of Nica;a also must therefore sit with the Bishop of Ephesus, since they are going to make our defence in common ; and he at once sat down with the Bishop of Ephesus " (12). After this preparation comes the passage at arms between the eepresentatives of both communions, where we shall find the matter of the Apostles' Creed comes up, and where Julian, in accordance with the uncritical spirit of the Middle ages, advances the legend of the Apostles having adlually made it and the myth that the Orientals who formed the bulk of the First Ecumenical Council knew any- thing of the local peculiarly Western Creed which we call the Apos- tles', which indeed, as Dr. Heurtley shows on pages 70 and 71 of his Harmonia Symbolica, is not found in its present enlarged for:n till the eighth century : or as though they were dissatisfied with a creed of which they knew nothing, and which had always been purely Western. The fable however that the Council of Nicaea had altered it into the Nicene, is a notion that we shall find repeated in an old Protes- tant statement further on ; I mean the Bohemian Confession, of which I will speak there. We shall find Mark of Ephesus denying both statements, and that not only in his own name but for all, and ex- pressing the view that Julian might refer to the gathering at Jerusa- em mentioned in Acts xv. He brings out also the Greek maintenance of the proscription of things strangled there against the Latin loose- ness on that subject. We shall find Julian making no other defence against Mark's denial than the assertion that " that Symbol of the Apostles is to be foimd among them''' that is, among the Eatins, (12) Creyghtou's Vera Hisioria Unionisnon Vem inter Grcecos et Latinos sive Concilii Florentini, sect, vi., cap. vi., page 150. Account of the Six Ecumenical Conncils. 29 meaning seemingly the Creed commonly called the Apostles' . But the mere fact of the existence in the West from the fourth century of a shorter form of the Creed of that name does not prove that even that shorter form was made by the Apostles. Syropulus, as is clear from the following, held in effect that Mark had in most things proved himself the victor. I quote the whole passage : ' ' And there came from the Pope two Cardinals, Julian and Fir- man, and six Bishops, of whom the Bishop of Rhodes was one. And Julian spoke words as from the Pope concerning the settling and opening of the Council, and how the Apostles made a Synod and delivered also the holy Creed; but that the Ecumenical Cowicils held afterwards were not satisfied with the Creed of the Apostles, but that the First also made a Creed, and the Second changed it and added to it, and he spake many other words concerning the holy Synods in their order with ambition and oratorical skill; and said that the present Synod also, like them, must go forward and not delay, and that it must not change. " But to all the words of Julian, the Bishop of Kphesus opposed noble and sufficient rebuttals. And concerning the Synod of the Apostles and their Creed he said. We neither have nor have seen a Creed of the Apostles. "But as to a Synod of the Apostles of which thou speakest, we know of that meeting in which they came together and made a decree, that we should abstain from things offered in sacrifice to idols and from what is strangled and from certain other things. For they came to- gether and put forth a decree, and made a rule, and enacted a law, both they themselves and the Holy Ghost before them, as they themselves say, that we should abstain from what is strangled, and those other things ; but that meeting is not called a Synod of the Apostles. And after the Bishop of Ephesus had replied to all that had been said by Julian, Julian began [in his turn] : and first he praised the Bishop of Ephesus, for having made the defence of his own side ver>- understandingly and wisely. Then he divided his [Mark's] defence into eighteen heads. Julian said. First thou hast said this, and secondly that, and thirdly that other thing, and so on to the end of the eighteen. Then he added his reply to each, saying. In the first head thou hast said as follows : I answer as follows. Then to the 30 CJjaptcr II. second, which was so-and-so, I answer as follows : and to the rest of the heads he replied in like manner. His replies to some things were, indeed, noble and forceful, but his answers to most of the heads were rotten at bottom. But he passed over in silence the matter concerning the Synod of the Apostles, and concerning what is strangled. That Creed of the Apostles, he said, is to be found among them. So all admired him for his enumeration and for his division of the heads, and again, for the order of his recapitulating. And yet as regards the quality of the arguments employed, those of the Bishop of Ephesus were more forceful in their truthfulness thai* those of Julian. And on that the meeting was broken up, and we went away to our own lodgings." Here then we see, 1. That in A. D. 1438, the noted Archbishop of Ephesus, Mark, speaking for all the Oriental Church, witnesses that they had no Creed of the Apostles, nor had they seen it : 2. He denies in effect, in the name of the Oriental Church, the fable that the Apostles held a Synod and made the so-called Apostles" Creed by each Apostle contributing one article, so making XII. Heurtley on pages 46 and 47 of his Harmonia SymbolicavcienMxoYiS some " Sermons o?i the Creed, published amo7jg St. Augustine' s works,'' which "^ are all justly regarded as spurious by the Benedictine Editors.'" He refers to tw^o of them, sermons ccxl. and ccxli. , in which ' ' the Creed is recorded at length, exactly as it stands at this day." That would prove, of course, that it must be at least as late as the eighth century, for the so-called Apostles' is not found in that full form till then. He goes on, "In these the several Articles are ascribed to the Apostles, by whom the writers supposed them severally to have been contributed. [I translate the Eatin in Heurtley], ' Peter said, / believe in God the Father, Almighty, etc. Andrew said, And in Jesus Christ, etc. James said, Who was conceived, etc' Unfortunately the same article is not by both [those spurious sermons] attributed to the same Apos- tle. Ascriptions of this sort are not unfrequently met with in manuscripts of the middle ages. ' ' In the same Harmonia Symbolica of Dr. Heurtley, page 67, we find part of a Galilean Sacra-mentary of the Vllth Century in which the legend that each of the XII. Apostles made a different article of the Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 31 Apostles' Creed is found. But, differently from what we find in the one just quoted, John makes the Second Article, / believe in Jesus Christ, etc. Besides, it divides Article V. into two, and makes but one article of Articles XI. and XII. So Heurtley tells us on page 68, id. Heurtley, though a strong believer in the great antiquity of the shorter form of the Apostles' Creed, so-called, nevertheless rejedls the idea that the Apostles made any formula, for after some remarks on that point he concludes on pages 153 and 154, as follows : ' ' There does not seem reason to believe that any one formula was definitely prescribed by the Apostles. Had this been the case, the various churches would scarcely have thought themselves at liberty to make alterations and additions to the extent to which they did. Much less is there warrant for the tradition mentioned by Rufinus, that each Apostle contributed a several article." One thing we may mention, though it is no part of this discussion : Cardinal Julian, according to the article on him in McClintock & Strong's Cyclopedia, came to a sad end at the last. For he by the Pope's authority undertook to deliver King Wladislas, of Hungary, from his obligation to keep the truce of ten years with the Turks, and to war on them contrary to his promise, and in the defeat which fell on the Christians, he with the King, fell in battle. That article speaks of Julian as unscrupulous. He was showy but not solid. Mark of Ephesus though an idolater, like Julian, was neverthless nearer the truth in dogma and in the primitive customs than he was, on the Double Procession, the use of Azymes, and Baptism, and as to the Roman Supremacy. The author of a note in the //rj'Wxtov (Athens, A. D. 1841), page 123, states however that some of the later Greek theologians cite testimonies on certain matters from the so-called Apostles" Creed, but he quotes as conclusive against its being a Creed of the Apostles the above quoted statement of Mark of Ephesus at the Council of Ferrara-Florence. The annotator thinks that an expression in Canon i. of Trullo of A. D. 691, as to the Apostles' faith may mean the faith transmitted by the living voice and unwritten, or else the faith which is in the Gospels and Epistles, or else that confession of Faith which is in the Apostolic Constitutions, book vii., chapter 41 32 Chapter II. (al. 42). But those Constitutions are spurious and centuries later than the Apostles, and the expression in Canon i . of TruUo does not mean any Creed. THE SO-CALLED ATHANASIAN CREED. It is now admitted by the learned that this Creed is not a pro- duaion of Athanasius but of some Western writer (13). It has been asserted that the Greeks are strangers to it. Thos. Smith, B. D. and Fellow of S. Mary Magdalen College, Oxon., in his Accoiint of the Greek Church, London, A. D. 1680, p. 196, states of the Greeks: ' ' They retain exactly the Catholick Do<5lrine concerning the most holy and undivided Trinity, and the Incarnation of the eternal Son of God, according to the Constantinopolitan Creed, luhich they only re- tain in their Liturgies and Catechisms. • * * * As to that of S. Athanasius they are wholly strangers to it. But "a sacred synopsis," {Zbvoipio^ 'from the Son,'' that might refer to Mission. It would require 'ex toD Tloh to mean that the Spirit proceeds ontof^s/:) the Son, and the Latin « * * Filio, that is, 'from the Son," does not warrant 'ex too Yloh. To sum up ; it seems that perhaps since about A. D. 1680, when Dr. Smith's work was published, the so-called Athanasian has crept into at least one private prayer book. But we have not seen a syl- lable which serves to show that it has, as yet, succeeded in making its way into any of their authorized public offices. Nevertheless Macarius, Bishop of Vinnitza, and rector of the Ecclesiastical Academy of St. Petersburg, remarks of the Creed of Gregory the Wonder- worker and of " that which is known under the name of Athaiiasius of Alexandria, "that they are ' 'admitted and revered by all the Church' ' (14) : and in another work this same prelate speaks of certain "Expositiofis" (14) Macaire, Theologie Dogmatique Orthodoxe, French translation, t. i.. p. 19, Paris, A. D. 1859 ; speaking of the Theology of the Orthodox Easterns, writes : "Y,^fondement iilimuable de cette Theologie; c' est7^ synibole de Nicee et Constantinople, qui a remplace'tous les symbol es anterieurs, et qui est re5u par r Eglise oecum^nique comme la regie immuable de la foi pour tons les siecles, et avec ce symbole, a titre de complement, to7ites les decisions en matitre de foi, et des saints conciles, tant provinciatcx qu' oecumeniques, et des saints Ph-es^^V Eglise cites par la concile in Triillo ; de meme que le synibole de saint Grcgoire le Thatimaturge, et celui qui est connu sous le nom d' Athati' use d Alexandrie, deux symboles admis et vdn^rds par toute 1' Eglise, 34 Chapter II. of faith ''which she " [the Orthodox Eastern Church] '' holds from the ancient and infallible Ecumenical Church, and luhich have an absolute merit,'' (15) among which he enumerates, ''The Expositions of the Faith, which without being examined and expressly confirmed by the councils, are nevertheless received by all the Ecumenical Church, as the Symbol of Saint Gregory the Wondcr-ioorkcr of Neoccesarca, the Symbol known under the name of Saint Athanasius of Alexandria'' (16). In (15). Macaire, Introduction a la Theologic OrfJwdoxe, French translation, Paris, A. D. 1857, p. 603. (16). Macaire, Introduction a la Th^ologie Ortliodoxe, French translation, Paris, A. D. 1857, p. 603, 604, under the head of " Expositions de la Foi, renfer- mant la doctrine symbolique de 1' Eglise Orthodoxe," thus writes : I 148, Leur Division. "Si 1' Eglise Orthodoxe ne merite ce nom que pour etre demeuree en tout point fidele a 1' ancienne Eglise oecumenique ; il s' eusuit que les expo- sitions de la foi maintenues par elle, concises ou de quelque etendue doivent a juste titre se partager en deux classes : 1. Les expositions qu' elle tient de 1' ancienne Eglise cecumenique infail- lible, et qui ont un merite absolu ; 2. Ses propres expositions, qui parurent dans la suite, et qui ne tirent leur merite que de leur conformite avec les premieres, comme 1' Eglise orthodoxe elle-meme emprunte son importance de sa parfaite conformite avec 1' ancienne liglise oecumenique. I 149. Expositions de la premiere classe. Aux expositions de la premiere classe appartiennent : (i). D' un cote les professions de foi redigees dans les conciles cecumeniques, savoir ; [a) les symboles de la foi : celui des trois ceut dix-huit saints Peres du premier concile cecumenique ; celui des cent cinquante saints Peres du second concile cecumenique ; le dogme des six cent trente saints Peres du quat- rieme concile oecumenique sur les deux natures renfermees dans 1' hypostase unique de Notre-Seigneur Jesus-Christ, la dogme de cent soixante et dix saints Peres du sixieme concile oecumenique sur la double volonte et la double action en Notre-Seigneur Jesus-Christ; le dogme des trois cent soixante-sept samts Peres du septieme concile cecumenique sur le culte des images; et {b), en general, les decisions en matiere de foi, renfermees dans les Constitutions des saints apotres, dans les decrets des saints conciles cecumeniques et proviuciaux, et dans les regies des saints Peres, mentionnes par le concile in Trullo. {2\. Et d' un autre cote, les expositions de la foi, que sans avoir ett exami- nees et confirmees expresshncnt par les conciles, sont pourtant reqnespar toute /' Eglise cecumenique, comme le symbole de saint Gregoire le Thaumaturge de IVeocesaree, le symbole connu sous le nom de saint Athanase d' Alexandrie. In a note to this word "Alexandrie" he adds id., p. 604 : Le premier s' imprime habituellement en Russie avec la confession Orthodoxe de 1' Eglise catholique et apostolique d' Orient, et le second avec le Psautier en usage povir les offices. Account pf the Six Ecumenical Councils. a note below he adds : ' ' The first is usually printed in Russia with the Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of the East, and the second jcith the Psalter in nsefor the offices (17). Nevertheless, Plato, Metropolitan of Moscow, states positively : "Our Church recognizes the Symbol of St. Athanasius (18), and it is found among the Ecclesiastical Books, and it is impressed upon us that we should follow its faith : but it is never publicly recited. ' ' From this it seems that the so-called Athanasian is not recited in the regular authorized and public worship in Russia. Nor is there any reason to suppose that it is recited in the four Eastern patriarch- ates in the regular authorized and public services, though it is found in a private prayer book intended to be used not by a priest, but by a laic. But we must make a distinction between the reception of a Creed itself, and its tise in the oral public service by the priest. That part of the Orthodox Eastern Church which is in Russia receives the local symbols above mentioned except the so-called Apostles' , which it simply ignores, but it is not clear that it recites any of them in the public worship, though it does, however, receive them in a certain sense, as containing sound doctrine. It probably recites only the Constantinopolitan. In the four patriarchates of the East, it is clear that in the public services they make no use of the Western Creed termed the Apostles' , nor any use of the Creed of Gregory the Wonder-worker, nor any use of the Athanasian. They would however receive that of Gregory and probabl}^ that termed the Athanasian, without the double Pro- cession, for the Russians do ; but the Greeks recite only the Constan- tinopolitan in service. But it must be remembered, however, that the Eastern Church receives no other Creeds as Ecumenical s^-mbols, but that of Nicaea, and that of I. Constantinople. (17). Ibid. (18). Archbishop Plato as quoted in a note on p. 203 of vol. i., of " The Re- ligious World Displayed, by Rev. Robert Adam," edition of London, A. D. 1823 : Symbolum S. Athanasii Eccl. nostra agnoscit, et inter libros eccles. reperitur, et ut ejus fidem sequamur, inculcatur : tamen publice nunquam reci- tatur. The original passage is given as in M. Duten's Oeuvres Melees, 4to, part ii., p. 164-5. 36 Chapter II. At the most, it receives whatever others it admits, as merely local. Before closing, may I have God's help here to outline what will be a wise and proper course for the Greek Church to pursue in the present crisis to help on the work of a godly Christian Union ! Surely, as Christ prayed for it at his Last Supper, we are bad men if we do not seek to achieve it in every right way. They should, then, maintain firmly, 1 . Their Ecumenically canonical stand against the Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as distinguished from his Primacy: 2. Their stand against the doctrine that the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally out of the Son: 3. Their stand against the Roman do(5lrine of indulgencies and of works of supererogation: 4. While they should maintain, as they always have, the ancient commemoration of all the faithful departed and prayer for them, they should still maintain their opposition to the non-primitive notions in the later Roman dodtrine of Purgatory, which in efifedl teaches that nearly all the faithful departed are in material fire at once after death and in grievous torments, contrary to the general truth taught in Revelations xiv., 13, that since Christ's ascension those ''who die in the Lord'' are ''blessed'' and that they " rest from their labors;" and they can not rest if they are all for hundreds of years in the torment of material fire. What- ever may be true of some, the general portraiture of the state of the faithful departed in the New Testament is that they are in heaven at once after death. See the Revelations passim. They are said to be zuith the Lord (2 Cor. v., 8.) and we know that the lyord is in heaven. On matters of Universal Rite , the Greeks should contend, as they always have, 5, for the trine immersion in baptism; and, 6, for the Chrisming and Eucharistizing of infants and all directly after it. And: "^^ for the use of the New Testament and Primitive Church, and Ecumenically canonical «>rw?, that is leavened bread, against the custom of using oXofia, that is unleavened wafers, which the Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 37 learned Bingham contends "■ zvas not known in the Church till the eleventh or ticelfth centuries. ' ' (Bingham's Antiquities of the Christian Church, book xv., chapter 2, sections 5 and 6.) 8. They should follow their primitive custom for which Paphnu- tius, the monk-bishop, contended with success at Nicaea, as Socrates tells us in chapter xi., book i, of his Ecclesiastical History, that each monogamist bishop, presbyter, and deacon, may keep the sole wife which he had before becoming a cleric, though he may not marry after becoming a presbyter, nor after becoming a deacon, unless when he was made deacon, he made the statement to his bishop which is mentioned in canon x. of Ancyra, approved by canon i. of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod. But, according to their old custom, the drift of New Testament teaching and their own ancient practice should be preserved, that is, as the single state is best fitted for the episcopate, monks should nearly always be chosen to it, and only in rare instances, if sound and very learned, like Bishop Bull, for instance, should a married man be raised to it. For marriage is a great hindrance to a bishop, and largely deprives him of his independence if persecuted or much tried. Yet as one of the Apostles, Peter, was married, I see no objection to one-twelfth of the episcopate being married, and not one more. For unless a limit be put the monks will be stripped of the episcopate altogether, and infidel, secular rulers will fill it with mere married men whom they know they can more readily force to become their tools in breaking down the faith and discipline and rites of the New Testament and of the Six Synods, as has often been done and is now done in the Anglican Church. The superiority of the chaste single state which is taught in the New Testament must ever be maintained, and the great bulk of the bishops must always be single according to the New Testament teaching and example, and according to the teaching and example of the primitive Church. In brief, the Greek Church in all its branches, Greek, Russian, Roumanian, Ser\dan, Bulgarian and all other should stri(5tly study, remember and maintain firmly, all the dodtrine, discipline, and canons of the Six Ecumenical Councils, and, where they have not spoken, all the historic and universal Tradition of the primitive Church on Christian doctrine, discipline, rite, and custom, and especially that of the Ante-Nicene period. 38 Chapter //. That will lead them to discard the following soul-damning here- sies and burning sins, for which God has punished them all so much, and for which he even in this nineteenth century still curses parts of Europe, Asia and Africa, with subjugation and slavery to the un- believing Turk, or Moor, or other Mohammedan; namely: 1. The relative worship of created persons and of painted images, of images in low relief on the Gospels, of crosses painted and crosses graven, of the Scriptures and of parts of them, and of clerical vestme^its and of j-e lies, and of other material things. For the Third Ecumeni- cal Synod in deposing Nestorius for different errors, and among them for the error of the Relative Worship of Christ's Humanity, has b}' necessary implication condemned all Relative Worship of every kind. For surely every logical mind should at once see that if a bishop be deposed for worshiping relatively the highest and best of all mere created things, that is the Humanity of Jesus Christ, much more should he be deposed if he worships any lesser creature, be it the Virgin Mary, the Apostles in Heaven, the martyrs, or any other saint, or any archangel, or any angel, or any relics, or any painting, or anything sculptured or graven, or any cross, or any other S3^mboI, or the Bible, or the book of the Gospels, or anything else. That de- cision of Ephesus, in efifedt, and by necessary implication, forbids all relative worship, which was the sort of worship offered by the idola- trous Israelites to the golden calf in the wilderness and to the calves at Dan and at Bethel ; and commands us to worship God alone, the Father, His co-eternal Word, and His co-eternal Spirit, and to wor- ship them directly, not through any created Person, nor through any thing. 2. Besides, all the canons approved by the first Four Ecumenical Synods should be rigorously obeyed, and such new-fangled bodies as Holy Governing Synods, etc., should be abolished. 3. Such abuses in the matter of rite as the mediaeval or modern custom of giving both the bread and the wine in a spoon together, should be abolished, for it is not a cleanly nor a healthy thing to do, as a Greek gentleman once told me, to put the same spoon into many mouths, some of which may be diseased, and so the reception of the Eucharist has perhaps often been the means of spreading disease and sometimes death. No well-bred gentleman would expect all his guests at a cleanly secular supper to use the same spoon. No more Accou7it of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 39 should we at Christ's Holy Supper. The ancient custom, once universal West and East, of giving the bread and the cup separately should at once be restored. Bingham proves \Xs> primitiveness and universality in his Antiquities of the Christian Church, book xv., chapter 5, sec- tion 2. Compare book xv., chapter 3, section 35, where Bingham well rebukes those ignorant and really irreverent men who attempted to rebuke Christ and the whole primitive Church East and West by changing His institution in the Eucharist which the whole ancient Church followed. The Greeks have the less excuse for continuing the present innovation on that matter, because it is sternly prohibited under a heavy penalty by canon ci. of the Trullan Council of A. D. 691, which they profess to receive. 4. Another abuse I would specify, which was not their custom as late as the disputes between Photius and some Westerns of France in the ninth century, that is the custom of monks and clcrick wearing long hair like a woman, in plain contravention of the law of the Holy Ghost in i Corinthians, xi., 14, wliere St. Paul asks, '' Doth not even nature itself teach you, that if a man have long hair it is a shame u?ito him .^ " The old custom so far as appears, of the Greek monks, or at least of many of them, was to shear their hair, and one at least of the French answerers to the Orientals in the ninth century shows that it then prevailed among the Greek clergy. The first appearance of the custom of monks wearing long hair which I have been able to discover was among the Massalian heretics whom St. Epiphanius re- bukes for it. Augustine of Hippo rebuked some monks for the same folly and sin when it first made its appearance in the West, and it got no permanent ingress there. It is condemned in a canon of the Greek Trullan Synod of A. D. 691, which should be obeyed by the Greeks for it is in accordance with the New Testament. I have merely referred to a few abuses which need correction, and which the Bishops of the Greco-Russian Church are bound in duty to God and His Holy Church to correct, not to prostitute their great influence and power in apologizing for. For Christ will not forgive us if we do not what we can to make the church without .spot or wrinkle or any such thing ; that so it may be a glorious Church (Eph. v., 27). And palliating and pleading for abuses never reforms them. 40 Chapter I. And in brief, if we would bring- on the re-union of Christendom, we must all, East and West, be as willing to reform our own abuses and our own lack of obedience to the Six Ecumenical Synods, and our departures from primitive doctrine, discipline, rite, and customs, as we are willing to rebuke others for their abuses;, and for their lack of obedience to the Six Councils, and for their departure from primitive doctrine, discipline, rite, and custom. There is no hope of reform- ing an evil man till 3-011 can get him to see his faults, and it is just as hopeless to try and reform any part of Christendom, East or West, till you can get it to see its faults. Self-examination, by learned men especially, and acknowledgment of faults. East and West, must be the first prerequisite to any godly and permanent union. Surely we should all, East and West, learn the lesson taught by Jeremiah to Israel, after they had been punished for their image-worship and idolatry, ' ' Let us search and try our ways, and turn again to the Lord. (Eamentations iii. , 40. ) For in the past we have been sorely punished for such sins by the cruel Arab and the cruel Turk, as Israel were punished for them by the Assyrian and by the Babylonian. Another counsel would I give to all Easterns and Westerns. In things of lesser account, such for instance as the veiled chan- cel of the East and the unveiled chancel of the West, let each part of Christendom keep its own mere local custom which has been from the beginning, so far as appears ; and let not the Oriental fault the Western for such trifling differences, nor the Western the Oriental. Only the Oriental bishop should banish the abominable innova- tion, the iconostasis, and restore the ancient veil : and if he finds a picture or image of any kind on it, let him do what an Orthodox Oriental bishop, St. Epiphanius, Metropolitan of Cyprus, did with a similar image, that is tear it up, or else at least remove it. For no such image of jealousy, which provokes the jealous God to jealousy, should be allowed for one moment in his house to lure foolish women into idolatry to the damnation of their poor souls. For with refer- ence to the likeness as well as to the graven image, God proclaims that He is the Jealous God and that He will punish (Exod. xx., 4, 5, and 6). After the triumph of image-worship in the East in the ninth century, the facts against it were suppressed, and lies were scattered broadcast. And so to-day there is a great lack of knowledge among Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 41 the Orientals as to the testimony of their own forefathers against all forms of creature-service. They are well given in Tyler's Primitive Christian Worship, in his work on the Worship of the Virgin Mary, and in that on Image Worship. Bishop Bull's Vindication of tlie Church of England from the Errors a?id Corruptions of the Church of Rome, is good, thou:]:h not so full as Tyler's three works and his work on What is Romanism f Bingham is ver>- valuable, though there is a blemish in one place, where he salves over the sin of relative worship of the altar, and of other parts of the church by kissing, embracing, saluting, and the giving any of those acts of paganism to the Bible or to any part of it : for they are all plainly and indisputably acts of relative-service, done on the principle by which the heathen defends his image-worship, that is, that the act of religious service done to material things goes through them to the prototype represented by the image, or to the deity, that is, the god or goddess or saint, to whom such material things, be they books, altars, temples, relics, images painted or im- ages graven, or symbols, are related. The faulty place in Bing- ham, to which I refer, is in section 9, chapter x., book viii,, of his Antiquities, where some of his authorities are spurious, notably his reference to Athanasius. He gives the historic facts against the use of graven and of painted images under ''Images'' and '' Picticrcs'' in the Index to his Antiquities; and those against invoking creatures under ''Prayers'' and "Saints." If the Oriental Church Kcclesiarchs first reform the Oriental Church on the basis of the VI. Synods, and act with full learning and Orthodoxically and wisely, they can exert a most powerful in- fluence for God among all the divided flock of Christ, and help on the substitution of a perfeAly sound successor on the basis of the Six Synods in the Roman see of Peter, for the present hopeless idolater, Leo XIII. and his heretical and creature-invoking following; and so make Rome a blessing, where it is now a bitter and great curse, be- cause of its patronage of spiritual whoredom, that is because of its worship of images painted, and images graven, and relics, and of the Virgin Mary, and of Saints, and of the vast power it sways to spread and foster those and other evils throughout the whole world. Every bishop in any communion who fosters such sins should be at once deposed and excommunicated, unless he reforms. 42 Chapter II. Additional Reference on the Oriental Communions : At this point I ought to state that I should have added as Refer- ence II, on page 25, above, John Mason Neale's History of the Holy Eastern Church, General Introd2iction, volumes i and 2, Masters, Ivondon, A. D. 1850; Alexa7idria,Yo\\xm&s, i and 2, Masters, London, 1847 ; zxi^Atitioch, (A Posthumous Fragment), edited by Rev. George Williams, B. D., vicar of Ringwood, late Fellow of King's College, Cambridge; Rivingtons, London, etc., 1873. Neale died in 1866. From an advertisement inserted just before the title-page to volume i of the Geiieral Introduction, it appears that he had intended to give a history, not only of the Greek Church proper, but also of the Nesto- rians, and of the Monophysites, and of the Maronites. I ought to add that, though able and learned in certain branches, he was, as his own works show, a creature-server, for in Sermons de- livered in a Religious House which I once saw, if I recolle(5l aright, he said of the Virgin Mary, "'whojn we adore,'' and so I infer was an invoker of creatures, and a most inexcusable sort of a creature- server, who as an Anglican had the light and sinned against it, a5''e, who had so little sense of honor that he stayed in a communion which in its Articles condemned him as a paganizer and used the power which it confided to him to betray its faith and to corrupt its people. And he did much during his comparatively short life to bring on his Church and country woe and sorrow, if his abominable Jeroboam-and-Ahab-like creature-service find extensive lodgment in them. We grieve over the fall of Origen, the most learned Christian of his time ; and over the Arian Kusebius of Caesarea, the Father of Church History, and yet the foe of St. Athanasius and of Orthodoxy; over the image-worship and creature-service of Photius, the ablest Christian scholar of the ninth century ; and so must we over the sad perversion into soul-damning creature-serxdce of John Mason Neale, SECTION II. AMONG THE NESTORIANS. REFERENCES. Badger's Nestorians and their Rituals, London, A. D. 1852. The following facts will appear from what follows : Account of the Six Eaimenical Councils. 43 I. ECUMENICAL SYMBOLS. They use the S}-mbol of the 31 8, without all the Constantino- politan additions. II. LOCAL CREEDS. The Nestorians use neither the so-called Apostles' , nor the Ath- anasian. III. They reject both the expression, ''and the Son," and the doctrine of the Latins on that point, and side with the Greeks against both the interpolation and the doctrine which it contains. IV. They receive the Ecumenical Synod of Nicsea (19) and speak highly of its Symbol, but whether they receive Constantinople is not clear to me. V. They rejecft the Ecumenical Synod of Ephesus and all the world-councils after it with all their Definitions, their Normal Epistles and their other documents. They viust rejecfl Chalcedon, II. Con- stantinople and III. Constantinople, because these approved Ephesus, and their decisions are indissolubly linked with it. All these points are clear from the following references or state- ments: Rev. George Percy Badger, one of the Honorable East India Company's chaplains in the Diocese, of Bombay, in his work on ''The Nestoria7is and their Rituals,'' Eondon, A. D. 1852, informs us that the Nestorians have only the Creed of Nicsea, seemingly in a peculiar form, but they do not use that of the Second Ecumenical Council. For in collating the belief of the Nestorians with that of the Anglicans as expressed in Article V. of the Thirty-Nine of the Church of England on the Procession of the Holy Ghost, and after quoting the language of the Nicene Creed as used by the Nestorians and an extradt from one of their services, he concludes: From the above it will be seen that the Nestorians believe the Spirit to proceed from the Father, as do all the churches of the East, agreeably with the Creed drawn up by the Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381 ; but the dodtrine of the Procession is hardly ever adverted to in their rituals in a purely docftrinal form. It is remarkable, how- (19). See Badger's Nestorians a7id their Rituals, vol. ii., page 354. 44 Chapter II. ever, that in the so-called Nicene Creed as in use among them, they do not add the doxology, which was subjoined by the Constantino- politan Council, after the declaration of the Spirit's Procession, though they are well acquainted with it, as will appear in the sequel. "From these facts it would appear that the Nestorians were never troubled with any of the controversies about this article which took place, especially in the West, after the fifth century. There can be no doubt, however, that, if dogmatically asserted, the confession that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son would by them be considered heterodox, as it was by their Patriarch when I translated to him the Creed as used in our Communion Office. But after quoting the Scriptural (20) authorities on which this truth rests, and upon showing him how positive the inference was that the Pro- cession was also from the Son, his obje(5lion to it as a dodlrine seemed to be removed, though he did not appear to admit that the Western Church possessed the right of adding the Filioque to the Creed of an Ecumenical Council " (21). Further on in his work, Mr. Badger, in a comparison of the Anglican and Nestorian belief, regarding the doctrines contained in the 39 Articles quotes the Eighth thus : " The three Creeds, Nicene Creed, Athanasius' Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed, ' ' etc. He thereupon remarks : " The only one of these three Creeds in zise among the Nestorians is the Nicene. This differs from that of the Western Church in its (20). The learned but creature-worshipping Anglican presbyter, J. M. Neale, "Warden of Sackville College, who edited Badger's work; in it, vol. ii., p. 425, note 25, remarks on the above and following statements : " Had Mr. Badger been more practically acquainted with the Filioque con- troversy, perhaps he might have written this paragraph differently : at all events, whatever single expressions may be quoted here and there from Nestorian Rituals, it is certain that they hold the vSiugle Procession as strongly as any other Eastern Christians : i. Because the Latin innovation has never been imputed to them by the Orthodox Eastern Church. 2. "Because Theodoret, their great pattern, used \t a.s a. red uclio ad absiir- diiui in his writings against S. Cyril." In matters pertaining to the Orientals Mr. Neale was a diligent student, though a heretic, and, I have heard from Bishop Young, of Florida, given to drmk. (21). Ba.dger's Nestorians and their Ritual s,'\6\.. ii., p. 78, 79. Account of tlie Six Ecumenical Councils. 45 omission of the Filioque, and the part added by the Council of Con- stantinople, as has been observed under Art. V. " The Creed known as the Athanasian, is found in none of the Nestorian rituals, nor have I heard of its existence in any of their theological writings. The Patriatch, Mar Shimoon, on reading it, said that the only objection against it was the declaration of the Spirit's procession from the Father and the Son, and the sentence ' one altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.'' * * '^ The Apostles' Creed is equally unknown to the Nestor- ians. It is occasionally to be met with in the books printed at Rome for the Chaldaeans, [that is for the Romanized Nestorians,] but even these scarcely ever made use of it" (22). The term ' ' doxology ' ' used of the Constantinopolitan additions in the first passage is incorrect. The language of the second passage is more exact. Still one other remark by Mr. Badger is worthy of note. He quotes the following passage as " From the Nicene Creed as used in the three Liturgies of the Nestorians.'' '''And I believe in one Holy Ghost ^ the Spirit of truth, proceeding from the Father, — the life-giving spirit ''{22,). But the Nicene Creed, without the Constan- tinopolitan additions, has only, " And in the Holy Ghost,'' which ex- pression is immediately followed by the Anathema. And even the Constantinopolitan Symbol reads differently. In the above expression it wholly lacks the words ''one," '' the spirit of truth," and the term ' ' spirit ' ' after ' ' life-giving, ' ' (translated ' ' Giver of life ' ' in the En- glish Prayer Book,) but it places it before "■proceeding" {'' pro- ceedeth" in our version,) 'from the Father." According to this representation the Nestorians must have altered or added to the Symbol of the 318 in a way peculiar to themselves, as the Armenians have in a way peculiar to themselves. Still, according to the state- ments above, they must omit some of the Constantinopolitan addi- tions. It is to be regretted that Badger has not given us the full form. The Nestorians reject, as has been said, all the Ecumenical Synods except the first two, and all their work, and all their con- demnation of Nestorian heresy, notwithstanding the attempts of some to make their difference from Orthodoxy a mere logomachy. (22). Badger's Nestorians and their Rituals, vol. ii., p. 92, 93. (23.) Id. vol. 2, p. 78. 46 . Chapter II. That they reject Ephesus is cl^ar beyond a doubt : 1. From their siding with Nestorius and his doctrine there con- demned by it. 2. One of their I^iturgies bears his name. 3. The sect derives its name from him. 4. Mr. Badger has inserted in his work a document which puts into the mouth of the Nestorians the .statement, " The Nestorian Church has hitherto rejected the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedony 5. As will be seen hereafter, they proclaim woes against all who maintain the doctrines of Ephesus which were maintained by Chal- cedon also; and against St. Cyril of Alexandria, who was the great promoter of Ephesus. Blunt, in his Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, etc. , under Nestorians, states as follows, and quotes from Asseman's De Catholicis seu Pat- riarchis Chaldaeornm et Nestorianorum Commentarizis , 1775, pref. xliv., what is below translated by me : ' ' It need hardly be said that the Nestorians repudiate the Coun- cils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Timotheus, their Patriarch, in a national synod [A. D. 786, confirmed A. D. 804], pronounced [I translate the Latin] the Synod of Ephesus and that of Chalcedon anathematized, because they taught that two Persons had become united in one." Mr. Badger, however, states: " It is to me a matter of great surprise that the Nestorian rituals contain no formal condemnation of the Council of Ephesus. The excommunication of Nestorius is frequently refered to and censured, but no mention whatever is made of the Council which expelled him from the Church" (24). Nevertheless in a note on the same page as the last part of this sentence he gives us Nestorian authority for rejecting this council byname (25): moreover he himself gives us the following extracts from one of their services: 1. "Woe, and woe again, to all who say that Mary is the Mother of God" (26). The Council of Ephesus did not say that Mary (24). 'Qa.^^ii.r''^ Nestorians and their Rituals, vol. 2, p. 126. (25). Ibid. (26). Id., vol. ii., p. 80. Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 47 \\2Lsrj iiflzr^l) TOO 8soi> ^^ the Mother of God,'' but Stozuxois, ^ ^ Bringer Forth of God.'' But nevertheless this .denunciation is plainly leveled at that term. What it is in Syriac Mr. Badger does not state, 2. "Woe, and woe again to all who do not confess in Christ two Natures, Tk'^ /!?r.fc?2^ and one Parsopa or Filiation" (27). This doc- trine of ' ' Two Persons ' ' is pointedly condemned by both Ephesus and Chalcedon. 3. "Woe, and woe again, to the wicked Cyril" (28). This Cyril was the soul of the Orthodoxy of Ephesus, and is commemo- rated and lauded by Chalcedon. A chief business of Ephesus was the condemnation of Nestorius' misinterpretation of the Ecumenical Symbol of Nicaea contained in a letter which he wrote to Cyril, and the approval for all time of Cyril's letter to Nestorius as a correct in- terpretation of the same Symbol. It also approved St. Cyril's letter which has the XII. famous Chapters. Moreover, at Chalcedon, a main part of the business done was to make a letter of Cyril to John of Antioch a Norm of Definition on the Ecumenical Symbol. And Chalcedon approved all that was done at Ephesus. All these facts prove incontestibly that the Nestorians proclaim woes against all who hold to the docftrine of the Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and to the blessed defender of God's saving truth, St. Cyril of Alexandria, who presided at Ephesus. Consequently the Nestorians must reject the Normal Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius, approved and adopted as a Norm of Interpretation on the Ecumenical Symbol of Nicaea at Ephesus, and the Normal Epistle of Cyril to John of Antioch and the Normal Epistle of Eeo I. to Flavian, both of which were approved and adopted as Norms of Interpretation on the same Symbol at Chalcedon. They also reject Cyril's letter which has the XII. Chapters. The question now recurs as to their reception of the second Ecu- menical Council, the First of Constantinople, and their use of the ad- dition to the Nicene Creed made in it. The fadls on which to base an opinion are as follows : I. Rev. Mr. Badger nowhere asserts that they receive it. (27). Badger's A^estorians and t/ieir /Rituals, vol. 2, p. 126. (28). Badger's Nestorians mid their Rituals, vol. ii., p. 80. Compare id., vol. ii., p. 398, 399. 48 Chapter II. 2. He informs us that they do not use the additions to the Nicene Creed put forth at Constantinople (^9), which they would if they re- ceived that Council as Ecumenical. 3. We have seen no mention in their documents as given by Mr- Badger, of their receiving that Council. They do seem, however, to admit the part of the Constantinopol- itan additions which relates to the Holy Ghost or something like it, though whether they ascribe it to the Council of Constantinople, is not clear. See Badger's work, vol. ii., p. 78, 79, 80, where is found, the following extract from the Sinhados " On the faith of the 318, with a short exposition by the Svnod convened by Mar Yeshua- Yau:" ' ' When they had finished their deliberations on the Divinity and Humanity of Christ they condemned the impiety of Macedonius, w^ho blasphemed the Holy Spirit, and they declared thus : "And in one Holy Ghost, the life-giving lyord, proceeding from the Father, who with the Son is worshiped, who spake by the prophets. " Hereby the Fathers by their heavenly doctrine, magnified the Person of the Holy Spirit, and confessed that he is the Offspring of the Self Existant," etc. But Abd Yeshua, Nestorian Metropolitan of Nisibis and Ar- menia, A. D. 1298, catalogues among "the Synods of the Westerns, that of Nice, of Byzantium, of Gangra, the false one of Ephesus," [whether by this is meant the Ecumenical of A. D. 431, or the Robbers' Synod of A. D. 449, is not clear, though the Nestorians re- ject both], ' ' that of Chalcedon, of Antioch, and the of the Greek Emperors" (30). On this passage Mr. Badger remarks : "The meaning of the original is somewhat obscure in this passage, but I conceive the writer to signify that the Nestorians possess the Acts of these Councils' ' (31). I have underscored ' ' possess." The Nestorians may possess these Synods but they cannot receive them all, for Mr. Badger himself quotes a document which with refer- (29). 'S>aA^'sx'^ Nestorians and their Rituals, vol. ii., p. 92. (30). V>2A%' and that of the Abyssinians is probabl}^ about as bad as that of the Greeks or of the Latins. 54- Chapter II. SECTION 4. AMONG THE ARMENIANS. REFERENCES. 1. Histoire, Dogmes, Traditions et Lihirgie de V Eglise Annenienne, Orieyitale * ^ * ouvrage traduit du Russe et de 1' armenien par M. Edouard Dulaurier troisienne edition corrigee et augmente, Durand, Paris, A. D. 1859. This work I judge to be from an Annenian source. It is remarkable as denying the Monophysitism charged against the Armenians (38). 2. Researches of Smith arid Dzvight in Armenia. Boston, A. D. 1833. Both of these gentlemen were in the service of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. 3. Rev. Dr. John Wilson's La?ids of the Bible, Edinburgh, 1847, vol. ii, p. 479 and following. I. The Monophysite Armenians receive the first three Ecu- menical Synods, but rejedl Chalcedon, and consequently all after it. They must therefore admit the Symbol of the 318 and that of the 150, and the two Normal Epistles of Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius which were approved by Ephesus: and they must rejecft the Norms put forth at Chalcedon, namely the Normal Epistle of Cyril of Alexandria to John of Antioch; that of Leo I. of Rome to Flavian of Constantinople, and the definition of that World- Synod, and they anathematize all the councils after the first three Ecumenical. They deem Pope I^eo I. a heretic. The following bearing on this matter is found in Smith and Dwight's Researches in Armenia, vol. ii, p. 275: "One of the var_ tabeds here" [the Monophysite Armenian Convent at Uch-Keleeseh] seemed much better informed than the rest, and as we were conversing upon various topics, he introduced of his own accord the Monophysit- ism of his Church, by declaring that it receives only the first three of the General Councils. Nestorius, he said, held to a perfect separation of the divinity and humanity of Christ, and Eutyches taught that his humanity is absorbed in his divinity ; the Armenians, agreeing with neither, believe that the two Natures are united in one, and anathe- matize all who hold to a different creed. In this he spoke advisedly, (38). See id.. Introduction axx6. Premiere Partie. Account of the Six Eaimenical Councils. 55 for it is well known that Eutyches is acknowledged by neither of the three Monophysite sects, the Armenian, the Jacobite Syrian, and the Coptic, including the Abyssinian, to which his controversy gave birth, and that his alleged dogma of a confusion in the natures of Christ is the reason of his rejection. * * * Another intelligent ecclesiastic had told us, that not only does his nation hold to one Nature, but also to only one will in Christ, thus making the Armenians partake in the Monothelite as well as in the Monophysite heresy. (39) We inquired of the vartabed if his sect does not believe that Christ was perfect God, and perfect man, and were assured that it does. Here too he had good authority, for the Armenian Church believes and ex- plains, as fully as any other, these two important points. When asked, also, if the divine Nature was so united to the human, as to suffer with it on the cross, he replied that it was impossible for the Divinity to suffer. But in this, though his Church would agree with his explanation, he seemed at least to contradict her formula- ries ; for Peter the Fuller's famous addition to the Trisagion is still retained in them, and had been mentioned to us by another ecclesi- astic, as one of the points of difference between the Armenians and the Papists. ' * The addition consists of the words italicised and put in brackets below : O Holy God, Holy Strong and Holy Immortal, \who wast criccified for us\, have mercy upon us." Dr. Wilson (40) remarks: "The following extract of replies given by an Armenian bishop at Basrah to Dr. Wolff, throws light on their ecclesiastical position and tenets : ' ' O. What relations have the Armenians to the Coptic and Syrian Churches ? '' Ans. The Armenians have the same faith and tenets as they have. ' ' Q- What persons are by them considered as heretics ? '' Ans. Macedonius, Nestorius, Arius and Pope Leo. ' ' O. On what authority does the Armenian belief rest ? " Afis. The Bible and the three first Councils — I. Nicaea ; 2. Con- stantinople ; 3. Ephesus. Every other Council is anathematized by them." (39). In his Lands of the Bible, vol. ii., page 484. (40) In a note on the same page it is added : " Compare Assam. Bib. Orient., vol. 3, p. 607." 56 Chapter II. The author of the work entitled Histoirc, Dogmes, Traditions et Liturgie de V Eglise Armenienne, Premiere Partic, endeavors to make out a case in favor of the Orthodoxy of the Armenians, and in- sists that they agree, so far as doctrinal belief is concerned, with the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Ecumenical Councils, and the (so-called) Seventh though he admits that they rejecfted Chalcedon and the Normal Epistle of Pope Leo I., which it approved, through ignorance of what that Council really taught and approved. But it is far from clear that they have at any time formally re- ceived the Ecumenical Synods after Ephesus, though it is true that they agree with some of their decisions, as, for instance, with the image (picture) worship sanctioned at the so-called Ecumenical Coun- cil cf Nicaea, A. D. 787. Still, as each of the Councils after Chal- cedon approved it, and all the Councils before itself, and as the Ar- menians have never received Chalcedon, nor the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, or the Sixth, at least never in all respects, they can not be said to have received even the substance of all their decisions and canons, however true it may be that they receive them in part. For the man who becomes an ecledtic and reje(5ls any part of the decisions of any of the Six Synods on the Two Creeds, or on either of them, or who rejects any one of their canons, provided it has been received by the whole Church, East and West, in reality rejects what has Ecumenical authority, and can not be said to receive them fully. There is no place for ecledticism here. The universal Church nuist be heard in all her Orthodox utterances in the First Six Ecuminical Councils, for if we rejedl one part we may another, and so the whole. Or one man may reject one part, another another, a third another, and so on, until anarchy will be the result. The only cause suffi- cient to rejecft the decision of the Universal Church is creature-wor- ship, or some other deadly sin, such as the ancient Israelitish and Jewish Church was guilty of, and such as the so-called Seventh Ecumenical Council was guilty of. In that case, to receive the voice of an erring Council deciding contrary to and against Hoh- Scripture and earlier Catholic Tradition, is to disobey God. But the Armenians have rejedled three Ecumenical Synods, namely, the Fourth, Fifth and the Sixth, without any such cause. Nor do they formally receive them as 3^et. It can hardly be said, therefore, whatever may be true of a part of them, that as a church, they are Acco2int of the Six EcumcnicaL Coiincils. 57 quite clear from the imputation of Monophysitism, or that their or- thodoxy is indisputable at present. Even the Armenian Council of Roum-Kale, held to effed; a union with the Greek Church, A. D. 1179, was not clear in favor of the seven Synods received by the Greek Church as Ecumenical. The account, as given in this Hisioire, Dogmes, etc., de V Eglise Ar- menienne, shows this: (41). For, according to their own account, they refused the demand of the Greeks to accept formally and by name the Fourth Ecumen- ical Synod, and passed in silence over the Fifth, Sixth, and the idol- atrous so-called Seventh, and that notwithstanding all the efforts of the Greeks to bring them to a formal and clear acceptance of them. Besides, they clung firmly, i. To the use in the Trisagion of the Words addressed to Christ, " Who wast crucified for us-'' which the Greeks thought savored of a belief that the Divinity of Christ suf- fered on the cross. 2. To their custom of celebrating the Eucharist in wine un- "mixed with water, and in unleavened wafers (JiZuixa), instead of the leavened bread {apzo^) of the New Testament: and 3. To the celebration of Christ's birth in the flesh on the sixth day of January. On point 2, they certainly differed from all Christian Antiquity, for, as Bingham shows, it used the mixed cup, and a>7ov-, that is, leavened bread. (41). Histoire, Dogmes, Traditions et Liturgie de t Eglise Annhtienne Orientate * * * ouvrage traduit du russe et de 1' armenien par M. Edouard Dulaurier, Paris, Duraud, 1S59, page 51 ; where we find an account from the Armenian standpoint as to what the Armenian prelates did in their Council of Roum-Kal^. There is throughout an evident desire on the part of the Armenian writer to go as far as he can, consistently with his attachment to his own com- munion, to please the Russians of the Greek Church, for the work is in Russian as well as in Armenian. I quote from this page 51 of the French translation of it: "Le concile de Roum-Kale dressa un acte de toutes ces conditions," [that is, to unite their Communion to the Greek] "et les confirma apres les avoir trouvees orthodoxes. Cet acte fut sign^ par tons les ^veques, et envoye h. I'empereur Manuel et an patriarche de Constantinople, Theodose, successeur de Michel. Les cveques, dans la relation du concile, commencent par un long expos6 dogmatique, d'apres le patriarche saint Nerses Schnorhali ; ils mentionnent les evC-ques qui ont assiste, au nom de 1' Eglise armenienne, aux trois premiers concile -, oecumeuiques, et aux sixieme et septieme ; reconnais- 58 Chapter II. As to point I , if the Armenians held plainly and expressly to the Two Natures of Christ, the words ''who wast crucified for us,'' might be taken in a perfe(5lly Orthodox sense, according to St. Cyril of Alexandria's dodlrine of Economic Appropriation, approved in the Third Ecumenical Council when they received Cyril's two letters which contain it, and which are addressed to Nestorius; the more so, sent soleunellemeut les trois premiers conciles, en acceptent les decrets, et pas- sent sous silence les ciuquieme, sixieme et septieme. Dans cet dcrit, ils pro- noncent anatheme centre Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius et Eutyches, tout en s'ab- stenant cependant de dire qu'ils reconnaissant le concile de Chalcedoine, qui avait coudamne Eutyches." At this point the shoe pinched badly. Chalce- don was the stumbling block. As to the matter of their condemning Eutyches, this proves nothing as to their Orthodoxy ; for other Monophys- ites do the same. The same work, page 26, has the following regarding their reception of I. Constantinople and Ephesus ; "Saint Nerses ler fut le premier eveque d' Edchmiadzin qui prit le titre de patriarche et de catholicos de toute 1' Armenie. En 38 1 il assista au deuxieme concile oecumenique, premier de Constantinople. II porta la parole dans les differentes sessions de cette assemblee, et accepta, au nom de son Eglise, tons les decrets qu'elle rendit. " Quand letroisieme concile oecumenique, celui d' Ephese, se reunit, en 431, pour condamner les erreurs de Nestorius, 1' empereur Theodose II. engagea le patriarche d' Armenie, saint Sahag, a venir y assister. L' Armenie etant alors en guerre avec les Perses, le patriarche ne put deferer a cette invitation. En butte aux persecutions du roi de Perse, Azguerd (Yezdedjerd II.), il fut enferme dans une prison ; mais le patriarche de Constantinople, Maximien, et les eveques Proclus de Cyzique, qui succeda un peu plus tard a Maximien, et Acace de Melitene, envoyerent a saint Sahag, par ses disciples Leon, Jean, Joseph et Go- rioun, qui se trouvaient a Constantinople, les decisions du concile d' Ephese, et communication de 1' anatheme lance contre Nestorius. '■ Saint Sahag, rendu a la liberte, convoqua, en 432, les eveques armeniens, et leur fit part de la lettre du patriarche grec ; il leur expliqua le but du concile d' Ephese, adopta de concert avec eux, ses decisions, et pronon^a, au nom de 1' Eglise d' Armenie, 1' anatheme contre Nestorius, Theodore de Mopsueste et Diodore de Tarse. Saint Sahag envoya les actes de cette assemblee au patri- arche de Constantinople Proclus, afin de lui prouver que les Armeniens, n'ayant pu a cause des troubles auxquels etait livre leur pays, etre presents au concile d' Ephese, acquies^aient aux doctrines de cette sainte assemblee. Il lui adressa aussi une exposition des dogmes de 1' Eglise armeuienne, que Proclus trouva Orthodoxe et en tout con forme a celle des Grecs. La copie de la lettre de Proclus au catholicos armenien saint Sahag a ete publiee en grec et en latin par Mansi, t. V. de sa Collection des Conciles. Celle de saint Sahag a Proclus, qui fut lue au cinquieme concile oecumenique, le deuxieme de Constantinople, est rapportee dans le meme ouvrage de Mansi, t. IX. Acco7int of the Six Ecicmc7iical Coimdls. 59 as the above work on the Armenian Church, page 43, shows that it uses similar language of God the Word which implies the doctrine of the Economic Appropriation. According to that dodtrine, Cyril • teaches that though God the Word is incapable of suffering, yet it is lawful to attribute Econo^nically only, the sufferings of his humanity to God the Word, in order to teach men to look to the infinitely su- perior Nature of his Two, that they may not fall into the error of worshiping a mere Man, which of course would be Man- Worship, that is, Creature- Worship. No man can understand Cyril unless he has read his two Epistles to Nestorius, which were approved at Ephesus, and his writings in defence of his XII. Chapters. I have thus written with reference to the statement on page 43 of this work on the Hisioire, Dogmes, Traditions et Liturgy de /' Eglise Armhiien7ie Oriejttale, that the Armenians offer that hymn not to the whole Trinity, but to the Son alone. But at the same time it must be remembered that the Greeks hold that the Trisagion is offered to the Trinity, and not to the Son alone. Hence they, of course, must reje(5t the Armenian form of it as abominable, because in that Greek sense it teaches Theopaschit- ism, that is, that the whole Trinity was crucified and suffered. Thus a note on page 140 of the Greek Church work called 'hpd Karyjyr^^t^ of Nicholas Bulgaris, published at Constantinople in 186 1, gives the Trisagion in the form in use among them as follows: "Holy God," (which it explains to mean the Father), "Holy Mighty," (which it explains to mean the Son), "Holy Immortal " rwhich it explains to mean the Holy Ghost), "have mercy on us." Tliat note alleges that that short hymn was given by miracle in the time of Proclus, who was Bishop of Constantinople, A. D. 434 to about 446, to confute those who asserted that the Divinity of God the Word suffered on the cross, and who with that view had added the words ''who wast crucified for us,'' to the Trisagion. The Armenians use precisely that form. For the above quoted Htstoire, etc., states in effect on page 43, that it is said among them as follows, "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, who wast crucified for us, have mercy upon us." Gi])bon in chapter xlvii. of his Decline a)id Fall of the Roman Empire, tells how the populace of Constantinople resisted the addi- 60 Chapter II. tion of the words ' ' who wast a'udjicd for its, ' ' and the notion that the Trinity was crucified or suffered. Some, according to Bingham, {Antiqidties, book xiv. chapter 2, section 3,) to avoid any possible confession that the whole Trinity suffered, used another form, as follows: "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, Christ our King, that wast crucified for us, have mercy upon us." This might be taken as in accord with the Orthodox docftrine of the Economic Appropriation. But it is admitted that the expression ''who wast crucified for 7is ' ' was introduced by Monophysites, that is by the Emperor Anas- tasius I., or by the heresiarch, Peter the Fuller, (42), and with the intent to express their heretical docftrine, and as there is no need of it, as the Trisagion in the original form is complete without it, it is altogether advisable to use that original form without any of the Monophysite additions. Happily, as in the West we do not use the Greek form of the Trisagion, we have been free from the quarrels about it, which have worried the East. I would say, however, that even in the original, that is, the Greek form, its language is so thoroughly indefinite that it may be used as an address to the Trinity, as in the Greek note in the 'hpd Karrj^rTjfTtg above mentioned, and in John of Damascus as quoted by Bingham just above; or as a prayer to the Son alone. The 4th point should present no difiiculty, for the whole Ori- ental Church were ignorant that Christ was born on the 25th of De- cember till the latter part of the fourth century. Hence Epiphanius, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzus and others apply the term Epiphany to what we call Christmas. See in proof in Sophocles' Greek Lexi- con, under '£-j^av:o9 and Oeofd'^ia, and still more fully in his Glossary of Later and Byzantine Greek under \r.npfhia. The cause of the difference on that topic between the Greeks and the Armenians is that the former in the fourth century adopted the Western custom of keeping the anniversary of Christ's birth on the 25th day of December, whereas the Armenians for some reason or other, retain the older local custom of the Orient. On that point, for the sake of peace and uniformity on a non-dogmatic and trifling (42). Bingham' s Aiitiq., xiv. 2, sect. 3. Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 61 matter, the Armenians had better follow what is now the almost uni- versal custom. They can do so on the ground, as do many in the West, that whether the 25th of December be the exact day or not of Christ's birth in flesh, such a blessed event is worthy of being cele- brated on some day, and as the Christian world celebrates it on that day it is well for the event' s-sake and for peace sake to keep it then. But they should anathematize the idolatrous conventicle of Nicsea, A. D. 787, and on the other hand formally receive the Fourth Ecu- menical Council and the Fifth and the Sixth. For now they do in fact reject certain parts of them, and of their doctrines, and so class them- selves with heretics of the Monophysite stripe, however much they may disclaim the imputation of heresy. In 1869 an Armenian prelate in Constantinople or one of its suburbs told me in effect that they received the doctrines of either six or seven Ecumenical Synods, I forget which ; but he did not say that they received the Six Ecumenical Synods ; so that it is clear that they do not in all things receive their docftrines: for they are in- separable from the Synods themselves. In 1878 I met on a French steamship in the Mediterranean, the Armenian Bishop of the See, if I remember rightly, of Moush. I asked him if they held to the Two Natures of Christ, or are Monophy- sites. He replied that the)^ are not Monophysites, but hold to Two Natures. A gentleman present who acted as interpreter, Mr. Ras- sam, who was born in the East of Nestorian or Chaldean ancestry, contradicted the Bishop and insisted that the Armenians are Mono- physites. But the Bishop insisted that they are not. At this point our conversation ceased, so that the Bishop did not further explain his position. Furthermore, a Protestant Armenian friend, whose father was an Armenian priest, toM me on that matter that some members of the National Armenian Church are Monophysites, while others are not, and that Monophysitism is a mere private opipion among them, not that of the Armenian Church. On the other hand Archbishop Megherditch, who is now in com- munion with the Church of England, told me in 1878 that the Ar- menian National Church is Monophysite. I would say, however, that I was informed that divergencies G2 Chapter II. exist among them, and that discipline is not so vigorously enforced among them as it is among the Greeks, which may account for the differences on that point and on image worship. But II., they do not recite the Nicsean or the Constantinopolitan Symbol in the exadl and Ecumenically authorized form, but in a form which is peculiar, and which contains several additions. The Researches of Smith and Dwight show what this is. One of them writes as follows : ' ' Bishop Dionysius assures me that the Armenians do not use either the Apostles' or the Athanasian Creed in their church ser- vices. The following is a literal translation of their version of the Nicene Creed : " 'We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, of things visible and invisible: " 'And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God; of God the Father, i. roceeder'] of the Holy Ghost. " 'We believe in God the Word, uncreated begotton and begun of the Father before all eternity; not posterior nor younger, but as long as the Father [is] Father, the Son [is] Son with him. " 'We believe in God the Holy Ghost, uncreated, eternal, unbe- gotten but proceeding from the Father, partaking of the Father's essence and of the Son's glory. " 'We believe in the Holy Trinity, one substance, one divinity; not three Gods, but one God, one will, one kingdom, one dominion. Creator of all things visible and invisible. " 'We believe in the forgiveneess of sins in the Holy Church, •with the communion of saints. " 'We believe that one of the three Persons, God the Word, was before all eternity begotten of the Father, in time descended, * * and perfedt God, became perfedl man, with spirit, soul and body, one Person, one attribute, and one United Nature: God became man without change and without variation. * * H< As there is no beginning to his Divinity, so there is no end of his Humanity, (for Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day and forever). We be- lieve that our Lord Jesus Christ dwelt upon the earth; after thirty years he came to baptism; the Father testified from above, "This is my Beloved Son;" the Holy Ghost like a dove descended upon him; he was tempted of the devil and overcome him; he preached salva- tion to men; was fatigued and wearied in body; hungered and thirst- ed; afterwards voluntarily came to suffering; was crucified and dead in body, and alive in divinity; his body was placed in the grave with the divinity united; and in spirit he descended to Hades with the di- vinity unseparated: preached to the spirits, destroyed Hades, and delivered the spirits; after three days arose from the dead and ap- peared to the disciples. We believe that our Lord Jesus Christ with that same body ascended to heaven, and sat down at the right hand of the Father; he is also to come with that same body, and with the G6 Chapter 1. Father's glorj^ to judge the quick and the dead: which is likewise a resurre(5tion to all men. " 'We believe also in the reward of works; to the righteous everlasting life, and to the wicked everlasting punishment." ' (46). The Monophysitisni of the language italicized is very clear. John Mason Neale, on pages 1084 and 1085 of the General In- troduction to his History of the Holy Eastern Church, gives the above Confession in full, but in a translation different in some points from the above. I quote it: " 'We confess and believe with our whole heart God the Father; not made, not begotten, and without beginning; alto that the Son was begotten by Him, and that the Holy Ghost proceedeth from Him. We believe God the Word, not created but begotten. Who had his beginning from the Father before all worlds; Who is not the last nor the least: but, as the Father is the Father, so is the Son the Son. We believe the Holy Ghost, not created, not of time, not be- o"otten, but proceeding from the Father; Who is of one substance with the Father, and glorified together with the Son. We believe the Holy Trinity to be one nature, and one God- head. There are not three Gods, but one God; one Will, one Kingdom, one Power; the Creator of all things, visible and invisible. We believe in the Holy Church, in the remission of sins, and in the communion of saints. We believe that One of the Three Persons, God the Word, was begotten of his Father before all worlds; that in time he descended into the Mother of God, the Virgin Mary, that he took from her blood, and united it with his Godhead; that he abode nine months in the womb of the most pure Virgin; and that He was perfect God and perfect man, in spirit, in external principle, and in body; that He had One Person, one form, and was united in One N'ature. God became man without any change or variation; His con- ception was without seed, and His birth without corruption. In like manner as there is no beginning to his Godhead, so there is no end to his Manhood. As Jesus Chri.st is yesterda}^ and to-day, so will He he forever. (46). Researclies of Smit/i and Dwight in Armenia, vol. i., p. 182, 183. Account of the Six Eciu)iciiical Councils. 67 We believe that our Ivord Jesus Christ, after thirty years' pilgrim- age on earth, came to be baptized; that His Father gave this testi- mony of Him, ' This is my Beloved Son;' and that the Holy Ghost, in the form of a dove, descended upon Him; that he was tempted by Satan, and overcame him; that he preached salvation to men; that He experienced the infirmities of the body; that He was wearied, an hungered, and athirst; that He went of His own will to suffering; that He was crucified and dead in the body, but alive in His God- head; that His body, joined to His Godhead, lay in the grave; that His spirit, joined to his Godhead, descended into hell, and that he preached to the souls, that He spoiled hell, that after three days, He rose again from the dead, and set those souls at liberty. We believe that our I,ord Jesus Christ ascended with that same body into Heaven; and that He is seated at the right hand of the Father; and that he will come again with the same body, and with the glory of His Father, to judge the quick and dead; and that there will be a resurrec^tion of all men. We believe in a reward according to men's works; and that the righteous shall go into life eternal, and the wicked into everlasting punishment." On the above Neale remarks: "The five first paragraphs of this creed appear to be of the most remote antiquity; those which suc- ceed clearly refer to the great controversies on the Incarnation, The seventh appears to have borrowed the expression, * His conception was without seed, and His birth was without corruption,' from the words of S. Proclus, in his celebrated sermon on the Incarnation, (March 25, 429,) 'without human passion He entered; without hu- man corruption He came forth.' The last clause of the confession seems imitated from the conclusion of the Athanasian Creed. In this confession there are two expressions which are suspicious; * * =f= and one that, on the plain face of the words, is flatly heretical; that He was united in One Nature. And this, where it occurs, is worse than in many cases; because the one person has just before been mentioned." V. Tliey use neither the Western Creed, termed the Apostles', nor the Athanasian, in their Church Services. Kither Smith or Dwight writes: "Bishop Dionysius " [an Ar- 68 Chapter II. menian Prelate] ' ' assures me that the Armenians do not use either the Apostles ' or the Athanasiau Creed in their Church Services." (47). John Mason Neale, page 1083 of the General Introduction to his History of the Holy Eastern Church, says that now the Armenian Q,\i.ViXQ\\'' possesses * * * the Apostles' * ^' * and the Atlian- asian Creeds," and that "// probably received''' them ''through Rome." It certainly did if it has them at all, and it is clear to me that the Armenians as a church cannot be said to possess them in the sense of making any use of them; nor, I think, in the sense of having taken any Synodical acl:ion on either of them. Neale is not always reliable. He mentions besides a Confession of Faith of Gregory of Narek, of about A. D. 950, three more of Narcissus of Klaens of about A. D. 1 1 70, and one of Narcissus of Lambron of A. D. 11 77; all of which are individual explanations of the Armenian Confession last given above. That with the Nicene are chief with them. Before closing on the Armenians, I would say that, with all their faults, they were long superior to the Greeks in freedom from the use and abuse of images, for they long retained the primitive aversion to their use, with the exception, however, of the Cross. Gibbon in Chapter XL,IX. of his Decline and Fall of the Roman Em- pire (page 367, volume, v., of Bohn's seven-volume edition of A. D. 1854), writes: "The Armenians, the most warhke subjecfts of Rome, were not reconciled in the twelfth century, to the sight of images." In a note to that sentence, on the same page. Gibbon quotes from Nicetas, an idolater, a Greek, 1. 2, p. 258, a passage which I translate: ' ' The worship of the holy pictures is forbidden by the Arme- nians."- In the same note. Gibbon, writing in the last quarter of the eighteenth century, adds: ' ' The Armenian Churches are still content with the Cross (Mis- sions du L,evant, torn, iii., p. 148)." Yet in a visit to the East in 1869, and again in A. D. 1878, I saw Armenian churches where there were images; one in 1878, in Kills, (47). See Researches of Smith a?id Dzuight in Armenia, vol. 2, p. 98, note. Accotait of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 09 I think, where I think I saw only one; and one in Smyrna, where there were quite a number, one in the main aisle placed there to be worshipped as in some Greek churches, though I did not see any one worshipping it for there was no service at the time. Yet I was told that in some places they had banished all the images out of the churches except that of Gregory, the Apostle of Armenia. The Armenians, in most or all of the churches which I saw, had no Icouostasis, but only the veil before the chancel, which belongs to the primitive local Oriental Rite. In that they are truer to the once universal rite of the East than most of the Greeks, who, in nearly every or every instance that I saw, had defiled their chancel with the idolatrous mediaeval innovation of the abominable image-stand, that is Iconostasis. This is the more to be regretted because as it seems to have been originally intended to imitate the veil in the Jewish Temple, inside of which the priests alone could pass, the turning it into an image-stand is a prostitution and change of it. I once wondered why we should so uniformly and so early find the veil before the Holy Place in an Eastern Church and never in a Western one. It seems to me that the explanation is to be found in the fact that in Palestine as we are told in Acts vi., 7, as it is in the Greek, not "« great company'' only, but ''A great crowd of the priests, were obedient to the faith." And as probably many or most of them, in accordance with Christ's warnings, fled from Jerusalem and out of Palestine before Jerusalem was besieged by Titus, they were preserved, and after the destru6lion of the temple, after they had been ordained to be members of the non-carnal, the spiritual, and because spiritual, therefore the far higher Christian priest- hood, they used the veil before the new Holj^ Places, in the more excellent worship, as they had used it before the Holy Place of the Mosaic sanctuary in the *' Carnal ordi- nances imposed 07i tJicm tcntil the time of Reformation^'''' Heb. ix., 10. And so the use of the veil passed into general use in the East where those Christain Sons of Aaron lived; but it never came into use in the West where the Sons of Aaron had never lived. Bingham gives an account of the primitive Oriental veil in his Antiquities of the Christ- ian Church, book viii. , chapter vi . , sedlion 8. It should be restored in all Eastern Communions where it has been superseded and banished by the idolatrous iconostasis. It has been more disused in the Greek 70 Chaptcj- II. Church than in any other Oriental Communion, for the crazy Greek image-worshippers, like the heathen of old, whom God rebviked, were ' ' viad 7tpon their idols, ' ' Jeremiah I^. , 38, and hated the plain and yet suggestive veil of the early Greek Church and did it away wherever they could, That veil suggests memories of holy worship reaching back in the East to the beginning of Christianity. Yet it should never be introduced into the West which has never had it, and which glories in its open chancel and visible rites so dear to its people, from the first century of the Christian era and from the first preaching of Christ among them. The nearest thing to the Oriental veil before the chancel or holy place is the Rood Screen of the Middle Ages, but no cross was used in the primitive Western Church, nor indeed in any part of Christendom, as we show elsewhere, and so if the so-called Rood Screen is used at Festivals, it should be without any cross or image. Theorian's remark which I find on page 1052 of Neale's Eastern Church, General bitrodiidion, is true if it be limited to Ante-Nicene local customs, not extended to those which began later: I translate it: " For all things are good, if we do them to the glory of God; for neither the church custom of the Latins, nor Ours, has received and keeps any thing but what is good and useful." Let the Bast therefore keep its peculiarly Eastern customs which it has held from the Apostles, and keep them as pure as they were at first: And on the other hand let the West keep its peculiarly Western customs which it has held from the Apostles, and keep them pure as they were at first. Let there be no mixing of Eastern and Western customs any where, for that brings trouble and confusion. Only, let all Westerns and Easterns, keep all the decisions of the Six World-Synods, and all the Universal docflrine, discipline, rite and -custom, which have been held ' ' Always, everywhere, and by all r J\ccoiint of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 71 SECTION 5. AJVIONG THii SYRIAN JACOBITES, THAT IS MONOPHYSITIIS. REFERENCES. The Lands of the Bible, by John Wilson, D. D., Edinburgh, A. D. 1847, vol. ii., p. 506 and thereafter. Rev. Horatio Southgate's Visit to the Syrian CImrch, New York, 1856, especially the Preface. Josephi Simonii Assemani, De Syris Monophysitis Dissertatio, Romae, A, D. 1730. J. W. Etheridge, The Syrian C/aarhes a7id Gospels, 1846. The general sameness of the Armenian and Syrian Monophysite beliefs may be inferred from what an Armenian bishop told Dr. Wolff as quoted above, and from the Syrians being the co-religionists of the Armenians. Further testimony follows: Dr. John Wilson writes: (48) "The church authorities to which they look may be ascertained from the following passage which occurs in their Liturgy for the Mass: ' ' ' We openly acknowledge the three holy, pure, and Catholic Councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus, in which were our fathers, holy, exalted, and God-fearing Malpans. We remember holy James, the head of the Metrans' " [that is. Metropolitans], "'and the first in Jerusalem, an apostle and martyr: Ignatius, Clemens, Dionysius, Athanasius, Julius, Basil, Gregory, Dioscorus, Timothy, Philoxenus, Antonius, Evanius, and particularly our father Cyril, who was a lofty and true wall, and the professor who openly acknowledged the manhood of the Son of God. We remember our patriarch Severus (49), the Crown of the Syrians, a skilful orator, a pillar and do(5lor of all the holy churches of God, and our holy father St. James [Jacob Baradseus], the precursor of the true faith, holy Ephraim our master, St. James, (50), St. Barsumas the (48). In his Lands of the Bible, vol. 2, p. 507, and thereafter. (49). The notorious heresiarch. (50). Wilson in a note here adds, "of Nisibis? The Syrians have so many persons of this name that it is difficult to identify the person here referred to." 72 Chapter II. head of the Mourners, St. Simeon the Stylite, the chosen St. Abeia, and those who, either before or after them, left, handed down, or taught us a right and pure faith ' ' ' This passage, it is to be observed, makes no mention of Eutyches, who is alleged to have mantained that, 'the divine nature of Christ had absorbed the human, and that consequently in him there was but one nature, viz.: the divine : while it mentions with reverence some of the principal supporters of the allied sect of Monophysites, who taught that the divine aud human nature[s ?] of Christ were so united as to form only one nature, yet without any change, confusion, or mixtures of the two natures.' The name of Barsumas the famous Nestorian, [Monophysite, not Nestorian] too, finds in it a place. * * * The ministers of the Syrian Church whom I have met in the East have generally expressed themselves when endeavoring, to explain their views, in a manner not very inconsistent with orthodoxy. The union of the natures of Christ is so complete, they have said, that there is unity in these natures. The Godhead and Manhood of Christ however, being unchanged, there is still duality. To our explanation, — the unity is that of oneness of Person, while the two natures are still distinct, they generally in the end have not objedted." He remarks further that " the Syrians indignantly disclaim all conne(5tion with Eutyches" (51). "The Syrian Christians call themselves Jacobites. When in- terrogated as to the reason of their appropriation of this denomina- tion, they generally allege that they are the descendants of Jacob or Israel; that they are the descendants of the earliest converts of the Apostle James: and that they are the adherents of the Monk Bardai^ Jacob Baradaeus or Baradat, who died. Bishop of Orfa (Edessa) in Mesopotamia in the year 558, and who, during his active career, was so successful in reuniting the Monophysite sects throughout the whole of the East." (52), Bishop Southgate remarks of the Syrian Jacobites that "They are not properly called Eutycheans, both becatise they do not hold the doctrine of Eutyches, and because they condemn and anathe- (51). Wilson's Lands of the Bible, vol. 2, p. 507, and thereafter. (52). Id., vol. 2, p. 507. Compare Bishop Southgate's Visit to the Syrian Church, Preface, p. 4, which favors them. Account of the Six Ecumenical Coiincils, 73 matize the heretic himself. Not only do they positively declare this in all their conversations, but every Bishop, at his consecration, pro- nounces a form of anathema upon Eutyches." (53). "We proceed now, ' ' continues Bishop Southgate, ' ' to show what their real dodtrine is, and " I . They do not hold the dodlrine of the absorption of the human into the divine nature, in Christ. This was the heresy of Eutyches which was condemned by the Fourth General Council. The Syrians reject this do(5lrine altogether, not only in their words, but in their standards, and every Bishop, at his consecratioH, is required to de- nounce and anathematize it. "2. They do not hold to the mingling or confusion of the two natures in Christ, but discard the dodtrine and speak most strongly and unequivocally against it, as do also their ancient writers, Bar Hebraeus, for example. Thus, I have frequently heard them use such comparisons as these : that the two natures are not mingled, as we say that wine and water are mingled ; nor does the one pervade the other, as we say that leaven diffuses itself through the lump. "3. To speak affirmatively, they distindlly and clearly hold that there are two natures in Christ, the Divine and the Human, and that these two natures are in the incarnation brought together in one, not mingled, nor confounded, but united. But, "4. They say that the result of this union is most properly described as one nattire Up to this point they seem to agree with us, but here, in words at least, they differ. They do not, however, deny the truth of our own dodlrine — that the two are united in one person — but admit it. Yet they say this is not enough, for it does not sufficiently express a real and indivisible union. To the whole of our second article those to whom I have shown it, cordially agree, but they think it stops short of the full expression, and that it would more exa(ftly describe their own do(5lrine if the word nattire were substituted for, or added to, the word person. Thus they say that the two whole and perfect natures were joined together in one nature as well as in on^ person. What now do they mean by this? "5. And here I will say that I have never been able to discover the slighest difference between their meaning of the word nature (53)- Southgate's Visit to the Syrian Churchy Preface, p. 4. 74 Chapter II. when used to express the result of the union of the two natures in Christ, and our meaning of the word/>^r^it of the Six Ecumaiical Councils. 75 tures is necessary, in order to guard against the dodlrine of their existing distindtly in the same person, or under the same outward presence, for so they declare they understand the word /i^r^^w as here used. They supposed our docftrine, or rather the Latin, for of us they had known nothing, to be nearly the same with that of Nestorius, viz.: that two natures act separately and independently of each other, as in two individuals (54). They were, therefore, agreeably surprised with the definition of our Second Article, which declares that ' the two natures were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ;' only they thovight that the word person, * * as used by the Latins, denoted alone the outward and visible appearance, and that to say merely that the two natures are in ow^ person, meant only that they coexist under one outward pres- ence. The statement, therefore, of our Article, that they a.r& joijied together, and 7ievcr to be divided, and that of this union is C'lie Christ, seemed to present to them a new view of the Western faith, as re- cognizing under the outward presence, the very union of natures which they wish to affirm by calling the result nature instead o^ person. They seemed never to have looked upon the one person of the West- ern Creed as the result of the union of the two natures ; but only as the external form which enclosed or contained them. In other words, they were not aware of our asserting an acflual joining together of the two natures, but only of their coexistence under one presence. Nor were they at first willing to take this view of the Western Creed, when I pressed it upon them, for it led at once to the conclusion that they had been separated from the great body of the Christian Church for so many centuries causelessly. On the contrary, they at first endeavored to show that there must be a difference, as this alone would justify their separation, but finally in every instance they came to the conclusion, that if there was any it was too subtil to be apprehended. Thus, I was once called upon to act as arbitrator between a Syrian Papal Bishop and two Syrian Bishops, wno met for a discussion of this subject, the nature of Christ. The conference continued for three successive days, and at the conclusion the two Syrian Bishops unanimously declared that they saw no real dif- ference between the S}- rian and Western belief, that it was a mere (54). There arc certainly two wills in Christ. The Monothelite heresy op- posed to this dodlrine was condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Synod. 76 Chapter I. logomachy, and that they were ready to assent to and affirm the Western tenet as their own and to enter into intercommunion, so far as this was concerned, with the Western Church. No other diffi- culty, they thought, remained with regard to the Church of England and our own ; but as for the I^atin, they could not acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope. This is only one case out of perhaps fifty which I have been acquainted with, all which seemed to reach the same conclusion. I say, then, that there is great reason to be- lieve that the Syrians do not in reality differ from us on the nature of Christ ; and I may add, that the voice of History, to any one who will carefully consider the circumstances attending the separation in Syria subsequent to the Fourth General Council, must, I think, speak the same language. Upon the historical argument, however, I can not here enter. But "6. The Syrian Church rejedls and condemns the Fourth Ecu- menical Council, and also Leo, the Bishop of Rome, whose Epistle was approved by the Council, Every Syrian Bishop, at his conse- cration, is required to anathematize both him and the Council. They also defend Dioscorus, who was condemned by that Council, but not Eutyches, as I have said, nor his heresy. These they reject as strongly and clearly as the Council itself. Why, then, do they not receive the Council nor its Decrees? The reason, they say, is be- cause it acted unjustly and violently towards Dioscorus, who, they affirm, did not hold the heresy of Eutyches; and they condemn Leo because, as they say, he was the principal instigator of the proceed- ing against Dioscorus. Yet they do not pretend to defend Dioscorus in his violent and intemperate proceedings at the Pseudo- Council of Ephesus, A. D. 449. They do not approve of that Council, nor the object of Dioscorus in obtaining it, which was to effi^ct a reversal of the sentence against Eutyches, passed by the Council convened in Constantinople the preceding year. They do not agree with Dios- corus in his defence of Eutyches, but they affirm that he did not hold the same dodlrine with Eutyches, and that the acftion of the Council of Chalcedon against him was excessively severe and unjust, since not for clear heresy, but for a mere act of imprudence, [! !] which they also acknowledge him to have been guilty of, he was condemned and deposed by a General Council. "The Syrian rejedlion of the Council, therefore, does not imply a Account of the Six Eciiviciiical Councils. 77 derelidlion from the faith, [! !], but rather, (may we not hope?) a mere dissatisfaction with the Synod for certain alleged improprieties in its adliou, while they agree with the Synod in the main object of its proceedings, and in the main adtion itself, which was the condemnation of Eutyches. The Syrian Bishops before referred to, entirely approved the declaration of faith put forth by the Council, and were willing, after reading it, (they had never seen it or heard of it before), to declare their assent to it, and also to recognize the Council, with a single salvo concerning the treatment of Dioscorus. The Syrians, I may add, receive, without any exception, the first three General Councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus, and the several minor councils approved by the Council of Chalcedon. They have also, and use daily, the Nicene Creed, and acknowledge the Apostolical Constitutions and Canons. What more can we ask?" (55)- We have given all this because we would show what is the present position of these heretics. But we remark, i, that Bishop Southgate was writing as the apologist of these Monophysites, and his aim was to prove that ultimately there might be intercommunion between the Anglican Communion and them. That was his motive, and it led him to give a rose color hue to their views. 2. He shows ignorance of the true status of this question in certain respedls. Thus for instance he says: "They * * * acknowledge the Apostolical Constitutiojis and Canons. What more can we ask?" This is the first time we have seen the spurious or interpolated Apostolical Constitutions mentioned as a matter to be asked of any Church. For neither the Greek Church, which receives the so-called Apostolical Canons, nor the Latin Church, receives the Constitutions. 3. He does injustice to the Council of Chalcedon and therefore to the Universal Church by his statement that the Syrian Monophysites were not really guilty of Monophysitism, and that ' ' the voice of history, to any one who will carefully consider the circumstances attending the separation in Syria subsequent to the Fourth General Council, must, I think, speak the same language." The /«<:/j> of (55). Southgate's Visit to the Syrian Chtcrch, Preface, p. 6-9. 78 Chapter II. that period, and even the testimony of Bishop Southgate himself, prove the contrary. For he shows that they hold to but 07ie Nature after the incarnation, and that is manifest heresy, and is contradi(5led by the Normal Epistle of Leo I., to Flavian, which the Church approved at Chalcedon. Nor does the excuse that they do not understand the term ' ' Natiire ' ' suffice, for their whole language of explanation shows that they do. For they reject the idea of confounding or mingling the Natures, they speak of two Natures before the Incarnation, and indeed their whole language accords with the notion that they understand in the main the use of the term ''Nature,'" and even when the language of the Ecumenical Council is explained to them, as it has been for more than fourteen hundred years, they still continue to reject it. It will not do to say, therefore, that their heresy is the result of ignorance. Moreover the Syrian Monophysite statement that "-the anion of the Council of Chalcedon against''' Vioscorus, " was excessively severe and jinjnst, since not for clear heresy, but for a mere act of imprudence, zvhich they also acknowledge him to have been guilty of , he was condemned and deposed by a General Council' (56), is decidedly rich, when one remembers his outrageous violence at the Robbers' Council of Ephesus, A. D. 449, over which he presided, and the testimony given against him on that account and others at Chalcedon about two years later. Indeed this very Preface which we are considering brands Dioscorus' pro- ceedings at the Latrocinium as ''viole7it and intemperate.'" izi)- But we turn not to mere unsupported opinions but to stern fadls as to the present belief of the Syrian Monophysites. I. "The Syrians * * =i^ receive, without any exception, the first three General Councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus, and the several minor councils approved by the Council of Chalce- don." (58). But I surmise that the reason why they receive these ''minor councils,'' must be something else than that they were sandlioned by the Ecumenical Synod of Chalcedon. If the Canons of the "minor councils" referred to, be those received into the Ecumenical Code by Canon i., of Chalcedon, that is those of Ancyra, Neocsesarea, Gangra, Antioch, and Laodicea, the reason why they (56). Southgate's Visit to the Syrian Church, Preface, p. 9. (57). Ibid. ^581. Southgate's Visit to the Syrian Church, Preface, p. 9. Account of ilie Six Ecumenical Councih. 79 are accepted by the Syrian Jacobites is probably the fact that they were in use in the Orient before Chalcedon, A. D. 451, as is evident from the proceedings of that Council. Indeed, we find in A. D. 404, the twelfth Canon of Antioch quoted as authoritative outside of the jurisdidlion of Antioch, even in Constantinople; and Chrysostom was deposed by some for violating it, or for an alleged violation of it. See on that Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography, volume i., page 528, left-hand column. "They have also, and use daily, the Kicene Creed." (59). They must receive, I judge therefore, the Creed cf the First Ecumeni- cal S3'nod and that of the Second, and the two Normal Epistles of Cyril of Alexandria, which were approved by Ephesus A. D. 431. 2. "The Syrian Church rejecfls and condemns the Fourth Ecumenical Council and also Leo I., the Bishop of Rome, whose Epistle was approved by the Council. Every Syrian Bishop, at his consecration, is required to amathematize both him and the Coimcil. They also defend Dioscorus, who was condemned by the Courcil, but not Eutyches, as I have said, nor his heresy. These they rejedl as strongly and as clearly as the Council itself." (60). They must therefore reject the Normal Epistle of St. Cyril of Alexandria to John of Antioch, and that of Pope Leo 1. of Rome to Flavian of Constantinople, and the Definition put forth by Chalcedon. 3. "As teachers or saints they regard Jacob of Sarug, Jacob of Edessa, Dioscorus, Severus, P. Fullo and Jacob Baradai; they rejedl Eutyches." (61). 4. As to the question whether they receive the Robbers' Synod of Ephesus, A. D. 449, there is a difference. Bishop Southgate writes: "They do not pretend to defend Dioscorus in his violent and intemperate proceedings at the Pseudo-Council of Ephesus, A. D. 449. They do not approve of that Council, nor the objedt of Dios- corus in obtaining it, which was to effedt a reversal of the sentence against Eutyches, passed by the Council convened in Constantinople the proceeding year." (62). But Roediger in Herzog's Theol. and (59). Ibid. (60). Ibid. (61). Herzog's Theol. and Eccl. Encyclopedia, Bombeiger's edition, Phila., A. D. i860, under Jacobites. {62). Southgate's llsil to the Syrian Church, Preface, p. 9. 80 Chapter I. Red. Eneyc. ed. Phila., A. D. i860, article '' Jacobites, ^^ asserts: "They recognize the Second Synod of Ephesns. ' ' 5. As the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Synods approve Chalce- don, and are connedled with it, the Jacobites must rejedt them for that reason. 6. They rejedl both the interpolation Filioq7ie in the Symbol, and the Western dodlrine contained in that term. (63). This Bishop Southgate positively states in his Visit to the Syria?i C/narh. p. 220, as quoted by us above, page 22, when treating on the subject of the Greek Church. In the same work, p. 219-221, he mentions a conversation with the Syrian Monophysite Patriarch on this topic. We quote from this part what is germane to our purpose: "I can not omit, however, one conversation with the Patriarch upon the vexed question of the Procession. * * =!= I shall have more to say of it at another time. At present I will only allude to the manner in which the Patriarch spoke of it. He commenced with . long metaphysical argument intended to prove that the Holy Ghost could not proceed both from the Father and the Son, without involv- (63). See note, 45, p 64. J. S. Assetnani De Syris Monophysiiis Dis- sertatw,Romae, A. D. 1730, p. 15, 16, on the do6lrine held by the Syrian Monophysites on the Procession of the Holy Ghost, remarks: "In Trinitatis mysterio antesignani eorum hand sibi conveniunt. Nam Xenajas et Bar- Hebraeus, ut et nunuulli recentiores, Spiritum sanctum ex Filio procedere ne- gant. Affirmat Dionysius III., Patriarcha, in Epistola Synodica ad Mennam Alexandrinum, ubi ait: Pater a nulla habet existentiam sed per seripsiimex- istit ingcnitus: Filius est gettitus a Patre ab aetenio. Spiritus sandiis pro- manat ex Patre et Filio;''' [But this may refer to the temporal procession from the Son]. "Enimvero, ut recta advertit Renaudotius (tom, 2., Liturg . Orient., p, 72), reliqui magno numero Jacobitae, quavivis additio Filioque illis non probetur, non tanien Graecorutn exemplo adversus Latinos tain acriter invehuntur: nam quaecurnqiie inter utrosqiie hnj us quaestionis occasion e ti'ans- acta sunt, Orientates penitus ignoravere, nee ad se perlinere arbitrati sunt. Renaudot then contends from certain expressions in certain of their Liturgies that those works teach the dodlriue of the Procession from the Son. But as to the other passages which the Latin Renaudot adduces, Assemani in this place shows that the celebrated Jacobite writer, Bar Hebraeus, takes them in the sense of "the temporal and external manifestation of the Holy Spirit through the Son," and disapproves of the Occidental sense. One par- ticular expression only, cited by him, seems to favor the Latin dogma. Speak- ing of the Liturgical works of the Syrians Renaudot writes: "Sometimes, they Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 81 ing the difficulty of two persons in the Holy Spirit. I replied that, according to the Anglican belief, it did not seen necessary to assert that the Procession from the Father and from the Son, was the same; that the Procession from the Father might be in his sense of the term, and that from the Son in the charadler of a messenger." add, ' He receives those things which pertain to his essence, ' which sentiment departs not much from the Theology of the Latins. ' ' The Latin is : aliquando adduut, accipit ea quae ad illius esseniiam pertinent, quae sententia a Latinorum Theologia non multum abit. See it in J. S. Assemani, de Syris Monophysites Dissertatio, Romae, A. D. 1730, p. 16. But regarding this i, it seems very doubtful whether, although this passage accipit ea, etc., is italicized, it is meant to be an exact translation, or only what Renaudot conceives to be the sense of one or many passages. I judge the flatter from the answer of Bar-Hebreaeus. Moreover, Renaudot as here quoted, gives no reference to the original; a very important lack, so that we can not determine exactly his intention. The words are so strong in the Latin that they seem to settle the question that some of the Syrian Monophysites have used language favoring the Latin doctrine of the Double Procession. But from the considera- tions mentioned above, and from the testimony of Bishop Southgate, an impar- tial witness, it seems best to hold this passage sub judice until we ascertain more of the facts as to Renaudot's intention, and until we are pointed to the original references in proof, for they alone can decide this question. We shall be the more inclined to do this when we recollect the tendency of some Latin theologians to interpret the Easterns in a sense which they at once repudiate as wrong, and both Renaudot and Assemani were members of the Latin communion. 2. But what is of chief importance is that Bar-Hebraeus, the noted Jacobite historian and theologian, who was Maphrian or Primas Orientis after A. D. 1264, interprets it in the Eastern sense and condemns the Western interpretation. See J. A. Assemani, de Syris Monophysites Dissertatio, A. D. 1730, p. 16. As to Bar-Hebraeus himself, see Smith's Gieseler's Church History, vol. ii., p. 617. Assemani, as last cited, remarks of the mode of speaking above : cujus loquu- tionis vim enervarenequitindignaTheologo ilia Bar-Hebraeiinterpretatio, de tem- porali et externa Spiritus Sancti per Filium manifestatione aientis : Qmtnt pro- ccssio sit proprietas Spiritus Sancti, cur additur in Theologia, quod a Filio accipit ? Dicinius, ratione nianifestationis ad creaturas specialissinie did, quod Spiritus a Filio accipit. Quod vero a nonnullis asseritiir, ipsum scilicet virtu- tein, aut potestatent, aut voluntateni, aut aliud hnjusntodi accipere, haud aequa est opinio. But surely the Monophysites can tell best what they mean, and im- partial writers like Bishop Southgate, and Roediger (Art : Jacobites in Herzog's Theol. and Eccl. Encyc.,) state that they reject the Latin doctrine. Roediger in his article under the title "Jacobites^^ in Herzog's Theol. and Eccl. Encyc. states: "That the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, is denied by Xanajas ; the Syrian Church, however, remained wholly unaffected by the controversy concerning the Filioque." 82 Chapter II. [This accords with the Greek belief against the Latins. This Greek belief Bishop Sou thgate held, so at least we may infer from this]. ' ' The Patriarch answered that this was the do(5trine of Scripture and the belief of his own Church, that if it was also the belief of the Western Church, there was on this point no difference between us," [but it certainly is not the belief of the I^atin Church], " but he still thought that it would be safer to use the language of the Evangelist, ^ proceeding from the Father, and sent by the Son.' " On this last clause Bishop Southgate adds in a note on page 221, "The Patriarch alluded to the passage in John xv., 26, 'But when the comforter is come, whom / will seyid unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of Truth which proceedeth from the Father' " On the words ' ' could not proceed both from the Father and the Son,'' Bishop Southgate remarks in a note at the foot of page 220: "This, however, implies nothing with regard to Procession. The Eastern Christians freely acknowledge that the Holy Spirit is both of the Father and the Son. They only deny that YLo. proceeds from both. He is of the Father, they say, by Procession, and of the Son, by Mission, giving to Procession a definite and limited meaning, viz: that of issuing; and to mission that of being sent as a messenger. Thus they commonly express their belief, in these words : ' Proceeding from the Father, and sent by the Son.' They allow, however, Procession from the Son in a different sense from that of the Procession from the Father. The latter is Hypostatical or Personal ; the former external or official. After an admission of this kind it is difficult to see what matter for con- troversy remains." The Bishop means between those who hold his view and the Easterns. At least so I take it. For it would be a strange remark for a professed theologian to make regarding the difference between the Easterns and the Eatins. For the do(5lrine of the Eatin Communion is that the Holy Ghost's divine Substance proceeds eternally, both from the Father and the Son. But the Easterns assert that the Holy Ghost's divine Substance proceeds from the Father alone, not from the Son. There is certainly ground for difference here, so long at least, as men will interpolate the Filioque into the Symbol without an Ecumenical Synod. Macarius, Bishop of Vinnitza, and Redlor of the Ecclesiastical Academy of St. Petersburg, expresses the Greek view on the Pro- Account of the Six Ecumoikal Councils. 83 cession in his Thcologie Dogmatique Ortliodoxe, Paris, A. D. 1859, t. I, p. 326 : and the dodlrine of the Syrian Monophysites, as stated by their Patriarch, is exacftly like it; so that there can be no doubt that on this point they are with the Greeks and against the L,atins. Another point may well be noted. None of the Six Ecumenical Synods defined that the birth of God the Word out of the Father was eternal, but they have limited themselves to the statement of the Creed of the Second Ecumenical Synod, that He was ' ' born out of the Father before all the worlds,''^ (jov 'ex rou llarpd'g ytwrfihna Tzpo ruhTtov rwv ako'Mijy). The idolatrous conventicle of Nicsea of A. D. 787, which the image-worshiping and creature-invoking party, which now controls the Greek Church, calls the Seventh, goes no farther. Nor indeed have I been able to find in the later, local utterances of parts of the Greek Church, or in the utterances of individual Confessions in it, any distindl profession of the docflrine that the birth of the Son out of the Father was eternal. They all seem to rest content with the words of the Creed which I have quoted above. Hence I do not think it can justly be said that the Greek Communion has gone beyond the earliest docftrine on that matter which we find in St. Justin the Martyr, and in St. Theophilus of Antioch, that the Logos Coeternal and Consubstantial with the Father, was born out of him, not eternally, but just before the worlds were made, and to be the Father's instrument in making them. While the Logos was in the Father, He was, according to St. Theophilus 6 Auyo^ ^svdcdOsro^, ''the Word in and through the Father.''' When He came out of the Father He became 'o ilo^'o? r.fxxpopuo-i^ that is ''the Word borne forth.' ^ That coming out was the birth of God the Word, who had been eternally in the Father. But the celebrated Catechist of Alexandria, Origen, started afterwards the view of the Eternal Birth, and was followed in that notion by the two great lights of the Alexandrian school, Athanasius and Cyril. In the middle ages the schoolmen who knew Athanasius better than they did the earlier Greek Fathers, adopted his view, and it was current and prevalent in the West at the time of the Reformation in the Sixteenth Century, and so passed, without investigation seemingly, into different Reformed Confessions ; for instance into Article II., of the Church of England. 84 Chapter II. The Easterns, however, have never put into any of their Con- fessions, at least not so far as I know, any condemnation of the dodtrine of St. Justin the Martyr, and of St. Theophilus of Antioch, nor have the Greeks pronounced in any Synod any formal approval of the opposing local Alexandrian view. Of course the earlier view agrees best with the Greek dodlrine that the Holy Ghost has come out of the Father alone, and by necessary implication condemns the Latin notion that He has come out of the Father and the Son etertially. It agrees also with the Anathema in the Creed of the First Ecumenical Synod against ' ' those who say that the Son of God * * * was not before He was born,'" for the Arian denial of his existence before His first birth seems most naturally to be there referred to, not His birth out of the Virgin Mary. 5. As to the Apostles' Creed, so-called, I judge that the Syrian Monophysites do not use it; for the following reasons : 1. I have not found any notice of its existence among them in any author. 2. It is a peculiarly Western Creed, and is not found among the Greeks, or among the Nestorians, except among those united to Rome, whence they have derived it. See what is said elsewhere on the Greeks and the Nestorians. 3. The Abyssinians, who are co-religionists of the Syrian Monophysites, do not use it, and a century or two ago, did not even know of it; and the Armenians, who are also their co-religionists, do not use it. See what is said elsewhere on the Abysoinians and the Armenians. Account of the Six Emmenical Councils. 85 DIVISION II. A.S TO THE RECEPTION OF THE SIX ECUMENICAI, SYNODS IN THS WESTERN COMMUNIONS, AND AS TO THE USE OP THEIR TWO CREEDS THERE. SECTION 6. SUBSECTION I. — ECUMENICAIy SYMBOIt ^C3«a?ri^ * the Nicaean ' ' Symbol. The signers of the Declaration of Thorn '' profess that" they ^^ embrace as a sure and imdoubted i7itejpretation of the Scriptures the NicaeaJi and the Consta^itinopolitan Symbol, in the very same words i7i which it is set forth in the third session of the Council of Trent, as that starting poirit in which all who profess Christ's faith, necessarily agree, and as the fir?n arid only foundation, against which the gates of the infernal regions shall 7iever prevail. ' ' DIVISION II, LOCAL SYMBOLS. • I. THE WESTERN OR ROMAN". This is, 1 . Approved by the French Confession ; 2. Gladly received by the Belgic or Holland; 5. Taught by the Bohemian; which is received, 4. By the Agreement of Sendomir, and professed and adhered to by the Declaration of Thorn; 5. Co?ifessed hy the Margrave's ''from his heart;'' 6. " Confessed with tnouth and heart" in the Leipzig Colloquy; 7. Received bj^ the Declaration of Thorn as containing " What is to be believed," and is at the end of the Shorter Catechism [in the Westminister Confession of Faith, as] in the ''Confession of J^aith" of "the Presbyteria?i Church in the United States of Amer- ica. ' ' < 2. THE ATH AN ASIAN. This is, 1 . Approved by the French Confession as being ' ' i7i agreement with the written word of God;" 2. Gladly received by the Belgic or Holland Confession; and 3. Appealed to by the Bohemian Confession as openly testifying '■'the Catholic faith" on the Trinity, which those who hold to that Confession "teach." Moreover, Accomit of the Six Eaivtenical Councils. 133 4. The Consent of Sendomir approves this Bohemian Confes- sion on the ground that it "admits nothing respedling God and the Holy Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, justification, and the chief heads of the Christian faith, which is not in accordance with Orthodox truth and with the pure Word of God." The Athan- asian Creed may thus be said to be received by the Consent of Sen- domir. 5 . The Margrave ' ' confesses ' ' the Athanasian Symbol ' 'front his hearty 6. TheLe-ipzig Colloquy '' confessed with vioutli and heart * * ^ the Athanasian'''' Symbol. 7. The Declaration of Thorn acknowledges that with ''the Con- stantinopolitan Symbol,'''' '''agrees the Symbol which is called the A t lianas ia7i;'^ audit embraces " as a sure and undoubted interpreta- tion of the Scripttcres the Nicaean and the Constantinoplitan Symbol, in the very same words in which it is set forth in the third session of the Council of Trent" [therefore with the words " and the Son,'* and the other local innovations of the West] ' ' as that starting poiyif in which all who profess ChrisV s faith necessarily agree, and as the firm and only fojcndation against which the gates of the inferjial regions shall never prevail.'''' This will serve to show how highly it esteems the doctrine of the Athanasian. One can see at the same time the lack of full information among those writers of some things that we know better now, and especially as to what form of the two Ecumenical Creeds should be held to, and that the Athanasian is a mere local Creed. Certainly every Protestant Christian, that is, every anti-idolatrous Christian, should prefer the form of the Ecumenical Creeds used in the Fourth and the other two Ecumenical Synods after it, to the altered form used at Trent. FULLER QUOTATIONS FROM CERTAIN CONFESSIONS OF THE REFORMED, OR OF PARTS OF THE REFORMED, ON THE TWO ECUMENICAL CREEDS, THAT IS ON THE SYMBOL OF THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, AND ON THAT OF THE SECOND : AND ON TWO LOCAL CREEDS, THAT S, ON THE WESTERN CREED, WHICH IS COMMON- LY CALLED THE APOSTLES', AND ON THE SO-CALLED ATHANASIAN. The quotations on the Apostles' and the Athanasian are of little bearing or importance on the Six Ecumenical Councils, but we 134 Chapter II. retain them for the sake of fuller informatiDii on the topic of local Creeds, and to show how the Reformers of the sixteenth century and some later men regarded them, in an age, when, as yet, many or most in the Occident had not learned to distinguish between what is merely Western and of merely local authority, and what is Ecumeni- cal, and of universal authority ayid obligation ; and so we shall find them jumbled together often in their Credal or Confessional Utter- ances. References, same as under the Lutherans. THE FRENCH CONFESSION. The Confession of faith of the French Churches exhibited to King Charles IX., in the year 1^6 1, (92) has the following : Y_ ;!= * 5i< " 11/^ approve the three sy/nbols, namely, the Apostolic, the Nicaean, and the Athanasian, because they are in agreement zvith the written word of God. VI. "The Holy Scripture teaches us that in that single and un- compounded divine essence exist three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Father is the Cause, the First in Order, and the Originator of all things ; but the Son is His Wisdom and Eternal Word ; the Holy Ghost is His Virtue, Power, and Eificiency. The Son is eternally begotten out of the Father. The Holy Ghost proceeds eternally out of the Father and the Son. These three Per- sons are not confounded, but distinct ; not separated, but co-existent, co-eternal, and co-equal, Deuter. iv., 12; Matt, xxviii., 19; I. John v., 7; John i., I, and xvii., 5, 10. Finally, on this mystery we ap- prove what these four old Coimcils determined, and we detest all the sedls condemned out of the Word of God by those ancient holy doc- " tors, as, for instance, by Athanasius, Hilary, Cyril, Ambrose and by the rest." (93). (92). See August! Corpus Librorutn Syrnbolicorum, p. no. (93). August! Corpus Librorutn Syrnbolicorum, p. 112: after proclaiming Scripture to be the sole rule by which everything should be tested, this French confession continues: V. * * * Quamobrem etiam Tria illa Symbola, nempe Apostolicum, Nicaenum, et Athanasianum idcirco approbamus, quod siNT iLi^A vERBO Dei Scripto consentanea. Account of the Six Eaimenical Councils. 135 The work entitled Corpus ct Syntagma Confcssionum Fidei, pub- lished A. D. 1 612 (94), thus speaks of this document : " In the year 1559, in most difficult times, it was established in a National Synod at Paris. And, in the Colloquy of Poissy (Collo- quium Possiacum), held in the year 1561, Theodore Beza, in the name of the Churches of France, offered it to King Charles IX. It was confirmed in a National Synod, at Rochelle (Rupella), in the year 1571, when it was publicly read through in that illustrous as- sembly. For there, to three copies transcribed for her on parchment, subscribed with their own hands, the most serene Queen of Navarre, (Johanna) (95) ; her most serene son, Henry the Fourth and Great, afterwards King of France and Navarre, who is most worthy of happy and perpetual memory : also the most illustrious Prince of Conde, whose name was also Henry ; by the most illustrious Count of Nassau (Nassovia) ; Gaspar Coligny of Chatillon (Gaspar Colinius Castilionius), Admiral of France; and in the name of the French Churches, the Pastors and elders, who had been sent to that National Synod from all the provinces of France. How great an assembly was that ! How ornate was it in memorable piety, and in all most splen- did gifts, and how excellent in every kind of virtue. One of those autograph manuscripts, elegantly written on parchment, which the same most serene and illustrious persons, etc., subscribed, with their own hands, was sent by them to Geneva to be preserved, and it is iept in the archives of that city. It was published in Latin in the year 1566, and in the year 1581, (96). VI. " Haec sancta Scriptura nos docet, in ilia singulari etsimplici essentia •divina subsistere tres personas, Patrem, Filium et Spiritum Sauclum. Patrem -videlicet primam ordine causam et originem rerum omnium : Filium autem «jus sapientiam et verbum aeteruum: Spiritum Sanctum ejusdem virtutem, potentiam et efficaciam ; Filium ab aeterno ex Patre genitum. Spiritum Sanc- tum ab aeterno ex Patre et Filio procedentem : quae tres personae uon sint con- fusae, sed distinctae, nee tamen seperatae, sed coessentiales, coaeternae, et co- aequales; Deuter. iv., 12 ; Matth. xxviii., 19 ; I. Joan v., 7 ; Joan i., i, et xvii., 5, 10. Denique in hoc mvsterio approbamus, quod vetera illa quatuor CONCILIA DETERMiNARUNT ; et omues Sectas a vetustis illis Sanctis doctoribus, -veluti Athanasio, Hilario, Cyrillo, Ambrosio, et ceteris, ex Dei verbo damnattxs, detestamur. ' ' (94). Augusti Corpus Librorum Sytnbolicoriim, p. 611. (95). The mother of Henry IV., the pious Jeanne d' Albret. (96) Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbol icoruyn, p. 629. 136 Chapter II. THE BELGIC, THAT IS, HOI.I.AND CONFESSION. " The Christiaji and Orthodox Confession of the Belgic ChurcheSy embracing the satne doctrine concerrmig God and the cter7ial salvation of sou/s, as it zvas recognized ajid approved in the Synod of Dort, (Synodo Dordrechtana,") (97). This sets forth the following : "This dodlrine of the Trinity has always been asserted and preserved in the true Church, from the age of the Apostles to this very day, against Jews, Mohammedans, and certain false Christians and heretics, as, for instance, Marcion, Manes, Praxeas, Sabellius, the Samosatene, Arius, and others like them, who have been condemned lawfully and deser\'edly by Orthodox Fathers. Therefore in this business we gladly receive the three Symbols, namely that of the Apostles, the Nicaean, and that of Athanasius, and in like manner those things which have been established by the old Fathers, in accordance with the sentiment of those Symbols," (98). This confession is thus described in Augusti : ' ' At first the manuscript was a private one, and was composed in the French tongue by some Belgic Pastors, among whom Guido de Bres and Adrian Saravia (99) held the first place. It was then trans- lated into Dutch and Latin, and confirmed in various Synods in the years 1571, 1576, 1579 and 1581. The additions and the changes. (97). See Augusti Corpus Libroriim Symbolicorum, p. 170. (98). Id., p. 175. Atque haec saniflae Trinitatis do<5lrina, jam inde ab apostolorum aetate, in hunc usque diem, in vera ecclesia semper asserta et conservata fuit, adversus Judaeos, Mahumetanos, atque quosdam Pseudo- Christianos Haereticosque, utpote Marcionem, Manetem, Praxeam, Sabellium, Samosetanum, Arium et similes alios, qui jure meritoque, ab Orthodoxis Patribus condemnati fuerunt. Idcirco in hoc negotio lubenter recipimus tria ilia Symbola: Apostolorum scilicet, Nicaenum, et Athanasii, similiterque ea quae a veteribus- patribus juxta illorum Symbolorum sententiam statuta sunt. (99) Augusti Corpus Librormn Symbolicorum, p. 633. This Adrian Saravia I take it to be the Adrian Saravia who was the celebrated friend or Hooker. He held the dodlrine of Apostolical succession exclusively in bishops, from the year 1564, when he lived at Ghent. This was only three years after the date of this Confession. He went over to the English Church thereaaer. See concerning him the index under "Saravia " in Keble's Hooker. Account of the Six Ecionenical Coujidls. 137 which this Confession underwent up to the year 1618 are most accu- rately indicated and determined by Festus Hommius in the book entitled : Specimen Controversiarum Belgicaricni, S. Cdnfessio Eccles. Reforjn. 171 Belgio ; in ustcm fiiturae Synodi Natio?ialiSy l^a^6.. Bat., 1618. 4. At length, after it had been revised and read again, it was ratified by a Synod in 1619. See the Acta Synod. Dordrac, P. I., pag. 350 seqq, Benthemii Holl. Kirchen. und Schulen-Staat, Th. I., c. 5. Jacob Revius translated it into Greek in 1623 and 1653," (100). 3 THE BOHEMIAN CONFESSION. ^^ SujK a?id grounds of the faith and dogmas which are taught in our Churches 07i fiistifcatioti thro7ighotit the Ki7igdo7)i of Bohe77iia and the Margravate of Moravia, and elsewhere, also by the Elders of oiir Professio7i, e7idowed in all thi7igs with the sa7ne mind. It was first offered and exhibited siyicerely a7id frankly to His Royal Majesty, a7id thc7i to all pions and candid readers,'' {10 1.) ARTICI^E II. ON THE CATECHISM. "Hence they [that is, those who hold to this Confession] teach the Catechism, that is, this Catholic and Orthodox dodrine of the Fathers; which is the Decalogue of God's Commandments, and the Apostolic Faith, digested into twelve articles, and handed down in a Symbol, through the Nicaean Synod, and so elsewhere confirmed and set forth. ARTICEE III. CONCERNING FAITH IN THE HOLY TRINITY. "Besides they teach in their faith, that God is revealed in the Scriptures as one in the substance of his Divinity, but as trine (100). Ibid. (loi). See August! Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 275. The King here referred to was Ferdinand of Austria. This is clear from the date. For on this page, 275, note, August! remarks : Titulus Generalis in syntagmate est : "Confessio fidei ac religiouis Baronum ac Nobilium Regni Bohemiae, Serenis- simo ac Inviclissimo Romanorum, Bohemiae, etc. Regi, Viennae Austriae, sub. A. D. 1535 Oblata. Ex editione A. 1558. 4." 138 Chapter II. in Persons, that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. In regard to the Persons they hold to a distincftion between them, but in regard to existence and substance they hold that they are coequal and that there is no distincftion to be made between them. And that this is the Catholic faith, the agreement of the Nicaean Synod, and of others with it, their decrees, and their sandlions, and the Confes- sion or Symbol of Athanasius do openly testify;" (102). On this Confession Augusti remarks : "The lovers of evangelical truth, who, after the slaughter of the Hussites, survived in Bohemia and Moravia, were called Bohemian Brethren and Moravians. The terms Waldenses and Picards were applied to them, because many of those who, from old times, had lived in Bohemia, embraced the cause of the Hussites. But, as Comenius in h.\& Hisior. Fratr. Bohem., 1702, § 50, 51, testifies, they prefer to call themselves Unity of the Brethren (Unitas Fratrum), that is, Brethren of Unity. These, therefore put forth the first Con- fession of their faith in the year 1504, which, however, had been pre- ceded by others, but different ones, from Flacius and Lydius, under the name of Waldenses. They exhibited to King Ladislaus what is read in Lydii Waldeiis. 5. ii., p. i, seqq., and it was followed by new editions and apologies in the year 1507, 1508 and 1524. In the year 1532 they sent a new Confession to George, Margrave of Brandenburg, who handed it over to Luther to publish it. That edition bears the title : Rechenscliaft des Glatibens, der Dienst und Ceremonien der B ruder in Boehynen taid Mahren, welche von etlichen Pikardefi, und von etlichen Waldeiiser ge?iannt werde7i,W\i\.Qnh., 1532. Three years after, the same person edited a New Confession of the Brethren, which, in the year 1535, they had offered to King Ferdinand, and (102). See Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 277-279: Article II. De Catechismo. Hinc Catechismum docent, hoc est, CathoH- cam hanc et Orthodoxam patrum dodlrinam : quae Decalogtis est mandatorum Dei, et fides Apostolica, iu duodecim articulos digesta, et tradita in Syinbolo per NicaenaiH Synodunt, atque adeo alias confirmata et exposita. * «• * * Article III. Defide Sanctae Trinitatis. Praeterea fide nosci Deum Scrip- turis docent, unum in substantia divinitatis, iriman autem in personis, Patrem, Pilium, et Spiritum Sandlum. Ex parte quidem personarum habere discrimen, ex parte vero essentiae ac substantiae coaequalitatem et indistindlionem. Id autem fides Catholica et Nicaenae Synodi, aliarumque cum hac idem consensus, decreta et san6liones, Athanasii Confessio, seu Symbolum, aperte testantur. Account of the Six Eciunenical Coiuicils. 139 besides, he decked it out with many remarks in a Preface. In these remarks he had the consent of Melancthon, Bucer, Calvin, and others. After new harassings and persecutions, which the brethren suf- fered in Bohemia in 1547 and 1548, many migrated into Poland and Prussia, where, on account of the remarkable moral discipline in which they excelled, they secured the applause of all, and especially of the Magnates and Nobles, and they lived in peace and concord with the Lutherans and the Reformed. The reason why the brethren de- sired to be joined in a closer bond with them " [the Lutherans and the Reformed] "was not only the Roman Catholics, whose torch and trumpet for a long time was Hosius, the Cardinal, but more especial- ly the Socinians, that is, the Unitarians, who at that time had crept in among them under the name of Polish Brethren. The Lutherans, therefore, the Reformed, and the Bohemian Brethren, that is, the Waldenses, when about to make common cause in a triple compact against a conmion enemy, entered into an ecclesiastical union in a general Synod at Sendomir in 1570, and put forth that AGREEMENT OP Sendomir, which we have given, P. I. But in this Agreement our Confession is publicly recognized as a genuine declaration of evangelical dodlrine, and as, in a certain sense, to be deemed equal to the Augsburg Confession," (103). THE AGREEMENT OF SENDOMIR. The mutual agreement on points of the Christian religion between the Omrches of Greater arid Lesser Poland, of Lithuariia, and Samo gitia, which Churches according to the Augustan [that is, the Augs- burgh] Confession, according to that of the Walderisian Brethren, as they are called, arid, according to the Helvetic Confession, seemed in cer-. tain respects to differ from each other. This agreement was made April 14, in the year 1570, in the Sendomir Synod. This Agreement approves the Bohemian, that is, Waldensian Confession from which we have just quoted. It affinns that it admits nothing respedling God and the Holy Trinity, the incarnation of the Son of God, justification, and the chief heads of the Christisn faith, (103). See August! Corpus Librorunt Symbol icoriun, p. 637-639. 140 Chapter II. which is not in accordance with Orthodox truth and with the pure Word of God, (104). 5. THE MARGRAVE CONFESSION, OR CONFESSION OF JOHN SIGISMUND, ELECTOR OF BRANDENBURG. (105). ' ' At the beginning, and for the first, his Electoral Grace, con- fesses from his heart the true infallible and alone-saving Word of God, as the same is comprised in the Scriptures of the Holy Prophets and Apostles in the Holy Bible * * * in the next place [he confesses] the Christian and universal chief Symbols, as the Apostolic, the Athanasian, the Nicaean, the Ephesian, and Chalcedonian ; and that in them the articles of the Christian faith are briefly and plainly handled, and sufficiently proved and maintained out of Scripture against old and new heresies, (106). (104). Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicoriim, p. 254, 255: Visum est iisdern ecclesiis Polonicis Rcformatis ct Orthodox is, quae iu quibusdam capiti- bus et formulis docflrinae (hostibus veritatis et Evaugelii) minime cousentire videbantur, pacis et concordiae studio, Synodum couvocare, ac consensionem mutuam testari. Quare habita collatioue arnica et Christiana, sic juncftis com- positisque auimis couseasenint iu haec capita. Primum. Quemadmodum et uos, qui in praesenti Synodo nostram confes- sionem edidimus, et fratres nunquam credidimus eos, qui Aug;ustanam Confes- sioncm ample<5luntur, aliter quam pie et orthodoxe sensisse de Deo, et sacra Trinitate, atque incarnatione Filii Dei, et justificatione, aliisque praecipuis cap- itibus fidei nostrae: ita etiam ii, qui Augustanam Confessionem professi sunt candide et sincere, se vicissim tarn de nostrarum ecclesiarum, quam de frat- rum, quos vocant IValdenses, confessioue de Deo, et Sacra Triade, incarnatione Filii Dei, justificatione, et aliis primariis capitibus fidei Christianae, nihil agnos- cere, quod sit absonum ab orthodoxa veritate, et puro verbo Dei. Cf. Augusti id., p. 639, where speaking of this Consensum-Sendomiriensem, he remarks : In hoc autem Confessio nostro [That is the Bohemian Confession quoted by us above] tanquam genuina dodtrinae evangelicae declaratio et Augustanae Confes- .sioni quodammodo aequiparanda publice agnoscitur. (105). See Augusti Corpus Librorum Symblicorum, p. 369. (106). Id., p. 371. Anfanglich und fiirs erste, bekennen sich Se. Churf. Gn. von Herzen zu dem wahren unfehlbaren und allein seligmachendem Wort Gottes, wie dasselbige in den Schriften der heiligen Propheten und apostol, ia der heiligen Bibel verfasset * * * hernach auch zu den Christlichen und allgemeinen Hauptsymbolis, als dem apostolischen, Athanasianischen, Nicen- ischen, Ephesinischen, und Chalcedonischen, darinnen die artikel christlichen Glaubens, kurz und rund begriffen, und wider alte und neue Ketzereien aus der Schrift genugsam bewahret und behauptet sind. Account of the Six Eciwienical Councils. 141 On this Confession Augusti remarks : ' ' When John Sigisraund, Elector of Brandenburg, in the year 1 613, went over to the side of the Reformed, in a Confession put forth in his own name in the year 161 3 and 16 14 (of which Pelargus, a theologian, of Frankfort, is held to have been the author), he set forth a new fonn of dodlrine, and proposed it to his subjedls, not as a norm, but as an example. But afterwards, the Margrave's Confes- sion, Confessio Marchica, (for so they were accustomed to call it) was prescribed by public authority, together with the L,eipzig CoUu- quy in the year 1631, and the Declaration of Thorn in the year 1645, as a book by which all the teachers of the Refonned Church in the territories of Brandenburg and Prussia were to be bound, and this obligation continued until the year 18 17. Compare the book en- titled : Der Chur Brandeyiburg Reformations- Werk: die drey con/es- siones oder Glaube7isbekenntnisse, welche in den churfuertl. Branden- biu-g. die Religion betreffe7iden Edictis zic beobachten befohlen worden ; Coeln an der Spree, 1695, 4. From this authentic book flowed all the remaining editions, even that which is read in the appendix of D. H. Hering's historische Nachricht von dem ersten Anfange der evang. reform. Kirche in Brandenburg und Preussen, Halle, 1778, 8; and which is repeated in other works. ' ' Inasmuch as the Margrave's Confession and the Leipzig Colloquy are written in German, and inasmuch as no Latin version which can be maintained to be authentic, is known to us, we have deemed it our office to exhibit no other text than that which is genuine and original, as it is extant in Mylii Corp. Constitut. Marchicar., t. i." 6. THE LEIPZIG COLLOQUY IN THE YEAR 1 63 1. " The Reformed and Lutheran Theologiaris who were there present arranged a settlement as to how far they agire and hozvfar they do not, (107). " In conclusion they held that there is no better means for agree- ment on this point than that in those high mysteries they should abide by. those modes of speech alone, which are expressly employed in Holy Scriptures m the most ancient ecu- (107). See Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 3S6. 142 Chapter II. MENiCAL COUNCII^, and in the Augsburgh Confession, as they then, for their part, would bind themselves to no other expressions. This last the Saxon Electorate have left to be arranged on future and farther conference, and on more investigation ; and so much of the third article was left, to which the theologians on both sides adhere so far as this, namely, that they from their hearts condemned and rejected all the errors of the old and new Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, Monothelites, Marcionites, Photinians and whatever names they might still bear, and on the other hand confessed with mouth and heart the Apostolic, Nicaean and Athanasian Symbols," (io8). On this August! remarks: "At length, in the time of a most deadly war, Jo. George I., Ele(5lor of Saxony, George William, Eledtor of Brandenburg, and William, Prince of Hesse, and Landgrave, thought of restoring peace and concord to the Evangelical Church. In a meeting held at Leip- zig in the year 1 63 1 , they commanded Theologians seledled from both parties to hold a Colloquy on controverted articles, and to state in a public Declaration in what respecfls they could agree. This was done in our document, which was written in the vernacular tongue, in order that it might be of use to all, and it was subscribed vn'Cn. the names of those who took part in the Colloquy, and was published in the same year. If thou glancest at the effect of this Colloquy, thou shouldst grieve that it has been almost nothing, for it is evident, that a little after it, new dissensions and increased hatreds burst forth, but the value of this peace-favoring and love-producing writing is not lessened by that result. And the judgment which Henke (108). Id., p. 399: Schliesslich halten sie es dafiir, das kein besser Mittel zur Vergleichung in diesem Punkt sey, als, das man iu diesem hohen Geheim- niss beydenen Redensarten allein, welche in der heiligen Schrift, in den uralten allgemeinen conciliis, und in der augsburgischeu confession ausdriicklich ge- braucht worden, verbleibe, wie sie denn ihres theils zu keinen andem Reden sich verbinden wollen. Welches letzere die Chur-Sachsische auf Kiinftige fer- nere Unterredung und mehrere Ausfiihrung haben gestellet seyn lassen. Und so viel vom dritten Artikel; bey welchem beiderseits Theologi angehanget, dass sie von Herzen verdammten und verwiirfen alle Irrthiimer der alten und neuen Arianer, Nestorianer, Eutychianer, Monotheliten, Marcioniten, Photinianer, und wie sie immer Namen haben mochten dargegen sich zum Apostolischen, Nicenischen, Athanasischen Symbolen mit Mund und Herzen bekennen thaten. Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 143 (Gesch. der Chr. Kirclie, Th. III. p. 309) has given concerning it is ver>' true, (109). DECLARATION OF THORN. • "A General Professiott of the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches in the Kingdo7n of Polatid, in the Grand Dukedom of Lithuania^ a7id in the Provmces adjoining the Kitigdom, exhibited on the first day of Sep- tefnber, in the tneetijig which was held at Thorn for the purpose of maturing a settlement of controversies, " (no). After a profession of faith in ' ' the Holy Cajionical Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament, ' ' as being ' ' alone, the rule of faith ayid worship,'' (in), this Declaration goes on : ' 'And a sort of compend of these Scriptures, so far as what is to be believed is concerned, is contained in the Apostolic Symbol, in which we were baptized; so far as what is to be done is concerned, in the Decalogue, the sum of which consists in love to God and to one's neighbor; so far as what is to be sought after and hoped for, in the Lord's Prayer. All of which things are confirmed by our Lord Jesus Christ both in the institution of baptism, as the sacrament of initia- tion or regeneration, and in the Holy Eucharist as the sacrament of our spiritual nutrition. Under these heads, therefore, we deem the sum of saving do(5lrine to exist; for the propagation and preservation of which dodtrine in the Church our Lord established the holy Ministry for preaching the Gospel and for administering the Sacraments, and armed them with the spiritual power of the keys against unbelievers snd the diso- bedient. (109). AugiTsti Corpus Librorunt Symbol icoruvi, p. 641, 642. On page 642, in a note to the last sentence above, he adds the passage from Henke t© which he refers: " Appcnenda censemus ejus verba, quae etiam nostris diebus didla sunto: Noch nie war mit solcher Klugheit und Mafsignng, noch nie mit so giinstigem Sohpiu'i des gewisserteu Erfolgs, die aussohnung beider protest Kirchen und das Ende jener, von ihren Feinden mit Freude und Hohn bemerkten, mit List und Gliick untcrhaltenen Streitigkeiten vorbereitet worden. So wf.nig auch die Fiirsten, welche diese Abrede schlossen, andem protestant. Regenten oder Gemeinheiten vergreifen oder vorschreiben wollten, so diente doch dieser ihr Versuch, bey ihrem Ansehn, zum uachahm- lichen Beyspiele wie Nachbarn bei drohender Feuersbrunst ihre soust Kleinen Streitigkeiten vergessen und die gemeinschaftliche Gefahr bedenkeu mussten. (no). Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolieorutn, p. 411. (III). Ibid. 144 Chapter II. But if any doubt or controversy arises regarding the genuine sense of these heads of Christian Dodlrine, we hereby profess, moreover, that we embrace as a sure and undoubted interpretatioft of the Scriptures the Nicaeafi and the Constantinopolitan Symbol, in the very same xvords in which it is set forth in the third session of the Council of Trent, as that starting point in which all zvho profess Christ' s faith necessarily agree, and as the firm a?id only foioidat ion against which the gates of the infernal regions shall never prevail. And we acknowledge that with this Symbol agrees the Symbol zvhichis called the Athanasian, and, moreover, the confessions of the First Synod of Ephesus, and of the Synod of Chalcedon, and, vioreover, those which the Fifth Synod and the Sixth Synod opposed to the relics of the Nestoriayis and of the Eutychians; and, moreover, what the Synod of Milevis and the Second of Orange formerly taught from the Scrip- tures against the Pelagians; and, besides, whatever from the very times of the Apostles and thereafter with 7inanimous and 7iotorious consent, the primitive Church believed and tajight as a necessary article of faith, the same, we also, from the Scripticres profess both to believe and to teach. By this Profession of our faith, therefore, we, as being truly Cath- olic Christians, hereby separate ourselves and our churches from all old and recent Heresies, which the ancient Universal Church with unaui- mous consent, froyn the Scriptures 7'ejected and condemned,'^ (112). (112). A\x^s\.\ Corpus Libronun Symbolicorimt, p. 411: Profitemur itaque imprimis quidem, nos amplecti sacras canotiicas Veteris et Novi Testainenti Scriptiiras, in Veteri, Hebraea, in Novo, Graeca lingua, a Proplietis et Apostolis, instinctu Spiritus Saucti primitus scriptas, quas solas fidci et cult us nostri regu- latn perfectani esse agnoscimus: in quibus aperte posita inveniuntur ilia omnia, quae ad salutem omnibus sunt necessaria, sen, ut b. Augustinus loquitur, quae continent fidem, moresque vivendi, spem scilicet et caritatem. Quarum etiam velut Compendium quoddam, quoad credenda, Symbolo Apostolico, in quod omnes baptizati sumus; quoad facienda, Decalogo, cujus summa cousistit in dilectione Dei et proximi ; quoad petenda et speranda Oratione Dominica continetur. Quae et ipsa a Domino nostro Jesu Christo, in- stitutione turn Baptismi, ceu sacramenti iuitiationis sive reg»nerationis turn S. Eucharistiae, ceu sacramenti nutritionis spiritualis confirmata sunt. In his ergo capitibus summam docftrinae salvificae consistere censemus; cui in ecclesia propagandae et conservandae, sacrum etiam evaugelii praedicandi et sacramentorum administrandorum Ministerium Domiuus Noster instituit, et po- testate clavium spirituali adversus incredulos et immorigeros, armavit Account of the Six Eaimenical Councils. 145 They add further, below, that on the controversies which at the Reformation separated the Western Church, they approve, among other confessions, the Bohemian. This we have quoted above, (113). On this Declaration, Augusti, after speaking of the unsuccessful result of the Leipzig Colloqu}', remarks as follows: "Almost the same holds true of that loving Colloquy which was held in the year 1645 at Thorn under the auspices of Uladislaus IV., King of Poland, between Catholic, lyUtheran and Reformed Theolo- gians. The counsel of a very good King was fruitless, and greater discord burst forth. The reception of the Declaration of Thorn as a new Sj'mbol by the Reformed Church in the territories of Branden- burg was the only fruit that remained. Cf. Hofmanni Hist. lit. Colloquii Charatave Thorun. et Heringii'Q&yXx. zur Gesch. der reform. Kirche, Th. I., p. 158, Th. II., p. 55, seqq." There sentiments for the most part are orthodox and noble. The regard for the Filioqiie is among the things to be regretted. Moreover, certain blunders mar some of these documents. The following may be noted: I. The statement in the Bohemian Confession that "the apostolic faith digested into twelve articles," had been ^^ handed down in a Si quid vero in hisce docflrinae Christianae capitibus dubitationis aut contro- versiae de genuino eonim sensu exoriatur, profitemur porro, nos amplecti ceu interpretatiouem Scripturarum certain et indubitatam, Syniboluni Nicaenum et Constantinopolitanum, iisdem plane verbis, quibus in Synodi Tridentinae Ses- sione tertia, tanquam priucipium illud, in quo omnes qui fidem Christi profiten- tur, necessario conveniuut, et fundamentum firmuni et uuicum, contra quod portae inferoruni nunquam praevalebuut, propouitur. Cui etiam consonare Symbolum, quod dicitur Athanasianum, agnoscimus : nee non Epbesinae primae, et Chalcedonensis Synodi Confessiones : quinetiam, quae quinta et sexta Synodi, Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum reliquiis oppo- suere : quaeque adversus Pclagianos olim Milevitana Synodus et Arausicana .secuuda ex Scripturis docuere. Quinimo, quicquid primitiva ecclesia ab ipsis usque Apostolorum temporibus, unanimi deinceps et notorio consensu tamquam. articulum fidei necessarium credidit, docuit, idem nos quoque ex Scripturis •credere et docere profitemur. Hac igitur fidei nostrae professione, tanquam Christiani vera Catholici ab omnibus veteribus et recentibus Haeresibus, quas prisca Universalis Ecclesia un- animi consensu ex Scripturis rejecit atque damnavit, nos nostrasque ecclesias segregamus. " _^ (113). Id., p. 413. 14G Chapter II . symbol through the Nicaea7i Synod. " If by this is meant as one might understand, that the Western Creed called the Apostles' had been digested into twelve articles before that Synod, and that it had been, handed down through that Council the mistake is a bad one. For the A(5ls of the Council make no mention of it: and when Rufinus first mentions the Western Creed, about A. D. 390, it lacked the twelftk article, and besides was not so full in other articles as it has been made since. But I have shown the baselessness of such notions, more fully in writings on the Creeds which, if God gives me the means, I hope to publish. It is very much to be regretted that vast multitudes of the Con- tinental Reformed have swerved from these productions of some of the ablest theologians they have ever had, into some of the forms of Arianism or infidelity, and that in the British Dominions and in the United States, they have turned aside into later and more unlearned and unscriptural notions. In English-speaking Christendom what- ever of orthodox learning there may be on these points is deluged and swamped in the flood of popular ignorance which rules those bodies: and so some in them make mere feeling without baptism to be regen- eration ; deny a hell, deny the Trinity, deny baptism for the remiss- ion of sins, and other fundamentals. With regard to his work, Au- gust! remarks appositely to the lamentable position of the European Reformed: ' ' Thou hast here, therefore, kindly reader, a new collection of the Symbolic Books of the Reformed Church, which is not only increased by our care, of whatsoever sort that be, but even a little more cor- rect, and disposed in better order. '^ ^ ^ It has been our task so far as it may be done, to assist the desire of those who wish to draw the dodlrine of the Reformed from sources which are known to very few: and we do not doubt that those judges, who are just in these matters will deem our edition adapted to this purpose. This only however we foresee, namely, that those Genevan Pastors, who, in a writing lately published, set forth a Suppression of Belief in Co7ifessio?is, (per- chance, forsooth, as a propitiatory offering to Servetus in the very place of his punishment,) will be sharply incensed at us. For if they bore with pain and difficulty the repetition of the Helvetic Confession put forth anew by two of their own colleagues, how much more angry will they be with us for putting forth the whole body of Confessions! Account of the Six Ecumcyiical Councils. U7 But, although, from our heart we grieve over it, we can have noth- ing in common with anti-creed Pastors and Theologians (who be- sides those of Geneva, seem to have, here and there, brethren 'and comrades), until they change their minds; and nothing remains for us except to endure their attacks with composure, and to suffer it patiently, whether they wish to call us Athanasians, or Mummers, or by any other invidious name whatever," (114). In a note he adds: "In a work put forth by public authority, entitled a Discourse pronounced at the Consistory of the Church of Geneva^ January 14, 1819, by M. de Femey, Pastor, Geneva and Pans, Paschoud, 1819, 8, p. 20, are read these words, namely: " 'The suppression of Confessions of Faith is then, I am sure the most proper means of bringing together individuals and Churches and when these shall be animated by a sincere love of peace, nothing will hinder them from stretching out the hand of fellowship, and from causing the disappearance of all seAs! ' J 'Add the work entitled, Histoire veritable dcs Momiers de Geneve etc. Paris, 1824. 8, p. 76, seqq," (115). That would assuredly be a happy family in which one would hold firm y to the dodrine of the Trinity as vastly and essentially important and another should hold it in utter abhorrence; in which one should profess as articles of saving faith the doc5lrine of Christ's divmity and of his atonement and another should deny both and deem the divme Redeemer a mere creature and the worship of Him butldolatr>^ etc!! Common sense and experience teach that sedS without Confessions, as, for instance, the Antipaedobaptist sedls of England and the new worid, divide readily when they differ into hostile camps. The following varieties of this one particular 'class exist m the United States alone: P-^^ticuiar class ^i. Regular or Calvinistic Baptists. 2. Freewill Baptists. 3. Six Principle Baptists. 4. Campbellites. 5. Seventh Day baptists, single immersiouists. 6. Winebrennarians. 7. Mennonites. (114). August! Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 649 (115). August! Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 650. 148 Chapter II. 8. Reformed Mennonites. 9. Tunkers, First Da)\ 10. Tunkers, Seventh Day. ; II. Anti- Mission Baptists. 12. River Brethren, and at least one or two others. As to the points on which this happy family squabble, and those on which they agree, we can waste no time. Each one of them is perfectly sure that it is right and that the others are wrong. The Regular Baptist baptizes the Mennonite because he has no valid bap- tism, for the Mennonite ordinarily sprinkles or pours; and the Tunker baptizes the Calvinistic Baptist because the Calvinistic Baptist and the other single-immersion seas are not immersed thrice. These are only a few of the varieties. Will not a satirical man say, the conflict of ideas in these sedls is of the same affecflionate and lov- ing kind for which Kilkenny cats are noted when they fairly get at each other? Will not the satirist say, Down with all barriers to fatal and soul-destroying error, then? Let the wolf come into the fold! Let anarchy reign! Let the flock of Christ be scattered and made the laughing-stock of His enemies, of Pagan and Jew and Mohamme- dan! Let it be destroyed! Down with creeds! Is this superlatively sensible, and well pleasing to Christ and beneficial to His religion? Hurrah for cant and twaddle and humbug! NEVIN (one of the reformed) IN FAVOR OF CREEDS. John W. Nevin, D. D. German Reformed, in the Mercersburg Re- view for Nov., 1852, pp. 606-620, has an article which, although de- fective in certain points of learning, is in the main deserving of respect, if much of what he has said of the so-called Apostles' Creed be asserted of the Nicene Symbol and the Constantinopolitan, and of Primi- tive Tradition. But he errs in teaching that the so-called Apostles' Creed was the Norm of Ecumenical doarine in the Ante-Nicene or any other period when the Universal Church was undivided. But the Historic Tradition, that is what was held "everywhere, always and by all" from the first, was a guide in defining on doarine, discipline, rite and custom. What we propose to quote from him is direaed against the patrons of ' 'the Anti-Creed heresy' ' as he terms it, who un- derv^alue the importance of doarinal symbol, in interpreting the Holy Scriptures. He writes: Accou7it of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 149 ' ' There is no such thing in truth as this sort of uns3^mbolical inde- pendence in the interpretation of the Bible ; and those who promise liberty in this way, only bring in always a real bondage of Spirit in the room of the lawful and just authority they dare to set aside. NO' man reads the Bible without a theological habit of some sort, (evea if it be that of a Voltaire or Paine only) which goes to determine for him the sense of its words. Every sect has its Symbol, its tradition, written or unwritten, generally both, for the most part poor, harsh hard, and dead, under whose iron yoke is sung the melancholy song of freedom all the day long. Of all conceivable forms of spiritual vassalage, the most dismal surely is to be estranged from the Ecu- menical faith, the Catholic Creed, of God's Church as it has stood from the beginning, and to be adopted into the glorious liberty of some paltry sect, which has manufactured a new edition of Chris- tianity for its own use, fresh from the mint of the Bible, in the most approved Puritan style, and now requires you, on pain of sore heresy, if not acflual perdition, to read the Bible and do up all your religious thinking in this same fashion precisely, and no other. For our parf^ we think it infinitely more safe, as well as vastly viore respectable, to take the sense of the inspired vohcme, with snch mctt as Irenaeus, Cyp- rian, Athanasiiis, Chrysostom, Augustine, and the ancient fathers generally, frojn the standpoint of the old Eaanenical Councils and Creeds^ than to sit for the same purpose at the feet of any modern sect whatever^ presuming to set up any new scheme of faith, 7iot rooted in the Apostles^ Creed [he should have said ' ' Ecumenical ' ' instead of ' ' Apostles' , " J. C] as a better and surer version of what the Scriptures adlually mean." DIVISION III. QUOTATIONS FROM C0NFE;SSI0NS OP THE REFORMED, ON THE SIX ECUMENICAL, SYNODS, AND ON THE RECEPTION OP THEIR NORMS OF DEFINITION ON THE TWO ECUMENICAL, ,' CREEDS, THAT IS, ON THAT OP THE FIRST ECU- -^' MENICAI, SYNOD AND ON THAT OP THE SECOND. A HEIvVETiC CONFESSION. '^ A brief and simple Co7fession and Exhibition of sincere Christian Faith;' (ii6). (ii6). See Augusti Corpus Libronim Symbolicorum, p. 3. 150 Chapter II. This is the first of the Helvetic Confessions in Augusti's Corpus Librorii77i Symboliconwi. This recognizes the importance of maintaining discipline among ministers, by means of Synods, and the right to lead back into the way of truth any of them who may have erred, if they can be healed, or of deposing them if they are incurable ; and then adds : ' ' At?r do we disapprove Eciunenical Coinicils, if, in accordance with apostolic example, they be celebrated for the safety of the Church, and not for its ruin," (117). Of this Confession, Butler, in his Confessions of Faith, remarks : " It was composed in 1566, b}' Bullinger, under the particular diredlion of the Elector Palatine. Some writers have asserted that the Eledlor was its real author. "With the exception of Basle, it was adopted by all the Helvetic and Rhaetian cities, which had embraced the Reformation. The divines of Basle refused to sign it, not be- cause they objecfted to the dotftrine which it contained; but because, in their opinion, their previous subscription of their own creed, in 1530, rendered it unnecessary. It is greatly esteemed by all the Re- formed Churches, and is particularly curious, from its generally ex- pressing the Zuinglian creed, before it was newl}^ modelled by Calvin," (118). But Angusti gives a different date and a somewhat fuller account, for he writes that " In the year 1566 it was revised and corre(5ted in the name aiid by the authority of all the Helvetic Chui'ches^ tyLQ^^t Basle and Neuf- chatel (excepta Basiliensi et Neocomensi) and approved by the Re- (117). August! Corpus Librorum Symbolicormn, p. 64, 65: Scimus, sacra- tnenta ex institutione et per verbum Christi sandlificari, et efficacia esse piis, tametsi offerantur ab indignis ministris. De qua re ex Scripturis multa contra Donatistas disputavit beatus Dei servus Augustinus. Atqui debet interim justa esse inter miuistros disciplina. Inquirendum enim diligenter in dodlrinam et vitam ministrorum, in Synodis. Corripiendi sunt peccautes a senioribus, et in viam reducendi, si sunt sanabiles, aut depo- nendi et velut lupi abigendi sunt per veros pastores a grege dominico, si sunt in- curabiles. Si enim sint pseudodoctores, niinime ferendi sunt. Neque vero et oecumenica improbamus concilia, si ad exemplum celebrentur apostolicum, ad ecclesiae salutem, non perniciem. (118). Butler's Confessiofis of Faith, ed. London, 1816, p. 41. , Accou7it of {he Six Ecumenical Coiaicils. 151 formed Churches in England, Scotland, France, Belgium, Poland, Hungary and German}'. It was first written at a gathering at Basle in the year 1536, by a triumvirate selected for this business, Henry Bullinger, Oswald Myconius, and Simon Grynaeus, with the special design of promoting good feeling and concord with the adherents of the Augsburgh Confession. But afterwards, when it was seen that this did not come to pass as had been desired, and that this Confession was disapproved by many as not sufficient, at the persuasion of Fred- eric III., especially, the Elector Palatine, it was worked up into a much increased and much more elaborate form. In this business Henr}^ Bullinger, Theodore Beza, and Rudolph Gualterus, had the •chief parts. Compare Rud. Hospiniani Corcordia Discors. Tigur. 1607 f. p. 92, 104, seqq. Ejusdem Histor. Sacrament. P. II., p. 56, seqq., p. 238, p. 564, seqq., (119). A fuller account of it is in the Philadelphia translation of Her- izog's Theological and Ecclesiastical Encyclopaedia, article Helvetic Confessions. This article remarks that " the Confessioji [in German], also the improved Latin editioyi, was finally adopted and subscribed as the co7n- J71071 confessioyi of the Swiss Churches.'" The Preface to it is in Augusti's Corpus Libror., Symbol, p. 623, seq., and, to one curious in such matters, it repays perusal. THE SCOTCH CONFESSION. " The Scotch Confession of Faith. The Orders of the Kingdom, of Scotland ajid all zVi this realm, professiiig Christ fesus atid His Holy Gospel, for their own coiuitrymeti aiidfor other Kifigdoms and Natio?is, j>rofessing together with themselves the same Christ Jesus, pray grace, mercy and peace from God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Spirit of right judgment and salvation. ARTICLE XX. ON GENERAL, COUNCILS — THEIR POWER, THEIR AUTHORITY, AND THE CAUSES OF THEIR ASSEMBLING. " As we do not rashly condemn that, which pious vieyi, legitimately assembled in Ge7ieral Co2aicil have set forth to 7is, so, o?i the other hand, (119). August! Corpus Librarian Synibolicorufn, p. 622. 152 Chapter II. we do not admit whatever^ without just examination^ is thrust on men^ in the na77ie of a General Council, (120). For it is manifest, that in- asmuch as they were men, for that reason certain of them have mani- festly erred, and that too in matters of the greatest weight and mo- ment. So far, therefore, as a Council proves the sentence and com- mand which it gives, by the plain Word of God, so far do we at once reverence and embrace it. But if any persons pretend, in the name of a Council, to coin new articles of our faith, or to make constitu- tions repugnant to the Word of God, notwithstanding it behooves us to reject utterly as do(5lrines of devils all that calls away our souls- from the voice of our God alone to follow the dodtrines and constitu- tions of men, I. Tim. iv., I. The reason, therefore, why General Councils came together was not that they might make any law per- petual which had not already been enadled by God, nor that they might fabricate new articles of our faith, or that they might confer any authority on the Word of God, much less that they might make that to be the Word of God or that to be its true interpretation which had not before been His holy will, expressed in His Word. But the reason why Councils assembled (for we speak of those which deserve the name of Councils) was partly for the refutation of heresies, and to- give a public confession of faith to posterity, for it to follow, botlr which things they did from the authority of the written Word of God, and that too without holding the opinion of their possessing any such, prerogative, as because they were in a General Council, therefore they could not err. This, in our judgment, was the first and princi- pal reason for General Councils. Another was for the establishment and observance of good government in the Church, in which, as being God's House, it is fit that all things be done decently and in order ;■ not, however, that we judge that the same government in every thing, and just the same order of ceremonies in every respect can be established for all ages, times and places. For inasmuch as cere- monies invented by men are only temporary, therefore they can be and they ought to be changed when their use is found to suffer or tO' foster superstition rather than to edify the Church of God," (121). (120). Augusti Corpus Libroruni Synibolicoruni, p. 160, Art. XX. De Coficiliis generalibus, eormn potestate, an^oritate, et causis, cur conveniuut. Quemadmodum non temere damnamus illud, quod viri pii, congregati in general! concilio legitime convocato, nobis proposuerunt; ita sine justo examine non admittimus quicquid hominibus, generalis concilii nomine, obtruditur. (121). Augusti Corpus Libroruin Symbolicorum, p. 160-162. AccoiDit of the Six Ecumeyiical Councils. ISS" This contains some things which are excellent and some things, which need limiting. The General Councils here faulted were probably the local Synods of the whole West which after the separa- tion of West and East were termed General, in the West. The Second of Nicaea, the so-called Seventh Ecumenical Synod, would be included. In Article XVIII., this Confession states: ' ' If therefore an interpretation, determination, or sentence of any doctor of the Church or of a Council is repugnant to the express. word of God, in any other place of Scripture, it is certain that that interpretation is not the mind and sense of the Holy Spirit, although Councils, Kingdoms, and Nations may have admitted and approved it. For we dare not admit any interpretation which is repugnant to any chief article of faith, or to any plain text of Scripture or rule oflove," (122). On this confession August! remarks : ' ' The statement in the Syntagma that ' it was written in the year 1368 in the Scotch language alone'' is false. That this statement is not a typographical error is clear from what follows : // was first published in the year one thousand five hundred and sixty-eight. But it is certain that it was hastily written in a full session of the Edin- burgh Parliament (for a space of only four days was allowed) and it was there exhibited and confirmed. Cf. Stuarti Gesch. der Reformat, in Scotland, p. 225, seqq. et Schroekhii Kirchengesch. seit d. Re- format. Th. II., p. 478 seqq. John Knox is reputed to have been its chief author. "What is exhibited in the Syntagma, p. 126-128, namely, ' The General Con/cssio7i of the true and Christian Faith a)id Religion, accord- i?ig to the word of God and the acts ofoiir Parliaments, which his Royal Majesty and his family and various others have subscribed for the glory of God, and as a good example to all. At Edinburgh, on the 28th day of fanuary A, D., 1581, and in the fourteeyith year of His Royal Majesty s reig?i,' is nothing else at all but a new confirmation and commendation of the Scotch Confession. The Scots solemnly declare that they will firmly adhere to the Confession publicly confirmed, in all its articles, and that they will manfully defend it against Popery, (122). Id., p. 160. 154 Chapter II. and especially against the erroneous and bloody decrees of the Council of Trent. A little after this is added: 'We therefore * * * protest, and call the searcher of hearts and reins to witness, that our minds and hearts do plainly assent to this Confession, promise, oath and subscription,' etc. Although such great praise had been lavished upon this Confes- sion; and although it had thus been exalted so high, nevertheless, a little while after, it was receded from, and a new Co7ifession of the JPresbyterians, Qova^os&^'wxWiQ.y^zx 1643 and 1646, succeeded to its place. This last has the following title : ' Confession of Faith elabor- ated in an Assembly of Divines, convoked by the authority of the English J^arliaine7it, and afterwards exhibited to the same Parliajnent, a7id moreover 7'ecog7iized and approved by the same, and thereafter by the Scotch Kirk, together with the double Catechism. Cambridge 1559 [1649?]' And this prevails among the Reformed in England and •Scotland even at this day, but not, however, in such a sense as wholly to take away all symbolic authority from that which has been men- tioned above, " (123). The tetrapolitan confession. " 77/' means to recall them into the way before they enabled anything more severe against them," (127) etc. quae illis exsistunt consentauea. Inter quae ilia sunt, quae Christ! ecclesia de sacrosaudla Triade hacfleuus credidit, uempe unum esse substantia Deum, Pat- rem, Filium et Spiritum Sandlum, nee uUatn quam personarutn discrimen reci- pere. Serv'atorem quoque nostrum Jesum Christum, eundem verum Deum, etiam vernm hominem facflum, uaturis quidem impermixtis, at ita in eadem persona unitis ut in omnia secula nunquam rursus solvantur. * * * In his quoniam nihil a Patribus, nihil a communi Christianorum consensu variamus, satis fore credimus, hunc in modum nos fidem nostram esse testatos. (126). Ibid. (127). See Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicorum, p. 365: Malit itaque S. M. T. exempla sequi potentissimorum et vere felicium Caesarum, Constantini, Joviniani, Theodosii, et similium, qui dotftrina omni cum mansuetudine quo- tidie per sandliss. et vigilantiss. Episcopos impartita, turn conciliis rite coactis, _gravique cmniiim reruni discussione, cum errantibus agere, tentareque omnia, ut in viam eos revocarent, prius quam severius quicquam in eos statuerent, quam eorum quibus constat fuisse consultores, et priscis illis vereque san<5tis patribus dissimillimos, et eventum quoque contigisse pietati illorum parum respond- entem. * 156 Chapter II. Then they complain of the Council of Constance, which was not Ecumenical but only Western, and therefore local. Below complaint is made of the disrespect shown former Coun- cils, and they pray the Emperor not to regard the Council of Con- stance, ''especially since he may see that of unmunbercd decrees not less holy than necessary of former Councils not even a hair is observed by Ecclesiastics, and so every thing had degeyierated among them to such an extent that there is no one endowed with even conwion sense, who does^ not exclaim that a cojmcil is needed to restore religion, and the sayictity of the ecclesiastical order, " (128). THS LEIPZIG COI.1.OQUY. This has a thoroughly Orthodox passage against the Nestoriaa heresy, which tells well for the learning of its composers. Thet theologians of the Electorate of Brandenburg and of the Princedom^ of Hesse, say as follows : ' ' They uncontradictiiigly believe, not less than the Saxon Electorate,, that God the Son became very man, bor^i out of the Virgin Mary, wha before, in, and after her delivery remai?ied a true virgin, a7id she wai not only a Mayi-bearer, and not only A'p:(TToroxo? or a Christ-bearer, but in the true sense a deordxo?, God-bearer," (129). THK DECLARATION OF THORN. The signers of this Declaration ' ' acknowledge' ' the faith of the first six Ecumenical Synods, at least what of them is outside of some Canons of those Councils, for they state : (128). August! Corpus Libroriim Synibolicoriim, p. 366: Hinc S. M. T., re-1 vocare se illud ne patiatur, quod pleraque, de quibus nunc disceptatur, decisa' sunt olim, et praecipue in Concilio Constarrtiensi, maxime cum videat ex innu- meris, non minus Sanctis quam necessariis supefiorum conciliorum decretis, ne pilum quidem ab Ecclesiasticis servari, sicque degenerasse apud eos omnia, ut nemo vel commuui sensu praeditus, non clamet, concilio ad restituendam reli4 gionem, ecclesiasticique ordinis sanctimoniam, opus esse. (129). Augusti Corpus Librorum Symbolicoruvt, p. 391. Denn sie [diet Chur. Brandenburgische und Fiirstliche Hessische] nicht weniger als die Chut* Sachsische unwidersprechlich glaubeten, Gott der Sohn sey wahrer Mensch geworden, geboren aus der Jungfrauen Maria, welche, vor, in, und nach der Geburt eine reine Jungfrau geblieben, und nicht nur eine Menschengebarerin, auch nicht nur XptaT0T6K0(; oder eine Christegebarerin, sondem wahrhaftig eine: QeoTOKog Gottesgebarerin, sey. Account of the Six Eaimenical Coiindls. 157 ** We embrace as a stire and undoubted interpretation of the Scrip- tures the Nicaea?t atid the Constantinopolitan Symbol, in the very same words in which it is set forth in the third session of the Council of Trent, as that starting point i7i which all who profess ChrisV s Faith necessarily agree, and as the firm and only foundation against which the gates of the i7ifemal regions shall never prevail. "'And we acknowledge that with this Symbol agrees * =i= * the confessions of the First Synod of Ephesus, a7id of the Synod of Chalce- don, and, moreover, those which the Fifth and Sixth Syiiods opposed to the relics of the Nestorians and of the Eutychians. ' ' They add further : " And, besides, whatever, from the very times of the Apostles, ajid thereafter, with una?iimous and notorious consent, the primitive Church believed and taught as a 7iecessary article of faith, the sa77ie, we also, from the ScT^ptures, profess both to believe and to teach.'' See more of the English and the Latin above, pp. 143 to 145. The above professions logically followed out would make them iDelieve all primitive Christian doctrine, discipline and rite, so far as they were held as 7iecessary, as well as the faith of the Six Synods. THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION. This in the form adopted as "the Confession of Faith," of "the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, ' ' thus speaks ■"of Synods and Councils." "chapter XXXI. OP SYNODS AND COUNCII^ with the radical Arian that is, Eunomian, party to which he belonged. His testimony is branded again and again as false by the learned Photius. 164 Chapter III. Constantine had good intentions, but, as his letter to Alexander and Arius proves, was at first without any due sense of the vital charadler of the points involved. Afterwards he did better. But to- wards the last he fell into the hands of Arian ecclesiastics, though even then he recalled Athanasius from exile. Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, was an Arian, as St. Athanasius, elsewhere to be quoted, shows, Auxano, was a Novatian presbyter, and therefore a schismatic, perhaps we may say, therefore, a heretic. Socrates was a layman, whose orthodoxy, justly or unjustly, has been called in question. He fails often to appreciate the value of a stand for truth on the part of its early champions, owing to his in- difference to dodtrine. I^ike many other laymen, he is so shallowly fond of \h^ practical zs, occasionally to forget that the basis of oW. prac- tice acceptable to God is His dogmatic teaching by his Holy Spirit in the Word and in the Church in Ecumemical Council assembled. Sozomen writes with that mixture of thoroughness and shallow- ness which might be expedled of a mere civil lawyer discoursing on recondite theological questions. Section i. Arius. 2. His charaBer and personal appearance. 3. His talents. 4. His pride of intellect. 5. Cheerftd aspen of the Church Just before the Arian heresy arose. 6. The beginning of the Arian Controversy. 7. Arius and his Heresies. 8. St. Athanasius brands his heresy as resulting in poly- theism, and creature-worship. St. Epiphanius and other Fathers to the same effeB. 9. Spread of creature-service the result of Arian teaching. I. The founder of the Arian heresy was Arius (132), who is said to have been a Libyan (i 33). ''At first, ' ' writes Sozomen (i 34), (132). Sozomen, i., 15. (133). Epiplian. Haeres., Ixix., i. (134). Sozomen, i., 15. Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 165 '■'pretending to be zealous for dogma, he cooperated with Meletius,'" ^hs. Egyptian schismatic, "m his hmovations. But afterwards he forsook him and was ordained deaco7i by Peter the Bishop of Alexandria.'" Peter's episcopate was in A. D. 300-311. '' Aiid agaiii he was cast out of the church by him because zvhcn Peter excommunicated the partisans of Meletius and refused to admit their baptistn, Arius attacked the acts of Alexander and could not bear to be quiet (135). But when. Peter died a martyr, Arius asked pardon of Achillas [Peter's succes- sor], and was permitted to minister as deacon, and was deemed worthy of the presbyterate:' Achillas was bishop of Alexandria A. D. 311, 312. '' A7id after those things Alexander'' [Achillas' successor and bishop of Alexandria, A. D. 312-325] ''also held him [Arius] in honor (136). And Arius became very -much skilled in dialectics, for he was said to be not without a share of knowledge in sJich sciences ; and he developed absurd doH-rines, so that he dared to declare in church WHAT HAD NEVER BEEN SAID BY ANY OTHER BEFORE HIM, namely, THAT THE Son op God was made out of things which had Na EXISTENCE, AND THAT THERE WAS ONCE WHEN HE WAS NOT, AND THAT He is CAPABLE OP VIRTURE AND OP VICE, AND THAT HE IS A CREATURE AND A WORK, and many other things which one who main- tained such absurdities would be likely to assert as he went forward into disputations and into the examination of particular questions." One incident related of him by the inexact and Arian writer Philostorgius would be much to his credit if true. Photius epito- mizes his statement thus: 2, "The impious Philostorgius says that when the votes for the (135). In the English translation of this place in Bohn's Ecclesiastical Library, we find the following note: "In the Acts of Peter the Martyr, (which are so ancient that they are quoted by Justinian), it is asserted that Arius was excommunicated on account of his; perverse opinions, and not as Sozomen here says, because he sided with the Meletians. As Valesius remarks, it is somewhat strange that neither Alexander nor Athanasius make any mention of this excommunication of Arius by Peter." However strange it may be, it is not so strange as to render the statement incredible, for there are other things which are related by another or others, of which they do not speak, when we might suppose they would. Moreover, such omissions are common in all periods. Besides, the remains of Alexander are quite meagre. (136). Sozomen 's Eccl. Hist., i., 15. 166 Chapter III. archiepiscopate [of Alexandria] were inclining to Arius, Arius pre- ferred Alexandei to himself, and so contrived that the votes turned about to him" (137). But Philostorgius' work abounds in lies. Photius justly criti- cizes it as follows: "The History was written by Philiostorgius as an encomium on the heretic, and as a slander and a casting of blame upon the Orthodox rather than as a history" (138). In his epitome of Philostorgius' so-called Histoty, Book II., chap, xi., he denominates him. " This impious contriver of falsehood" (139); moreover the date of the alleged adlion was before the beginning of Alexander's pope- dom, and therefore before Arius' lapse into heres}'. 2. Epiphanius this describes his character a^id personal appearaiice: ' ' The old man, puffed up by vanity, stood aside from the appointed way. He was of very tall stature, of downcast look, apparelled him- self like a crafty serpent, and was able to steal away ever>^ guileless heart by means of his unscrupulous pretence. For he was such a person that he always wore a hemiphoriuni (140) and a colobion, (141). He was sweet in his address, always persuading and flattering souls," (142). 3. Arius' talents. Sozomen writes of him that "he became very much skilled in dialecflics" (143), and Socrates speaks of him as "'not ivithout some share of dialectic utterance,''' (144). 4 . His p ride of in telle 51. (137). Philostorgius' Eccl. Hist., col. 461, tome 65, of Migne's Patrologia Graeca. (138). Id., Preface before bk. i., col. 460, tome 65, of Migne's Patrologia Graeca. (139). Id., II., xi., col. 473, Migne, id. (140). Sophocles, in his Glossary of Later and Byzantine Greek, informs us that this i/uiPi)oitiov and the i'/Mpdi>iov were the same, viz.: a 'Hight outer gar- 3nent.'" The name signifies a /la// <;4a/uof. See ^apof. (141). Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexion, under Ko'Aoliluv refers us to Ko/.ui3ii)i', both words having the same signification, viz. : an under-garine7it, with its sleeves rwr/azVij'iZ' (v. Ao/oJor), i. e., reaching only half down to the elbow, or entirely without sleeves. On both ijiinpopun' and mKo[ikdv see Patavius, animadver- sion, p. 2S4, t. ii., of his edition of Epiphanius, Colon., A. D. 1682. (142). Epiphan. Haeres., Ixix., 3. (143). Sozomen Eccl. Hist., i., 15, col. 905, A., tome 67, of Migne's Patro- logia Graeca. (144). Socrates' Eccl. Hist., i., 5, col. 41, A., id. Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 167 Epiphanius ascribes his departure from truth to his being "puffed up with vanity," (145)- The language of Alexander, Pope [that is Father] of Alexandria, (we use ancient terms in ancient senses) is more detailed, and exhibits in a strong light the disregard of the Arians for the Historical Tradition of the Church, a feature in all the rout of similar Antitrinitarian heresies since. After stating the heresies of Arius and the deacon (or presbyter) Achillas, Alexander adds : "We therefore, though slowly, because their errors were concealed from us, infli(5led on them those penalties which befitted both their lives and their unholy attempt, for by a unanimous vote we expelled them from the Church which worships the Divi^iity of Christ,'" (146). Further on in the same document, Alexander after speaking of their sins against Christ, adds : ' ' And why then, beloved [brethren] should what I am about to write be deemed wonderful; why should it be deemed wonderful, if I shall set forth their lying and false accusation against me, and against our most pious laity ? For those who have arrayed themselves against the Divinity of the Son of God do not shun to utter their unfavorable and drunkard-stories against us. They do not deem any of the ancients worthy to be compared with themselves, nor can they bear to be put on a level with those teachers with whom we were conversant from our boyhood. Moreover, they do not think that any of our fellow- ministers anywhere possesses even a measure of wisdom, but say that they themselves alone are wise and that they themselves alone are without property; and that they themselves are discoverers of dodlrines, and that those things have been revealed to themselves alone which never came into the mind of any man under the Sun. Oh unholy conceit, and unmeasured madness, and empty glorying which befits the melancholic, and oh the Satanic way of thinking which has become inveterate in their unholy souls ! Neither the dear to God clearness of (145). Epiphau. Haeres., Ixix., cap. 3, 'E-n/j/^rt }fi/) a/)^f!f 6 yt'pui' ro'v ■KpaKtiidvnu liinrr/. (146). Col. 889, tome 82 of Migne's Pairologia Graeca, Theodoret's Eccl. Hist., book i., chap. 3 : Trduij'f/ifitirf/c; TrixiaKn'ol^ar/c Xptarov tt'/v Qt:6rT/Ta ai'Toix' 'EKK/.rjaia^ 'e^i/'/.naniui'. This contains a hint in favor of the dodlrine of St. Cyril of Alexan- dria's Anathema VIII., and Anathema IX. of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod. 168 Chapter III. the ancient writings has not sufficed to put them to shame, nor has the harmonious piety of our fellow-ministers regarding Christ lessened their audacity against Him. Not even the demons can endure their unholy conduct, for they are on their guard against uttering any blasphemous expression against the Son of God (147). Theodoret associates Arius^ love of power a?td jealousy \\ith. the origin of his heresey: for in Chapter I., book i, of his Ecclesiastical History, he writes: "At that time Arius, who was enrolled in the catalogue of the presbyters, and was entrusted with the explanation of the Scriptures of God, seeing that Alexander's hand held the helm of the High Priest- hood(i48), did not bear up against the assault of envy ; but being pricked on by it, he began to seek for occasions for quarreling and for confli(5l. And [yet] when he gazed at the praiseworthy conduct of the man, he could not contrive any accusations against him, but, nevertheless, his envy hindered him from keeping quiet. The enemy of the truth find- ing him a fit instrument for his wickedness by him stirs up and moves a surging tempest against the Church. For he persuades him to con- tradidt openly the Apostolic teaching of Alexander. And [so] when Alexander, following the godly docflrines (149), was saying that the Son is of the same honor as the Father and that He has the same S7ib- stance as the Father who brought him forth, Arius [on the other hand] openly fighting against the truth, called Him a ^^ creature and a work;'' and added the expression, ' * There was once whe^i He was not, ' ' and those other errors which we shall learn more clearly from his writings. And not only did he continue to say those things in the Church, but also outside in assemblies of the people, and in sessions of the clergy. And going about among the houses he led captive as many as he could. But Alexander, the advocate of the Apostolic Dogmas, at first tried by exhortations and by counsels to persuade him to change his mind. But when he saw that he was as frantic as a Corybant (147). Theodoret, Eccl. Hist., i, 3, col. 901, C, tome 67 of Migne's Patro- logia Graeca. (148). Greek, apxi-^P^'^vv-qq, that is the episcopate. To-day one sometimes hears in Greece the term High Priest {apxiepevc) for Bishop. (149). Or, according to another reading, "the divine Oracles,''^ rolq deiocg- ?.oyioig, where Oracles mean the Scriptures, as in Rom. iii., 2, etc. Aaount of the Six Ecumenical- Councils. 169 (150) and that he was openly preaching his impiety, he expelled him from the hieratic registers: for he heard the L,aw of God crying out, If thy right eye cause thee to offeiid^ pluck it out and cast it from thee''* (151)- 5. The cheerful aspect of the church zvhen Arius appeared is thus depicted by Theodoret; who though free from Arian denial of Christ's Divinity, nevertheless favored Nestorius, the man-worshipper: ' ' After the death of the wicked tyrants, Maxentius, Maximin and lyicinius, the storm abated which their atrocity had, like a furious whirlwind, excited against the church : the hostile winds were hushed and tranquility ensued. This was effe(5led by Constantine, a prince deserving of the highest praise, who, like the divine apostle, was not called by man or through man, but by God (152). He ena(5led laws prohibiting sacrifices to idols, and commanding churches to be ere(5led. He appointed believers to be the governors of the provinces, ordered that honor should be shown to the priests, and threatened with death those who dared to insult them. The churches which had been destroyed were rebuilt, and others still more spacious and magnificent than the former ones were ere(5led. Hence the concerns of the church were smiling and prosperous, while those of her opponents were involved in disgrace and ruin. The temples of the idols were closed ; but frequent assemblies were held, and festivals celebrated in the churches. But the Devil, the enemy of mankind, although conscious that the church was upheld by the Creator and Ruler of the world, could not see her sailing on her course in pros- perity without devising plans for overwhelming her. When he per- ceived that his former artifices had been detedled, that the error of idolatry was recognized, and that the greater number of men worship- ped the creator, instead of adoring, as heretofore, the creature, he did not dare to declare open war against our God and Saviour ; but having found some who, though bearing the name of Christians, (150). The Corybanis were priests of Cybele, and their rites were of a frenzied, enthusiastic, and wild character, so that the word here used «o/>r,3aiT<- livra, from Kopv,3avTi(Ju, came to mean one who acted in a frenzied, wild manner. See that Greek word in Liddell and Scott's Greek Lexicon. (151). Migne's Patrologia Graece, tome 82, column 885. Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapter i. (152). Gal. i., I. 170 Chapter III. were yet slaves to ambition and vainglory, lie thought them fit instruments in the execution of his designs. He accordingly used them as the means of drawing others back into error, not indeed by the former artifice of setting up the worship of the creature, but by attempting to bring down the Creator to a level with the creatures" (153). Theodoret should have added that Arius not only made God the Word to be a creature, but also by so doing reintroduced creature- worship and polytheism. But as he was a Nestorian, he was a man- worshipper himself. 6. The Beghnmig of the Arian CoJitroversy is not told by all authors in the same manner. But perhaps all the accounts may be reconciled, at least in the main, by placing the events in the follow- ing order: I. Personal ambition had much to do with the rise of the heresy. This is charged against Arius by his own bishop, Alexander (154). Indeed, factions and heretical action among the Alexandrian pres- byters were not confined to him, for we are informed by Epiphanius, that each of four ministers of that rank, Colluthus, Carpones, Sarmatas and Arius had by variety of interpretation in their public teachings, each one in his own separate congregation, caused strife among the people, so that some ranged themselves under the standard of Arius, others under that of Colluthus, others under that of Carpones, and others under that of Sarmatas and some termed themselves Colluthians, and others Arians,( 155). Colluthus had even gone so far as to teach perverse heresy, though it soon (153). Theodoret Eccl. Hist., translation in Bohn's Eccl. Lib., Book I., Chapter ii. (154). See his Epistle to Alexander in Theodoret's Ecd. Hist., i., 4. (155). Epiphan. Haeres., Ixix., cap. 2, Petavius ed. After mentioning •churches of the Orthodox in Alexandria, he adds: 'Ev fiiq Se tovtuv KoAAoi^ffof tcq vnfjpxtv, iv hkpa &i Kap^icjvr/^, tv a7JKi) tVe ^apjuarai, nal 'Kpeiog ovrog 6 ■KpoEiprifiEvoQ fiiav Tuv TrpoEipTjfiivuv Karixt^v '"EKKXyjaiav. 'EKaarog <5e tovtuv d^Aov /card r^v eldiafievr/v ■ovva^cv Tov avTu TrfmaTtvfihov Xabv SidaoKuv, iv raig k^i]yr]aeatv ipiv riva evejSalov iv tu Tiau. Kal ol [lev TrpoaeKXlOr/aav 'Xpitu, erepoi (Je KoTiXovdu, aklot 6e KapTTuvri, erepoi 6e "ZapfiaTa. 'i2c ovv i^riyelro eKaa-oq iv rij ISla ''E.Kn'Xrjala, a?.?Mg aX?.o ri^ Kal dA/lof d/l/lo, e/c r^g TTpoaidyffeug [Forte Trpoff/cAtfffwf, marg. note] Kal enalvov 6e tov nap* avTuv, oi ftiv KoA- 7.avftiavovg iavmhg Lvofiaaav^ a?2ot fSf 'Apeiavoiig. This reveals a sad state of strife among the presbyters of a single city. Accojmi of the Six Eaimenical Cou7icils. 171 ■perished, and presbyter only as he was, had assumed the functions of a bishop, and had ordained many presbyters and deacons. His •ordinations, however, were afterwards cancelled in a Synod held at Alexandria, as is asserted by St. Athanasius(i56). Alexander teaches plainly that he was guilty of the sin of making merchatidise of Christ (157), or simony. Carpones and Sarmatas followed the heresy of Arius. Their names are signed with his to a letter from Nicomedia containing a profession of their heresy (158). It was written after their expulsion (i 59). If the Colluthiani mentioned by St. Augustine are the same as the A'oXXooOuivou^ mentioned here b}^ Ephiphanius, the heresy which distinguished them was the assertion that God had not made evil things(i6o). Besides this Alexandria was cursed by the Puri- tan schism of Meletius, not to mention other sedls. So that its Bishop certainly had his hands full of trouble. Alexander charges Arius with imitating, though with less reason, the ambition of Colluthus. He writes as follows: "Alexander sendeth greeting in the lyOrd to Alexander the most honored and same-minded brother. The rule- loving and money-loving disposition of wretched men is always wont to plot against those dioceses which seem to be the greater, and on dif- ferent pretexts such men assail the church's piety. For, goaded to frenzy by the devil who works in them, they are driven on to their purposed lust, and they skip away from all piety, and trample on the fear of God's judgment. Inasmuch as I have suffered from them it was necessary that I should tell the fadls regarding them to your piety, in order that you may be on your guard against such men, lest .any of them may dare to attack your dioceses, also either in their own persons (for the cheats are wont to play the hypocrite to deceive), or by letters Ijangly and elegantly gotten up and capable of stealing away the man who cherishes simple and pure faith. And so Arius and Achillas have lately made a conspiracy and have (156). Page p. 15, of Bohu's edition of the English Translation of Theodoret. (157). Epistle of Alexander of Alexandria to Alexander of Constantinople, in Theodoret, Eccl. Hist., i., 3. (158). Epiphan. Haeres., Ixix., 7, S. (159). Id., Haeres., Ixix., 2, 3, ad. fin. (160). Augustin. Lib. de Haeres. Haeres., Ixv. : "Coluthiani a quodam Colutho, qui dicebat Deum non facere mala ; contra illud quod scriptum est, £go Deus creafis tnala.'" Is., xlv., 7. 172 Chapter III. emulated Colluthus' love to rule, and have adled in a much worse- way than he did." At this epoch Alexandria contained several churches, over each of which a presbyter was appointed. Epiphanius notes this, as it would seem, as a singular circumstance. For in early times and in his day the general rule had been for the churches of the cities out- side of the cathedral to be supplied from it, the modern parish system not having yet been generally established. Alexandria however was an exception, for here it was customary to place a presbyter in per- manent change of each congregation (i6i). The account of this arrangement given by Epiphanius is as follows : ' ' They say that he" [Arius] "was a I^ibyan by nation, and became a presbyter in Alexandria. He was over the church called the Baucalis. For all the churches of the Universal Church in Alexandria are under one Archbishop ; and particular presbyters are placed over them (162), for the ecclesiastical needs of those of the inhabitants who are near each church, and quarter or labae (163), as they are termed in the dialect of their country, by the Alexandrians inhabiting the city," (164). This position gave him an opportunity of propagating his doc- trine for a time, at least, in secret. From Epiphanius, we learn that Arius craftily at first propa- gated his heresy unknown to his Bishop. For ' 'straightway he drew off under one banner" (165), " seven hundred of the virgins of the (161). See the ten volume edition of Bingham's Antiquities^ Oxford, A. D. 1855, Vol. VIII., p. 432, index under "Parochial Churches," and especially Vol. III., p. 416-418, Book IX., Chap, viii., Sec. 5, where the very passage above quoted from Epiphanius is adduced. (162). The Greek is KOt nar' Idiav Tavraic kntTETay/isvoi nat npeafivTEpoi., 6ia rag iKKlr^aiaaTimq xP^'^i ^"'^ oiKTjrdpuv, TrTir/aiuv eKaaTTjq '^KKlrjaiag avrCiv, Koi afKJidduv, fj -01 ^ajiuv imxupig KakovfiEVuv vnb tuv tt/v 'AT^e^avApcuv KnroiKoiwTuv irdliv. See It m Epiphan. Haeres., Ixix., i. This might imply that two or more presbyters were attached to every church, but that one was over the rest, or it may mean that there was only one in each church. (163). The term in the Greek is lajiuv. In the margin of p. 727, t. i, Petavius' edition of Epiphanius, Colon., A. D. 1682, is found "Forte Aavpuv.'' See the edition of Bingham just mentioned, Vol. iii., p. 416, note 91, where the reading Tiafipuv is suggested. Both "kavpuv and la^puv mean alleys, lanes. (164). Epiphan. Haeres., Ixix., i. (165). Epiphan. Haeres., Ixix., cap. 3. Account of the Six Eaimenical Coiincils. 173 church, and, the account of it has it, seven presbyters and twelve deacons" (i66). Nor did the poison stop here. It extended itself to certain members of the episcopal order. For he persuaded and led away with him Secundus, Bishop of Pentapolis, and others. ' ' But these things, " writes Epiphanius, "occurred in the church without the knowledge of the blessed Alexander the Bishop " (167), until his suffragan Archbishop (168) Meletius the prelate from the Thebaid told him (169). For as yet Meletius had not gone to the extreme of hostility which afterwards marked him, (170). At this point Alexander, at whose sermon, if we may credit Socrates, Arius had started his opposition, now reappears on the stage. He sends for Arius, and asks him whether the charge against him is true. Arius, without doubt or fear at once avows his misbelief in plain terms. Then Alexander assembles his presbytery, and certain Bishops who were present (171), "and sat down as judge, to hear the statements of the contending parties" (172). Up to this time his con- duct had been most forebearing. Even after he knew of Arius ' defec- tion, he was very patient with him, and tried persuasion before he cut them off from the Church. Sozomen goes so far as to assert that ' ' some seized on the things said by Arius, and kept blaming Alexan- der on the ground that he ought not to endure his innovations against Christian dogma. ' ' There were, according to him, two examinations of Arius by Alexander (173). He adds that even during the debate in the second (the first ended without a final decision) he seemed to be somewhat passive, on one point praising one set of disputants, on an- other point the other set (174). (166). Ibid. These virgins v/ere females. Sometimes males are so called, as in Rev. xiv., 4. (167). Ibid. (168). Ibid. Epiphanius expressly here terms him ap;f'£''''''^'fO'^''f and at the same time a suffragan of Alexander. From this we may infer the extent of the jurisdidlion of Alexandria. (169). Ibid. 'Ey/pfro ^s ravra kv rij ''EKKlr/aia, ayvoovvToc tov fiaKapiov 'A7.E^av6po\) Tov 'E-taaonov, cur ore Me^t/tioCi k. t. /,. (170). Ibid. (171). See for all these fadls, Epiphau. Haeres., Ixix., 3. (172). Sozomen, Eccl. Hist., i., 15. (173). Ibid. (174). Ibid. 174 Chapter III. All this shows, to say the least, extreme mildness on his part. Indeed, if any doctrinal leaning be understood by the last cited pas- sage, he failed in his duties to that sacred traditioned deposit of vital, dodlrine which it was his duty to guard (175). And it is clear that the swiftness of a(5lion of the right minded about him would have been, more rapid than his own had they been in his place. But however" much like vacillation his mildness appeared while the case was under' investigation, the righteous firmness of the man became apparent as soon as the ends of j ustice in the investigation were answered. Then- he commanded Arius to receive the docftrine that the Son is '^ consub- stantial and co-eternaV with the Father^ and to reject what is opposed to that doctrine (176), and on his persisting in his heres}^ ^' ejected liini from the order of the presbytery, and excommunicated Imn, (177). And with him were reft off the 700 Virgins aforesaid, and the clergy aforesaid, and a large multitude " (178). His co-workers who were cut off with him, of the diocese of Alexandria, were, according to Sozo- men, the presbyters, Aeithalas, and Achillas, and Carpones and Sar- matas, and Arius; and the deacons, Euzoius and Macarius, Julius,, and Menas, and Helladius (179). In the same chapter he states that no small part of the Alexandrian laity followed the excommunicated. Arian clerics, some because they had embraced their heresy, and others because they pitied them, as often happens in such cases.. They were not wise. The beginning of the Arian controversy is told us by Socrates,, who, judging from his writings, may have been a Novatian, and is (175). A uote in col. 905, tome 82, of Migne's Patrologia Graeca saj-s that the testimony of all writers other than Sozomeu proves that Alexander was not uncertain even at the first what opinion he should follow, but always followed that which is Orthodox. (176). Sozomen, Ecd. Hist., i., 15. His account savors of the shallowness of a lawj'er, lacking due appreciation of the value of dogma, rather than of the. erudite theologian. (177). Epiphan. Haeres., Ixix., cap. 3. (17S). Ibid. (179). Sozomeu's Ecclesiastical History, Book I., cap. 15, But Alexander mentions Arius only as a presbyter. See Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History,, Book I., chap. iv. Accoiuit of the Six Eanncnical Cou?idls. 175. deemed by some to have been such (iSo). la chapter iv., book i, of his Ecclesiastical Histo?y, he tells of the vidlory of the Emperor Constantine over L,icinius and of the peace which ensued, which was so favorable for the Church. He then proceeds to state that Achil- las succeeded Peter in the see of Alexandria, Peter having died a martyr for the faith in the reign of Diocletian, and that Achillas was succeeded by Alexander, who welded together or increased the church; and that once when he was treating of theological topics before his presbyters and the rest of his clerics he made the assertion that " There is a Monad in the Trinity (i8i), that is a unity in the Trinity, that is that Three are One. Socrates adds: "But a certain Arius, one of the presbyters sub- ject to him, a man not wdthout some share of dialectic speech, suppos- ing that the Bishop was bringing in the dogma of Sabellius the Libyan, from his love of strife bent away into the opinion which is diametrically^ opposite to that of the "Libyan, and as it seemed good to him to do, he fiercely opposed himself to the utterances of the Bishop, and saith: '''If the Father generated the Son, he who teas generated has a beginning of existence ; and from that it is clear that there ivas once when the Son zvas not, and it necessarily follows that He has His Sjibstance from things not existing'' " (182). Here we see four of the heresies condemned in the Nicene Creed, namely: 1 . " There was otice 7vhen the Son of God zvas not, ' ' and 2. "He has His substance from things not existing," that is, He did not come "out of the Father' s substaiice ,'' as the Creed asserts, but (180). Cardinal Baronius in his Annals, and Philip Labbaeus in his De Scriptoribtcs Ecclesiasticis, assert that Socrates was of the Novatian sect. Nice- phorus also expresses the same opinion in the preface to his Ecclesiastical His- tory, ("L,ife of Socrates" in Bohn's vSocrates' Ecclesiastical History, preface, page 6). The writer of that preface in Bohn, and Prof. Bright in the preface to his Socrates' Ecclesiastical History, take the opposite view, but do not prove it clearly. (181). Socrates' Ecclesiastical History, Bright's edition. Book I., Chapter v., Ka/ 7ro7E TrapovTtji' rup vrr' ci'vtij 7rpi:tyj3vTi:f)uv Kal Tcji^ AoirruD li'ArjptKiJv, (jjiXoTLfioTEpov -t:pl TTjq dyiag Tptadag iv Tpiwh uovafia ilvai (fiLTioaofuv, Edeo?i6}'ei. (182). Socrates' Ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapter v., Bright's edi- tion, Oxford, 1878, page 5: Kal (pr/alv, d 6 Trarijp iytvvijae top Ylbv, apx'/v vrrdp^euc Ex^t o yEvvrfitlq Kal ek tovtov dff/Mv, on ijv ote ovk i/v o Yidf dKo2.ovOel te i^ dvayKij^, e| ova ovTuv EX£iv avTov ttjv imoaraciv. 176 Chapter III. was made * ' out of thhigs not \then\ existing, ' ' that is ' ' oiit of nothing. Hence, of course, according to Arius, 3. The Son of God is a ''creature ;'' and hence, according to Arius, 4. ' ' Before He was generated He zvas not. ' ' Hence, 5. Of course all worship of the Son of God, according to Arius, is the worship of a creature ; that is, creature-worship, and as he worshipped Him, he was on his own theory a creature-worshipper, contrary to Christ's own command in Matthew iv., 10, " Thoti shalt bow to the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve. ' ' 6. Inasmuch as he made the Father to be an eternal God, and because an eternal, therefore a superior God, and the Son to be a mere creature, and yet a God, and because a creature and non-eternal, there- fore an inferior God ; therefore, on his own showing, he had two dis- similar Gods, not at all of the same substance ; and because he had two Gods, he was therefore, of course, a.polytheist; for all admit that he who has more than one God is no longer a Monotheist, but a Poly- theist, that is, a believer in more Gods than one ; for that is the very meaning of the word polytheist. Arianism, therefore, was what Athanasius so often in effect terms it, a return to pagaiiism, and so, in effect, an apostasy from the Ortho- dox Christ and from Orthodox Christianity. For he who holds to creature- worship and to polytheism has gone over to the two funda- mental errors of heathenism. And so the Hebrew prophets always speak of an Israelite who professed to worship Jehovah still, though he had embraced those errors, as having forsaken Jehovah. So St. Athanasius and all Orthodox Christians regarded Arius, as Athanasius in his works shows again and again. 7. Arius' own Account of his Heresies. Three productions of Arius' own brain have reached us. 1. A letter to Eusebius of Caesarea, his warm partisan. This is found in St. Epiphanius' work On Heresies, Heresy lyXIX., Section 6; and in Chapter v.. Book i., of Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History. 2. A letter of Arius and his friends after their excommunication by Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria. It was written in A. D. 321, from Nicomedia to him. It is found in Section 16 of the same work ^ Accoiint of the Six Eaimenical Councils. Ill of Athanasius (pages 96, 97 and 98 of the Oxford translation), and in Section 7, Heresy L,XIX., in St. Epiphanius' work On Heresies. It is given in the second edition of Hahn's Bibliothek der Sytnbole, Bres- lau, A. D. 1S77, pages 188 and 189. It is quite a full statement of his heresy. 3. His assault on the divinity of God the Word, which is in poetic form, and is found in St. Athanasius' Epistle Concerning the Synod held at Ariminuin, in Italy., and at Seleucia, in Isauria, Section 15, (pages 94, 95 and 96; of the Oxford translation of St. Athan- asius' Treatises Agaijist Aria7iisni). DOCUMENT I. ARIUS' I^ETTER TO EUSEBIUS, BISHOP OF NICOMEDIA. Arius, on being driven out of Alexandria, betook himself to the neighboring country of Palestine, where he found in some bishops, friends; in others, opponents. But Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, on learning his whereabouts, and the fact that some had received a man deposed and excommunicated, wrote circular letters to the Bishops of Palestine, of Phoenice and Coele-Syria against him, and so gave them warning of his errors and of his charadler and heresy, and com- plained of them for receiving him. Epiphanius states that seventy of those letters were still preserved in his day (183). Some, Epiphanius states, wrote back dissemblingly, and others with truth, some of them sa5-ing that they had not received him, while others said that they had entertained him in ignorance, and still others said that they had re- ceived him only that they might gain him. Arius learned that epistles were circulated everywhere against him, and he and his Arian co- workers were driven out from every place, and no one would longer receive them. Yet Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, who had formerly lived with I^ucian, the martyr, at Nicomedia, and who held Arian sentiments, was wholly for Arius, as was I^eontius, another I,uciauist (184), who was afterwards made Bishop of Antioch by the Arian emperor, Constantius (185). Arius finding the path of the creature- (183). Epiphanius On Heresies; Heresy LXIX., Section 4. (184). Id., Sections. (185). See the article " Leonims {2)" in Smith and VJace^s Dictionary 0/ Christian Biography. It is, however, too favorable to that heretic. 178 Chapter III. serving opponent of God the Son's Divinity, a hard one, now betook himself to his partisan Eusebius, of Nicomedia. Epiphanius tells us that he wrote a letter to him before he went to Nicomedia. I translate it below from Epiphanius' work On Heresies^ Heresy I^XIX., Section 6, pages 148, 149; of Part I., vol. iii., of Dindorf's Epiphanius, (lyipsiae, 1861). As the Council of Alexandria which condemned Arius and his heresies was held about A. D. 320, and as Arius left Alexandria after that, and was some time in Palestine before his former Bishop, Pope, that is Father, Alexander of Alexandria heard of his reception there, and as he wrote after that to the prelates who had received him, and as Arius wrote the following letter to Eusebius, of Nicomedia, after that again, its date can not be much before 322 at the earliest. The article, ''' Arianism,'" in McClintock & Strong's Cyclopcedia, makes this the first of the documents from Arius' pen which have reached us, the letter to his former Bishop Alexander, the second ; and the Thalia, extracts from which are preserved by St. Athanasius, the last. The letter to Alexander was written from Nicomedia, perhaps in A. D. 322 or 323. Arius at first held that the Son was liable to change. And, it is thought, in the Council of Alexandria in A. D. 320, which con- demned him, he was asked whether the Word of God could change as the devil did. He was so shameless and blasphemous as to assert that He could, because He was subje(5l to change (186). That was evidently too much for some; for in this letter to Eusebius of Nicome- dia, he takes the back track and admits His unchangeableness. ' ' AN EPISTI^E OF ARIUS ' ' [TO EUSEBIUS, BISHOP OF NICOMEDIA,. THE NOTORIOUS ARIAN LEADEr]. ' ' To the most desired Master, the faithful man of God, the Orthodox Eusebius, Arius, who is unjustly persecuted by Father Alexander (187), on account of the truth which conquereth all things (188), which truth thou also shieldest, wisheth joy in the Lord. (1S6). See iu Migne's Dictionnaire des Conciles, Article " Alexandrie,^' A. D. 320, towards the end. (187). liana, tlie word rendered often, Pope. See a note on this term in the letter of Arius to Alexander below. (18S). Or, ^^ which conquereth every man.'''' Account of the Six Eaoiicnicat Comui/s. 179 "As my Father Ammonius is about to go to Nicomedia, it seemed fair and due for me to address thee through him, aud at the same time to make [grateful] mention of thy innate love and [good] disposition which thou hast towards the brethren for the sake of God and of His Christ ( 1 89). For the Bishop wastes and persecutes us exceedingly, and sets in motion every evil against us ; so that he has driven us out of the city as godless men (190), because we do not agree with his assertion made in public that God always existed [and that], t/ie Son alicays existed, [and] that the Son has existed as lo7ig as the Father has, that the Son has [always] co-existed tcncreatcdty -with God, that He xvas alzcays born, that He was born ivithoiU being created (191), that God did not precede the Son by a thought nor by a viomeyit, that God always existed and that the Son alzuays existed, [and] that the Son has come out of God Himself (192). And because Eusebius, (189). Greek, nal rhv Xpiarbv avro'v, literally, " atid of His Anointed One.'* (190). Greek, wf avOpu-ovg ddfovc. (191). Greek, ayrviimyEvyg. Sophocles in his Greek Lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine Periods, gives the reading ayrvv/iToyev/jc, and defines it, " Created by tlie Unbegotien.'" But that is plainly wrong, for none of the Orthodox assert- ed that of the eternal Logos, but held that he was uncreated. I prefer the translation which I have given. For all of them did and do hold that He was born without being created. Bohn's translation of this document is fair, but in. places not exact. Its rendering here, " that He is always being begotten, with- out having been begotten," does not accord with the Greek, at:iyiv7j(;, ttytv>/Toy£v?/g as in Diudorf's text. With the reading dyivvTiTojevt/g the meaning would be prac- tically about the same, namely, " that he ivas born witlwut being generated.'^ But Arius constantly ms&A generated {yevvriBivTa) in the sense oi created or made, when he speaks of the Word. The Arians would not understand generated ex- cept in the sense of made; in order to bring in a created God, aud hence creature- worship. But the Nicene Creed has a clause which is aimed at that heresy. It is, yewdtvTa, oh noLTjdevTa, that is, "born, not made,'' for from all eternity He had existed as "the Word within the Father,"" d Adyo? hdiddeTog, before He was born "out of the Father just before the worlds were made, and by that birth out of the Father's "divine month,'' as Chapter VI. of the work On the Orthodox Faith, under the name of St. Phoebadius, words it, He became "The Word borne forth," (6 Koyoq TrpncpopiKog). (192). This was another crucial question to the Arians, for they denied the plain affirmation of Christ Himself that He had come out of the Father. For the Redeemer asserts that in John xvi., 28, and John viii., 42, as explained else- where. To have admitted that the Word had come out of the Father would have pra(5lically admitted the truth that He is what He is expressly called ia Hebrews i., 3, that is, " Character of His Substance." Hence they insisted so 180 Chapter III. thy brother in Caesarea, and Theodosius, and Paulinus, and Athan- asius, and Gregory, and Aetius, and all those in the East (193), say that God existed unbegi-nningly before the Son, they have been made anathema, with the exception [however] of Philogonius, and Hellan- icus, and Macarius, men who are heretics, and who are not instrudled in the first elements of the Christian faith (194), some of whom say that the Son is a Belch (195), and others (196), that He is an U7i' created Issue (197). And we can not endure even to hear those impious expressions, [even] if the heretics should threaten us with ten thousand deaths. But what do we say and think, and what liave we taught and do teach? [Why], that the Son is not 2increated, nor a Part of the Uncreated One i7i any manner, and moreover that He was not made ont of any previously existing thing, but that He came ijito existence by the will and design of God before times and before ■the worlds, that He is full God, Sole-generated [God] (198), hico7ive7't- ible i7ito a7iy thi7ig else (199), and that befo7'e He ivas generated, that is before He was c7-eated, that is decreed, or foimdcd (200), He was much oil their heresies that He was ^^ made ont of things not existing,'" uotat all out of the Father's substance, and heuce must be a creature, aud heuce their worship of Him was the mere paganism of creature-worship on their showing. (193). The East includes here, as in later times, Syria and Palestine. We will discuss the truth of Arius' statement further on. (194). Greek, av^punuv alpETiKuv aKaTiJxfiruv. The last word means literally, "7wt catech ised. ' ' (195). This is a reference to the Septuagiut Greek version of its Psalm xliv., i, "Jlfy heart hath belched forth a good word.''' (196). The expressions ''some," aud ''others," hardly befit the three per- sons only who arQ specified above, and so lead us to suspect that something has fallen out of here. (197). This was the doctrine of St. Theophilus, Bishop of Autioch, and of the whole Church before Arius, and is the doctrine of the Niceue Creed. (19S) Greek, 77?///j;/f Qeoq fiuvoyevyc. This might be rendered in different ways, according to how we punctuate it. In Dindorfs text of Epiphanius there is not even a comma between the words. Arius, as is clear from his other utter- ances, would understand "Sole-generated" to mean "Sole-created," whether we supply "Cod" or "Son " after it. (199). Greek, ava/J.olurog. (200). The generated, Arius derives from the Septuagint of Proverbs viii., 25; the r;rrti'6'^ and /b/^/^/t'rf from the Septuagint of Proverbs viii., 22, 23. Those were favorite texts of the Arians, which they took in their own perverse sense. Athanasius refutes that sense. Accoimt of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 181 not. For He ivas not tincrcatcd. But we are persecuted because we have said that the Son had a beginning, but that- God had no begin- ning. For that reason we are persecuted, and because we have said,, that He zcas made out of non-existing things. And we have so said because He is neither a Part of God, nor of any previonsly existing thing (201). For that reason we are persecuted, as thou knowest. I pray that thou'ma^est be strong in the Lord, and that thou mayest be mindful of our tribulations, fellow lyucianist (202), thou who art truly Eusebius" (203). Theodoret, a partisan of Nestorius in the fifth centur^^, was never- theless opposed to Arius, and tells us in his Ecclesiastical History^ Book I. , Chapter V. , Bohn's translation, that ' 'of those whose names are mentioned in this letter, Eusebius was Bishop of Caesarea, Theodotius, [spelled ' Theodosius ' in Epiphanius here] Pauhnus of Tyre, Athan- asius of Anazarbus, Gregory of Berea, and Aetius of Eydda. Lydda is now called Diospolis. Arius boasted that these were all of one mind with himself. He names as his adversaries, Philogonius, Bishop of Antioch, Hellanicus, Bishop of Tripoli, and Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem. He spread calumnies against them because they said that the Son is eternal, existing before all ages, equal with the Father, and of the same substance. ' ' Here in this Letter to Eusebius, we find all but one of the heresies of Arius which are cursed by the Orthodox and God-inspired Anathema at the end of the Creed of the First Ecumenical Council, namely : 1 . " There was once when the So?i of God was not. ' ' 2. ''Before He was generated He xvas not;'^ the council, how- ever, understanding ''generated''' (^fswriO/^vai) in the sense of "born" (201). Greek, o'v6e if v~oKEifj.evov riv6g. (202.) Greek, Gv7.7.ovKLavtaTa. The reference is to Lucian, the martyr, who is said to have taught what was afterwards termed the Arian heresy. See the writers on him. (203.) Greek, aArjOuq Evak[ii.E. As Eusedtus means " Pious,^' the expression "truly Eusebius '^ means " truly pious.'^ One impious creature-server thus compliments another. The article " Arianism^' in McClintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia, tells us that " Voigt {mh.{s Lehre des Athaiiasius vo7t Alexandrie7i) gives" the above letter "with critical emendations, which elucidate the development of the opinions of Arius," and refers to a translation from Voigt by Dr. Schaeffer, in the Biblioihcca Sacra, xxi., 1-38. 182 Chapter III. out of the Father's eternal substance, whereas Arius took it as equivalent to "made" and "created." For the Synod says just before in the same Creed, that, ^^ The So7i of God was born Sole- Bom, (jzwriOivra) out of the Father, that is otU of the substance of the Father, God out of God, Light out of Light, very God out of very God, born, not made, (j^wrjOivra, ob T.otrjdivTa), of the same substance as the Father.'' 3. ' ' He was made out of things not existing. ' ' 4. " He was made out of another subsistence or substance'^ than the Father. 5. ^^ He was created.'^ 6. '' He is alterable, or convertible'' [into something else]. The substance of all those heresies, without exception, are. found in the I^etter above, and in that of Arius and his fellow- heretic's Letter to Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria. The exception is the assertion that, ''the son of God is alterable or convertible" into something else. Arius had made that assertion before he was cast out of the Church, and it was made one of the reasons for his just expulsion. So St. Athanasius testifies. See Sections 14 and 15 of his work on the coimcil held at Ariminum in Italy and on that held at Seleucia in Isauria. But, even with that emendation, the virus of the heresy remains; that is, Arius still makes God the Son a creature, and hence lands at last in the primary sins of paganism, that is creature-zvorship and polytheism; for he worshipped the Son as a creature; and that, of course, made him a creature-worshipper. And inasmuch as he calls the Son of God a created God, and therefore an inferior God, because created; and inasmuch as he makes the Father another God uncreated and eternal, and because uncreated and eternal a superior God; there- fore Arius had two Gods, and so, of course, was a polytheist. Besides these two Gods, according to Arius, were of different substances, one, the Father's, being eternal, and the other, the Son's, being created be- fore the world; and so he worshipped a created substance as well as an uncreated one. Moreover, he fights bitterly against the belief that the Logos was born out of the Father's substance, and will have it that He was made out of things not previously existing. For his Kxoukontian (that is, ''out of 7iothing"~) notion is meant as a protest against the Account of the Six Enimenical Councils. 183 Word's being of the same substance as the Father, and of the same ■eternity. Anus, after he was turned out of the Church by St. Alexander of Alexandria, his Bishop, seems to have dropped the error that God the Son is liable to change. At least he confesses just the contrar}^ tenet in his Epistle to Eusebius, as do he and his fellow- Arians in their Confession of Faith made to Pope Alexander of Alexandria. DOCUMENT II. ARIUS' PROFESSIOX OP FAITH, Addressed to Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria, who had icxconi m u 71 ica ted h ini . On this, Hahn in his Bibliothck der Symbole, page 1S8, note 929, (Breslau, A. D. 1877), states (I translate the German) : ' ' The same [Profession of Faith] is found in a Letter which Arius, in the name of a number of his friends and conjointly with them, sent some time in the year 321, from Nicomedia to Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria, in order that he might come to an agree- ment again with him where it might be possible." It looks much more like an artful, but uncompromising and 'Open declaration of war against the Divinity of Christ, and, by con- sequence, against Christ's command to worship God alone, Matt. iv. , 10. Epiphanius, as we see below, deemed it worse than the above letter. It is found in the fullest form in St. Epiphanius On Heresies, Heresy LXIX., Sections 7 and 8. It is found also in Section 16 of •St. Athanasius On the Council held at Arimiman, in Italy, and that at Seleueia, in Isauria, and is rendered, most of it, into English, in the Oxford translation. It is given in the second edition of Hahn's Bibliothck der Symbole, pages 188-189. I have followed mainly Hahn's text, but where he has not given all of it I have followed Epiphanius, as above. I have deemed Newman's translation mis- taken in two or more places, and have preferred another rendering in them. Epiphanius, after mentioning the letter above of Arius to Euse- bius, brings in the following epistle, with these words : " But we subjoin another letter, also written from Nicomedia to the most holy Pope, Alexander, by way of defence, forsooth, and 184 Chapter III. worse again, for it is filled full of the blasphemous words of his con- tinual poison-darting, and it was sent off by him to Alexandria "' ' (204). Athanasius, in his work above mentioned. Section 16, intro- duces it as follows : ' ' And moreover what they wrote by letter to the blessed Alex- ander, the Bishop, is as follows : '"■To our blessed Father and Bishop, Alexander, the presbyters and the deacons wish joy in the Lord. "' Our faith from our forefathers, which we have learned from thee also, blessed Father (205) is this : " 'We acknowledge one God, alone Ungenerated, alone Eternal,, alone without a beginning, alone real God, who alone has immortality, is alone wise, alone good, alone Sovereign, alone Judge [of all] (206). Controller, Manager, Immutable, and Inconvertible into anything else, just and good, and He is the God of the Law and of the Prophets and of the New Testement: who generated a Sole-Born Son before world- times (207), through whom He has made both the (204). Epipliauius «/j((j nd^a; that is " i7/o5/ ^/d'5^^^ /'o/iT." Father iu old times was the title of all Bishops ; but in later ages in the untranslated and altered form, Pope is unwisely, in Western lands, generally confined to the Bishop of Rome, though in the Anglican confirmation service the Bishop ife called Father. Sophocles, in his Greek Lexicon, under the term -li-ftf, defines it as follows : "Va.'^a., father, a title given to bishops in general, and to those of Alexandria and Rome in particular." He gives a number of references there on it to old Christian writers. See also Bingham's Antiquities, Book II., Chap- ter ii. , Section 7, to much the same effect. In the form TraTvag it is used among the Greeks for presbyters, as Sophocles shows under that word ; and among the Latins, in the form Fattier, it is used for them, and so among a few Anglicans. (206). The words ^'ofatf'' are in Epiphanius, not Athanasius. (207). Newman here renders, " before eternal times,^' but that is manifestly wrong, because (i)Arius, in the very Confession above, shows that he did not be- lieve in the doctrine of the Eternal Generation of the Son, and " before eternal //wi?5 " seems to mean that. The Greek is irph xp^vijv a'lui'luv. It is true that a'ldjvtog does often mean eternal, but asLiddell and Scott, in their Greek Lexicon, show under that word it sometimes means what relates to the world, as for ex- ample, in their quotation from Herodian, a'ldjvioi Smi, — tudi seculares, games for the world, or worldly games. So the Latin equivalent saecularis was sometimes used as is shown under saecularis in Harpers' Latin Dictionary for what is- Account of the Six Ecumoiical Councils. 185 worlds and all things ; and generated Him not in [mere] seeming [sO' to do] but in reality ; and made Him subordinate to His own will (208), [to be] an immutable, an inconvertible, and perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures ; a thing generated, but not as. one of the things generated ; and that Generated Thing of the Father is not an Issue [out of the Father] though Valentinus asserted that as a dogma; nor do we hold Manichaeus' innovation that a Generated Thing is a same-substance Part of the Father ; nor do we hold, like Sabel- lius, who separated the Monad of Divinity and asserted [the dodlrine of] a Son-Father (209), nor, like Hieracas, do we hold [to the doc- trine that] He is I^amp from Lamp, nor that one Torch-light has been divided into two: nor that He who existed before was generated or created into a Son besides ; as thou thyself also, blessed Father, in the midst of the church and in [the] Session (210) hast often for- bidden those who brought in those errors ; but, as we assert, He was created by the will of the Father before times (211) and before the worldly, secular, what pertaius to this world. Moreover (2), time did not exist before the world was made. Furthermore (3), Arius, in the above Confession, uses iik'ji' for ivorld ; and (4) it is used in that sense plainly in the Creed of the Second Ecumenical Council. (5), As is shown in the fourth note below, the words, ,r,""''"'C «'wi"o/f, are translated in King James' English Version, '■^ since the world began,V not ''since eterfial times.'''' They evidently mean, "z« world times,''' and their sense is well given by the rendering in our English Version. So, exactly the same expression of Arius' Confession, vrpo xi>oi'o)v aiuvUjv, is found in II. Timothy i., 9, and its literal sense of " before world-times'^ is preserved, in eflfect, in the King James' Version, in the words, " before the world began.'" (208). The Greek is, v-oari/onv-a (Se Idiu Qe/i/uari, uTpe-rvTov, etc. Newman has, " and made Him subsist at His own will unalterable,'" etc., which may be correct, but as the expression may be translated either so or as above, it seems, doubtful. (209). That is, the Sabellians said that the Son is the same Person as the Father, and the Father the same Person as the Son. (210). Probably the meeting of the Bishop with his presbyters, deacons, and perhaps clergy lower than deacon, in which he instrudled them in their duties, gave them his orders, etc. The Greek is 'tv cwnSpiu. (211). Greek, ~po xi'i^vuv Kal TTfib a'luruv KTiafttrra, that is. He was created be- fore time began and before the worlds were made. As time began when the worlds were made, so it ends with the end of the world ; Rev. x. , 6. Compare the Greek of Romans xvi., 25, and of II. Timothy i., 9. In Romans xvi., 25, Xp6voiq uluvLoiq is rendered in the Common Version, and well, by "since the world began " (literally, it is, " in ivorld times," that is during the time of this 186 Chapter III. worlds, and has received both life and being from the Father, and the Father put under Him as well as under Himself the dignities (212). For the Father in giving Him the inheritance of all things did not deprive Himself of those things which He has ingenerately in Himself (213) : for He is the Fountain of all things, so that there are Three Subsistences (214). And God, being the Cause of all things, was without beginning and utterly Sole ; but the Son was generated before time began by the Father and was created and founded before the worlds. He was not before He was generated, but having been generated before time and before all things. He alone existed under the Father. For He is not eternal, or co-eternal or co-unmade (215) with the Father: nor has He existed as long as world; and in II. Timothy i., 9, -^^ih) xi'^vuv -T(ir,rijoni'rvr avrC} roi; Marpor. Newman, in the Oxford translation of St. Athanasius' Treatises Against Arianism, page 98, renders it, " The Father who gave subsistence to His glories, together with Him.''' But I prefer to take rof Au^nr iu the sense of " dignities,'''' as in Jude i., 8, in the passage, '^ and speak evil of dignities'''' ((5o-'fir). The meaning is that the Father gave the Son dominion over angels and all crented dignities. That is the teaching of Scripture, as in Hebrews i., 6, etc., and best agrees with what immediately follows the above iu Arius' Confessio?i. (213V That is, those prerogatives of rule over createcl dignities and all other things, for these prerogatives, Arius means, inhere iu the very Nature of the Father, and are not a production and grant to Him in time, or just before time. (214). Greek as in Hahn's text, wrrrf r/if(f f/ct^ {'Troffraae/f. The word I'Trdaraff/f, means subsistence, that is bei?ig, and also substance; and from the sense of being passed into the sense of Person iu Christian writers. But no Christian writer would say "■ There are three substances,'''' but " only one substance'^ of which each Hypostasis, that is Person, formed part. See Suicer under vTrooraaic where we see how the ancient Latins who took that term in the sense of substance shunned the expression of Orthodox writers, ' ' Thef-e are three Hypostases ' ' ("^'£'f v-KoaraofK:^, because they took it to mean, " T'here are three substances." Suicer shows how- ever that the difficulty disappeared when the Orthodox Greek writers explained that they did not mean to deny that the whole Trinity are but one Substance, but that they took Hypostasis {i'Trunmat^) in the sense of Person. The Greeks and the Latins finally came to use both those terms in the same sense as they do still. Arius, on the contrary, held that there are Three different Substances: and that two of them, the Son and the Spirit are creatures. As to the Arian belief on the Spirit see Athanasius as quoted below. (215). Epiphanius, on Heresy LXIX., Section 8, has here ni'vayh'ur/roc, *' co-ungenerated," not co-unmade," avuayh't/Tiic, but as Arius takes fhe generation Account of the Six Eaimetiical Councils. 187 the Father has, as some assert as to their relations, [thus] bringing in two ungenerated Origins (216), but as God was [at first] the Sole One and the Origin of all things, so He was before all things. And therefore He was before the Son, as we have also learned from thee when thou wast preaching in the midst of the Church. Inasmuch therefore as He has from God His being and His glories and His life, and inasmuch as all things have been delivered to Him, in that sense, God is his Origin (217). For He began Him (218) as being His God and as being before Him. But if the expression ' out of Hini^ (219), and the expression * 02it 0/ the belly (220), and the expression '/ aune out of the Father ■and am come' (221), be understood by any persons to mean that the Son is a same-substance Part of Him and that He is an Issue (222), [out of the Father] it will follow, according to their notion, that the Father is put together and separable and mutable and a body ; and, so far as the}^ can bring it to pass, the God who is without a body will suffer those things which belong to a bod3% I pray that thou mayest be strong in the L,ord, blessed Father. of the Word to mean His being created, both expressions according to his heresy mean the same thing. (216). That is Two ungenerated First Principles of all things, that is Two "Sources, Two Beginners, that is Two Originators of all things; and not one only. (217). That is, His Originator, apxy avrvv. (218). Greek, 'Ai>xei }«/^ avroh. Newman renders it, in the Oxford transla- tion of S. Athanasius' Treatises Agaifist Arianism, page 98, ''For He is above Hitn.^' But the translation which I have given seems to me to agree better with Arius' context, and what we know of his heretical ideas as to the Son being a ■creature of the Father. (219). Greek, (i avrov. Arius seems to refer to John viii., 42, e}(j yap en tov Qeov h^fjWov K(ii iJKu, literally, '' For I came out of God, and am come,'''' and to Tohn xvi., 28, f^r'p.Hov in tov Tlarpdc Kal i/j//.v6a eJf roi^ KOGfioi', literally, " I came out of the Father, and have come into the world.'" (220). The Greek Septuagint Version of Psalm cix., 3, (Psalm ex., 3, in the English Version), t/c }«ffr/)of tt/jo 'Ewcr^o^joy f>«w^(Ta (te, literally, "/ brought thee forth out of the belly before the morning star" [was made]. (221). Arius seems to quote here from memor>' only, and to mix up John viii., 42, and John xvi., 28. See them in the note last but one above. (222). Greek, wf fj.ipo^ avrov ofioovaiov Kat wf npOjSolr/. 188 Chapter III. Arius, Aeithales, Achillas, Carpones, Sarmatas, Arius, [who are] presbyters, [The] deacons, Euzoius, Lucius, Julius, Menas, Helladius, Gaius. [The] Bishops, Secundus, of Pentapolis, Theonas, a Libyan, Pistus, [whom the Arians ordained for Alexandria]. The last six words, which I have bracketed, must, I think, be an; addition by way of explanation made by St. Epiphanius, or by some other, for according to Gammack's article " /•/>/?«, " in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography, Pistus was not made Bishop of Alexandria till A. D. 336, 337 or 338, and therefore not till long after this document. REMARKS ON ARIUS' CONFESSION. From the above it is clear, I. That Arius made the Son to be a Creature, thought he ad- mitted and thought that He was generated, which he evidently takes to mean, He was created, before the worlds were made, and so before world-time began. Indeed he expressly confesses in this document that the Father made the worlds and all things through Him. The docflrine of the Ante-Nicene Fathers that the Word is an issue {j:p(),^i)krj) out of the Father just before the worlds he slanderously compares to a Valentinian myth, which is not Christian at all, and which has nothing in common with the Christian dodlrine of the issue of the Logos, co-eternal and consubstantial with the Father, out of Him. Newman shows, in a note on page 97 of his English transla- Accoimt of the Six Ecumenical Councils. 189 tion of S. Athanasius' Treatises Against Arianism, that the Ariaii Asterius thought that ' ' issice ' ' {r.po^olr^ conveys the idea of a bri^ig- ing forth of a child {zv/.-^oyo-Aa) . But some, or most, of the ancients, as will be shown in a Dissertation elsewhere in this series On Eternal Birth, did believe that the eternal I.ogos was born out of the Father's mouth just before all the worlds, and so understood Ecclesiasticus xxiv., 3, to teach and followed it. I quote it : "/ [Wisdom] came out of the mouth of the Most High, and, like a mist, I covered the earths On Texts of Scripture, in a special Dissertation elsewhere in this series, I have shown that St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage from A. D. 248 to 258, when he died a martyr for Christ; I^adlantius, who wrote in the first half of the fourth centur}^ ; and St. Phaebadius, Bishop of Agen in Gaul, who flourished in the last half of the same century ; all take that text to mean that the Logos was born out of the Father's mouth just before the worlds were made. In the same Dissertation I have shown that ancient writers take the words of Psalm xliv., i, in the Septuagint Version, to mean that the Father ''belched'' the eternal Logos; and that naturally implies that the Logos was belched out of the Father's mouth. For that is the only opening that we know of in his body of Spirit. So Tertul- lian, of Century II. and III. ; Novatian, the Schismatic of Century III., who was however Orthodox on the Trinity; St. Cypian, Bishop of Carthage A. D. 248-258, (compare his testimony on Ecclesiasticus xxiv., 3, above referred to); St. Victorinus, Bishop of Petau, who is believed to have died a martyr for Christ in the Diocletian persecu- tion A. D. 303-313; Lac1:antius, in the first half of the fourth cen- tury ; Phaebadius, Bishop of Agen in Gaul, who flourished in the last half of the fourth century; all understood Psalm xliv., i, in the Septuagint to teach that the Father belched the Logos, which implies that he belched Him out of His mouth. Indeed, St. Cyprian, Lactantius, and St. Phaebadius, as has been said above, expressly teach that the Father belched the Logos out of His mouth. See their remarks on Ecclesiasticus xxiv., 3, quoted hxlhQ Dissertation above specified. And that seems to have been the belief of all the ancient writers whom I have quoted in that Dissertation on the Septuagint of Psalm xxxiii., 6, and on Psalm cix., 3, except mainly or wholly the writers 190 Chapter III. of Alexandria and its jurisdi(5lion, in Africa, who did not believe that' God has any body ; nor, consequently any mouth at all. For quite a number of the ancient Christian writers believed that God the Father has a body, according to the common and uniform representa- tions of Him in Scripture, but of course a body, as Tertullian writes, of Spirit, not a body of flesh with its digestive and procreative organs. And that view can not, I think, be said to have been condemned in any of the Six Ecumenical Councils. But I treat of that topic else- where on Nicaea in a special Dissertation which I hope soon to- publish. Having said thus much on the Arian Asterius' objedlion to the Orthodox dodtrine that the lyOgos was born out of the Father, as stated by Newman in the note above mentioned, let me add on the: other hand, that Newman shows in the same note that Tertullian used the term Issue, of the Logos, with a protest against the Valen- tinian sense, and that Justin, the martyr, also used the word " Issice," of the lyOgos ; and that Gregory of Nazianzus made a similar use of it by calling the Father -/joiSaXeh^^ of the Holy Spirit, that is, the One who caused the Holy Spirit to issue. He well adds, ' ' Arius intro- duces the word [^Iss2/e^ here as an argumenticm ad invidiam, ' ' and refers on that point to Hilary On the Trinity VI., 9. See the refer- ences to those writers in that note of Newman's. So Arius, in the same malignant and craft}' and deceptive spirit of wickedness, compares, just below, the Christian dodlrine of the birth of the Consubstantial Logos out of the Father to a Manichaean myth, which is Anti -Scriptural and x\nti-Christian, and which has nothing in common with the Christian dodlrine of the birth of the Con- substantial and Co-eternal Word out of the Father ; and so, like the- Valentinian comparison above, and that of the Manichaean Hieracas- below, it is not at all pertinent to the case. Next he brings in the Sabellian dodlrine, that the Son is the same Person as the Father, which is not pertinent to the discussion between himself and the Orthodox Alexander, because no Orthodox man entertains that heresy. Then, in the same Spirit of malignity, Arius brings in the doc- trine of the Manichaean Hieracas of a light from a light, or the dividing of a torch light, a blazing fagot, for instance, into two. But neither Alexander nor au}^ other Orthodox man held that Manichaean Account of t lie Six Ecumoiical Councils. 191 error. Manichaeanism, with its two Eternal Principles, Good and Evil, was polytheistic, and sternly rejedled the Orthodox dodtrine of the Eternal Divinity of the Logos as much as Arianisui did, and was finnly Anti- Trinitarian and Anti-Christian. Then at last, after so many invidious and not pertinent com- parisons, Arius comes to one that is. Now he leaves Heresies which were held by none of the Orthodox, and comes to a dodlrine which the majority of the Ante-Nicene writers did hold; all, according to Newman himself, except the Alexandrian School, namely, that the co-eternal and consubstantial Logos, who was within the Father from all eternity, was born out of Him just before the worlds were made, and to make them, though Arius, after his malignant fashion of mis- representing, speaks of it as the dodlrine that ' ' He who existed before, was afterwards generated or created up into a Son besides," from which we ma}^ infer that he was acquainted with the docftrine of St. Justin the Martyr and of St. Theophilus of Antioch, that the co-eternal Logos of the Father, Endiathetic, that is, inside the Father, became Prophoric, that is. Borne Forth by birth out of Him just before the worlds were made. His way of describing that birth as a creating tip into a Son besides, might lead us to suppose that some of the Ortho- dox, with whose views he had become acquainted, understood the K'jpuiii exriffi /J.C, ''The Lord Created {ox 'built') me'' of Prov. viii., 22, in the Septuagint, to mean that just before the worlds were made, the Father made His co-eternal Logos a Son when He brought Him forth out of Himself. TertuUian, as elsewhere quoted, in the Dissertation On Eternal Birth, held that view. Arius then goes on to state that Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria, had often in the midst of the Church, and in the Session, of his lower clergy, seemingly denounced not only the view of Valentinus which he has just mentioned, and that of Manichaeus, and that of Sabellius and that of Hieracas, but also, seemingly at first sight, that of all the Orthodox out of Alexandria and itsjurisdidlion, namely, that the co-eternal and consubstantial Logos was not born out of the Father just before the worlds were made and to make them, and so became a Son by that birth; but that He was eternally born out of the Father and so was eternally the Son. If this inference be correct, we may conclude that Alexander had gotten his opinion of Eternal Generation from a noted man of the Alexandrian School,. 102 Chapter II L Origen, or at least that he adopted Origen's view, and that he main- tained it, and that Athanasius and Cyril, his successors, in that see, in doing the same, simply followed the traditions of that School. Yet there is a very important clause farther on in this Confession which seems to throw doubt on those inferences, for Arius asserts that he had learned from Alexander's preaching in the midst of the church that the Father zvas before the Son, which seems irreconcilable with the notion that Alexander believed in the dodtrine of the vSon's Eternal Birth. Yet Arius may only mean to charge on Alexander that he had contradidted himself: for in a document written after his expulsion from Alexandria, but before this, that is his Epistle to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, he expressly accuses Alexander of Alexandria, his former Bishop, of holding to the co-eternity of the Son as So)i with the Father. Or he may mean to accuse him of having formerly held Arian views on those themes, though a heretic excommunicated is not always a reliable witness against the man who excommunicated him. Besides if Alexander did at au}^ time hold heretical views against God the Son's Divinity, he certainly got rid of them and made a firm champion for them at the outset of the Arian controvers}^ and excommunicated their chief propagator, the arch-heretic Arius himself. We see, 2, from the above Confession, that all the Arian worship of the Son was the worship of a creature, and consequently that on their own showing they were creatio'e-worshippers: and that is con- trary to Christ's own fundamental law in Matthew iv., 10, " Thotc shall bow to the Lord thy God a7id Him oily shall thon serve. ' ' And, 3, that inasmuch as they had two Gods, one the Father uncreated and eternal, and because uncreated and eternal, therefore a superior God; and another, the Son, created and non-eternal, and because created and non-eternal, therefore an inferior God; they were, therefore, poi^yTheists, for polytheist means any and every one who has more gods than one. Hence they held to the two fundamental errors of paganism, and, as Athanasius taught, were to be regarded as heathens, and not as Christians. 4. In passing, though it is anticipating events in the century next following, I would say that the principle contained in St. Cyril of Account of the Six Ecumenical Councih 193 Alexandria's Anathema VIII., which, in God's name, .and in strict accordance with the use of the Anathema in Galatiansi., 8, 9, against pen-ersions of the Gospel and against new-fangled Gospels, curses, that is, anathematizes the Nestorians for giving the name God to a creature, that is, to a man, would apply to the Arians, for they re- garded the Son as a creature, and yet called him God. 5. From the latter part of the Confession of Arius we see that the Orthodox had met Arius with texts which teach as in the Sep- tuagint, and in the New Testament, the do<5trine that the I^ogos was born out ^the Father. They evidently understood in that sense the words, ^^ outop^ in the Septuagint of Psalm cix., 3, " / brought thee forth out of the belly" Qx yaffTpdi); the '' out of God" in the expression in John viii., 42, " /came out of God" (iz rod Okod ^^rjkOuv); and the same words, " out of" injohnxvi., 28, in the passage, "/ came out of the Father,'' The Greek word iy. does primarily mean out of, and is so defined in lyiddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon of A. D. 1850, (Har- pers, New York), and in the ''Sixth Edition, Revised and Atig- mejited, Oxford," A. D. 1869; whereas a-o, another Greek preposi- tion, means ''from," that is, from the outside of any thing. And so all those expressions of Holy Writ which speak of the Son as having come otit of (^x) the Father, were understood by the Orthodox to refer to His birth out ^the Father. Arius, following the notion of Origen, then prevalent in the Alexandrian School among the leaders of both parties, the Orthodox and the Arians, that God the Father has no body for the Logos to come out of, advances that notion as a reply. « But it is no reply, for a large part of the Church held, as the masses in all communions do still, that God the Father has a body. That was the teaching of some of the Ante-Nicene writers. I show that in a Dissertation on that topic in another part of this series, and I have referred to some of them above also. Indeed, the indignation of the Egyptian monks, who seem to have been the great bulk of their order there, against even Theophilus, their Patriarch, when they supposed he meant to favor Origen' s view, and his submission to them, proves the strength in the eariy part of the fourth century, even in Egypt, of the view that the Father has a body, and the 194 Chapter III. •weakness of 4;he view that He has not. This is clear from the account of the event as given by Socrates and Sozomen, both of whom, as their statements on it show, were Incorporealists and Origenists on that matter, and were so prejudiced as Constantinopoli- tans against Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, for his course against John, Bishop of Constantinople, that they do not seem capable of doing him justice ; so that they accuse him of deceiving the monks^ who were angered against him for denying that God has a body. Thus, for instance, in his account in Chapter 7, Book VI., of his Ecclesiastical History, of the disobedience of the four Long Monks, as. they were termed, Discorus (or " Dioscorus"), and his three brothers, Ammonius (or "Ammon"), Eusebius and Euthymius, to their patriarch Theophilus, who had been so kind as to make Discorus Bishop of Hermopolis, in Egypt, and two others of them clergymen, and gave them the management of Ecclesiastical affairs ; Socrates asperses, after his unwise wont when speaking of Theophilus, his motives, and faults him for simply doing his duty. For, contrary to- the Canons, they withdrew themselves from Church-work, where their services were needed, to live the lazy and useless life of the desert, contrary to the Spirit of Christ's prayer to His Father not to take his: disciples out of the -world, but to keep them from the ^<7//(John xvii., 15). They left Christ's sin-beset sheep to be torn by the wolf, and fled away in their utter selfishness. Their Archbishop, Theophilus, like a true shepherd, warned them to come back to their bounden duty, but they were rebellious, and refused. Their evil example might become infedlious, and others might be led to shirk their duties as well, and to desert their posts. The only reason given by the four Tall Brothers, according to Socrates in the same chapter, was childish enough, namely, that Theophilus was devoted to gain and to the acquisition of wealth, and that they feared that his ex- ample would be injurious to their souls, and that they greatly pre- ferred solitude to living in the city. But were such a set of lazy fanatics fit judges of their patriarch ? And, if any rational cause for accusation existed, could they not have called him to account by an appeal to the whole Church ? And what right had they to leave the aaive work of Christ in the city and to flee to the lazy solitude of the desert ? One of them, according to the notice of him by Smith, in Smith and Wace's Dictio7iary of Christian Biography, must have been a decidedly poor stick to judge anybody ; for in order to escape being Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils . 195 made a bishop lie had cut off one of his ears ! ! ! (223). In other words, he had marred his body, a sin akin to that of marring another part of the body, which the First Ecumenical Synod, in its Canon I., had condemned, for both are different forms of the same sin; that is, of mutilating the image of God in man, which is really a part-suicide. Besides their rebellion, they had fallen into what St. Epiphanius and Theophilus and the monks deemed the error of deny- ing that God has a body. Up to that, even according to the bilious account of Socrates, their Patriarch had been very patient with them». According to Bohn's translation here, " He earnestly begged them not to leave him," (Socrates' Bale- siastical History, Book VI., Chapter 7). He could, as their superior officer, have deposed and excommuni- cated, but he forbore. Finally when they left him, and like cowards and fanatics, forsook their proper work and their duty, and betook themselves as rebels to the desert to raise a row for him, and to dis- tiirb the Church, he proceeds to check them. He had at last to fault and to correct them, as their Archbishop, on dogma. For the Origenist Socrates, in the same chapter as in Bohn's translation here, states of him: "He well knew that Discorus and his brothers, in their theological discussions with him, had often maintained that the Deity was incor- poreal, and by no means had a human form; because, they argued, such a constitution would involve the necessary accompaniment of human passions, as Origen and other ancient writers have demonstrated." Aye, there is the root of it all. They were followers of the here- tic Origen, and had drawn from him their idea that God has no body. Blunt, un&QX Ajithropotnorphites, \nh\s Dictionary of Sects, etc., shows that Origen had opposed an older and opposite view that God has a body, which was the teaching of Melito and of Tertullian. Besides the Four Tall Brothers were poor in their knowledge of fadls. It is true that human passions do belong to our fallen human bodies of flesh and bone. But no wise man holds to the blasphemy that the Father's body is of flesh or bone, but is of Spirit as Tertullian (223). Socrates' Eccl. Hist., Book IV., Chapter 23. See the article "Am- monius (I.)" in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography, and the authorities there mentioned. 196 Chapter III. puts it (224), that is, of Divinity, and is therefore free from all human passions. After all this, Theophilus does what he might have done before with such a rebellious Suffragan and with such rebellious clerics who liad deserted their posts, and, judging even from Socrates and Sozo- men's accounts, were stirring up trouble for him and the church and were spreading what he deemed fanaticism and error. He uses force when persuasion and and entreaty avail not, and drives these deserters out of his jurisdidlion. A considerable time after, they were to submit to him, after making him much trouble at Constantinople, They had committed the grievous crime of appealing to secular judges, and even to a woman, the erring Empress Eudoxia, against their own Bishop (225). The superstition and folly of that age sometimes made heroes out of such disgraces to the monastic profession, such deserters as three of them w^ere from their posts of clerical duty. But Theophilus was not a monk of their stripe, but a common-sense, God-fearing one who has been much misunderstood and maligned as to the merits of the quarrel between himself and John, who was afterwards called Chrysostom. Of that I will speak elsewhere in this series, if God will. Now, after long patience, he acts. Socrates, in chapter 7, Book VI., of his Ecclesiastical History , as in Bohn's translation, says of Theophilus, that * ' Sending letters to the monasteries in the desert, he advises them not to give heed either to Discorus or his brothers, inasmuch as they affirmed that God had not a body. * ' ' Whereas, ' says he, * the Sacred Scripture testifies that God has eyes, ears, hands and feet, as 7nen have; the partisans of Disconis, beiiig follotvers of Orige^i, introduce the blasphemous dogma that GodJias neither eyes, ears, feet, nor haiids. ' ' ' Socrates goes on to state that some of the monks still adhered to Discorus and Origen, and praises them for so doing ; but he admits that those who held the view that God has a body greatly exceeded (224). See Tertullian as quoted in my Dissertation on Mayiforniism, that is Anthropomorphism, to be published, if God will, in this series. (225). Socrates' Eccl. Hist., vi., 9. Sozomen's Eccl. Hist, viii., 13, 14 and 15. Account of the Six Eaimenical Coimcils. 197 Dioscorus and the Anti-Body party in number, but this Origeuist and perhaps Novatian abuses them for that opinion. He goes on to state that the monks who held that God the Father has a body, raised an outcry against the Anti-Corporealists,. branded them as "■ impio7cs,'' and termed them '' Origenists;'' and that they, on the contrary, termed them Anthropomorphites, that is Manformitcs, and that altercation and incxiinguisliable war arose be- tween the two parties ; but that Theophilus, on learning how matters stood, went with a multitude of persons to Nitra, where the monas- teries were, and armed the monks against Discorus and his brethren, which would imply that the latter would not leave peaceably, though disowned as "impious" heretics by the great majority of their fellow-monks, but insisted on infli(5ling their presence on them. Socrates adds that Discorus and his Anti-Body adherents were then in danger of their lives, and made their escape with difficulty, which shows how the opinion that God has no body was viewed by the great majority of the monks of his own country about A. D. 401. Sozomen gives a similar account. I should prefer to believe that Theophilus, whatever he may- have thought at first, did then really believe as he himself asserts, that " The Sacred Scripture testifies that God has eyes, ears, hands, and feet, as men have:' A note on page 389 of Bohn's translation of Sozomen' s Ecclesiastical History, referring to Socrates' account of the expulsion of this Discorus or Dioscorus and the Anti-body party, states, "Socrates gives the same account ; but, like Sozomen, he sup- presses the reason : viz., that Theophilus had convened an Episco- pal Synod at Alexandria, and had condemned Ammonius and his brethren as followers of Origen." Jerome, as we are informed in Smith's article, ''Ammonius,'' in Smith and Wace's Di^io7iary of Christian Biography, deemed the condemnation of Dioscorus and his brothers to be merited. Smith refers to Jerome's Ep. ad Alex., in proof. The events which followed, notwithstanding the glaringly unfair and slanderous perversion of Theophilus' motives, by Socrates and Sozomen, prove that he maintained his vigor against the view that God has no body. For, whereas before, he had blamed St. Epipha- nius for asserting that God has a human form (226), he now, " A.s if repentant," (to quote the translation of Bohn, in Chapter XIV. of (226.) Sozomen' s £cclesiasiical History, Book VIII., Chapter 14. 198 Chapter III. Book VIII., of Sozomen's Ecclesiastical History'), "of having ever entertained any other sentiment ' ' [than that God has a body] ' ' wrote to Epiphanius to acquaint him, that he now held the same opinions as himself, and to condemn the works of Origen, whence he had drawn his former hypothesis." Then the difference between the believer that God has a body, St. Epiphanius, and Theophilus, is removed, for Theophilus openly espouses the belief of St. Epiphanius. Now all is clear, and Sozomen at once proceeds, as in Bohn, "Epiphanius had long regarded the writings of Origen with peculiar aversion, and was therefore easily led to attach credit to the epistle of Theophilus. He soon after assembled the Bishops of Cyprus together, and prohibited the perusal of the books of Origen. He also wrote to the other Bishops, and, among others, to the Bishop of Constantinople" [John], "exhorting them to issue similar prohibitions. Theophilus, perceiving that there could be no danger in following the example of Epiphanius, whose exalted virtues were universally appreciated and reverenced, assembled the Bishops of his province, and enadled a similar decree. John, on the other hand, paid little attention to the letters of Epiphanius and Theophilus. ' ' John, as his course showed, was himself an Incorporealist; and liad gone so far as to do the uncanonical act of receiving men who had been expelled by a brother Bishop not of his jurisdi(5lion. Socrates, in his Ecclesiastical History, Book VI., Chapter X., witnesses to the fact that Theophilus had ''accused'' Epiphanius, as Bohn' s translation words it, '' oi entcrtaijiing low thoughts of God, by supposing him to have a htinian form,'" and that as a result they had been at variance, but that now he wrote to him, and professsd to agree with him on that matter, though Socrates with his bitter Origenist feelings gives Theophilus no credit for sincerity, and then testifies to the fa6t that Epiphanius gathered the Bishops of Cj'prus, his jurisdi(5lion, and that he and they passed a decree prohibiting the reading of Origen' s works: and that Theophilus assembled a great number of Bishops of his jurisdidlion in Synods, which pronounced a like sentence on the writings of Origen; but that John, Bishop of Constantinople, refused to cooperate with them. Socrates in Book VI., Chapter XII., of his History, praises Theoti- mus Bishop of Scythia, for refusing to join with some other Bishops then Accoiint of the Six Eaime^iical Councils. 199 at Constantinople, and with St. Epiphanius in condemning Origen's works; and in Chapter XIII., of the same Book VI., Socrates makes a labored defence of Origen. Theotimus is represented in Bohn's translation of Chapter XII. of that book as making the radical asser- tion, "I know of no evil do(5lrine contained in Origen's Books." Yet, in the sequel, Epiphanius' and Theophilus' judgment of that heretic was vindicated by the Catholic Church. For Origen, after all the disputes regarding him, was condemned in Anathema XI. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and some of his writings are there branded as ' ' ivipiotis. ' ' To return to the question whether God has a bodj'. Those who opposed the view that He has, may be divided into two classes, 1. Those who while opposing the blasphemy that God has ■digestive and genital organs, nevertheless have admitted some shape or form in God. St. Cyril of Alexandria is deemed by Blunt in his article A7iihrop07norphites, to belong to that class, and his uncle, St. Theophilus, Bishop of that .see, seems to have been of it also. On Ephesus we shall treat as to how far this view was approved by it. 2. The out and out and thoroughly radical Incorporealists like Augustine of Hippo, who seem to abolish all shape and fonn in God, and to leave us what comes too near to no God at all, though he would deny that. Yet his misty utterances would seem to reduce Ood to a cloud or vapor or the air. Both those classes are often confounded. The first class, if they accept the language of Theophilus above quoted, do really hold to a body. Blunt is of no authority, however, so far as his mere opi?iiofis are concerned, for he was a Mariolater, as his article on Mariolatry in liis Dictionary of Doctrijial and Historical Theology shows. His re- marks in the article on ' ' Iconoclasm ' ' in the same work show a too partial leaning to the side of the idolatrous party, and his article ■' ' Ico7ioclasts, ' ' shows an utter lack of appreciation of the dodtrine of the Ho7nily Against Peril of Idolatry that Image-worship brought God's ire on the Church. His works should be expurgated. They are dangerous. The great Alexandrians, St. Athanasius and St. Cyril, and notably 200 Chapter III. Augustine of Hippo in the West, have made some kinds of the No- Body view the more common, but contrary (A), to the plainest pas- sages of Holy Writ; (B), of early Christian writers, and (C), the plain, sense of the two Ecumenical Creeds. For the Nicene teaches that the Son was ' ' bom out of the Father, that is out of the substance of the Father;" and the Constantinopolitan says that the Son was ''born out of the Father before all the worlds.'" And the Logos is of the same substance with the Father because He was bor7i out of Him. Besides the No-Body view leaves us no definite thing to pray to in the way of Divinity, not the Father for instance as sitting on a throne in heaven, as we are taught in Revelations IV., 2, and in Daniel VII., 9, where His ''head'' and his "hair'' are specified, but a mist, a vapor, a cloud, a nothing: and what is that but to attempt to abolish the Father and His worship altogether? Whatever a few so-called/'/i//(3^^///zV theologians may have said, the masses of Christians ever have prayed to the Father as in a body as He is represented in Scripture, and ever will. For to make a mere cloud or mist God is repugnant to common sense and to God's Word. Blunt, un&Qx Anthropomorphites, states that even Cyril of Alexan- dria held to some sort of a shape in God, and that ih^fonn of God in Philippians II., 6, implies that. And he shows that Augustine, misty and utterly unsatisfacflory as he is on that theme, nevertheless held that Tertullian's assertion that God the Father has a body of Spirit is not heretical; and even Augustine admits a something, though he seems not to talk anything but nonsense as to what it is ; he is so utterly vague and unpradlical, as is his wont on that topic. DOCUMENT III. THE THALIA OP ARIUS. This, according to Sozomen (227), and Socrates (228), was con- (227). Sozomeu's Ecclesiastical History, Book I., chapter xxi. (22S). Socrates' Ecclesiastical History, Book I., chapter ix. A strange blunder is found in a note on page 29 of Bohn's Socrates, English translation, where Sotades is called a Marouite, and the reference is to a place in Gibbon, where the sect of the Jl/aronites, which did not rise till a considerable time after Athanasius, are referred to. Bohn's translations of Socrates, Theodoret and Sozomen should be revised and corre<5led, text and notes, by a competent theo- logian well versed in later Greek, and they would be much more exact and use- ful. JSTewman in his translation of S. Athanasius' Treatises Against Arianism^ Account of the Six Ecumeiiicac Councils. 201 demned at the First Ecumenical Council. Doubtless it, and the letter of Arius and his fellow creature-servers and deniers of the Divinity of God the Word, to Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, were read by the assembled prelates, for that would be only just and right before they pronounced sentence; but, as the Minutes of the Synod are lost, we can say little more as to the details, only that neither of those emissions of Arius, nor his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia are men- tioned in the genuine remains of the Council which have reached us. But the Creed specifies his chief heresies in its Anathema, and the Synodal Epistle mentions him and his errors. Date of these Blasphemies of Arius. This is indicated in the words of Athanasius below. It was after he had been cast out, and when he was incited by the Eusebians that he composed this document. That would, I think, place it after his arrival at Nicomedia, the see of that Eusebius from whom the Arian party derived their name of Eusebians, consequently some- where in the period about A. D. 321-325. But I am not aware that there are any facts that tell us whether these ''Blasphemies'" were put forth before the letter of Arius and his friends to Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, or not. It was, however, probably after Arius' Letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia which is given above. Newman gives these Blasphemies in poetic from. I have preferred the prose form, because I have thought that I could make the meaning clearer, here and there. St. Athanasius in sections 14 and 15 of his work On the Synods^ held at Arinmmm in Italy, and at Scleucia in Isaziria, denounces those '^who had, like drunkards, given thoughtlessly away, the honor of their Fathers and their own salvation for the heresy of the Ariaiis,'' and introduces extradis from Arius, as follows: "They therefore, out of zeal for that heresy, are of such aquar- page 94, note, tells us that the Sotades referred to was a native of Maronea, in Crete, and refers to Suidas in proof. He states further that he lived under the successors of Alexander, and refers to Athen. xiv., 4, in proof. Consequently he was long before the rise of the heretical sect of the Maronitcs. Such a queer blunder does not speak well for the learning of the writer of the note in Bohn's Socrates. Note "y," columns 83 and 84, tome 67, of Migne's Patrologia Graeca, speaks of Arius' Thaleia as "ad morera Sotadis, turpissimi Cretensis. iambographi Cretensis conscriptus, " that is as ''written in the style of SotadeSy. a most disgraceful Cretan writer of iambics.'*'' 202 Chapter III. relsome mind also: but do not ye be troubled on that account nor deem their audacity [to be] truth. For they are opposed even to their own selves, and having apostatized from their fathers, they do not have one mind but float about in various and different changes. And striving against the Council of Nicaea, they have held many Councils themselves, and have set forth a faith in each of them, and have stuck to none [of them]. And moreover they will never cease to act that way, for seeking in wickedness they will not find that wisdom which they have hated. "As a matter of necessity I have therefore subjoined portions of Arius' writings and whatsoever else I have been able to coUedl of those things which they have set forth in different Sjmods, in order that ye may know, and wonder why they do not cease to quarrel with an Ecumenical Synod and with their own Fathers. ' ' Because Arius and his partisans thought and said [as follows] : " ' God made the Son out of thiyigs that had no existence and called -Him His own Son;' ' ' ' The Word of God is one of the creatures;' and ' ' ' There was once wheri He zuas not;' and " ' He is alterable, being able when he wishes to be altered;^ " They were therefore cast out of the Church by the blessed Alexander. Section 15. But Arius having been cast out, and having been incited by the partisans of Eusebius, put together his own heresy on paper, and as if in festi\dty, emulating no sensible writer, but the Egyptian Sotades (229) in the stjde and looseness of his song he writes many things (230), a part of which are as follows: ' ' BLASPHEMIES OF ARIUS. ' ' God Himself therefore, as regards His own Nature is un- tenable to any man. He alone has no equal, nor any one like Himself nor equal in glorj^ to Himself And we say that He is ungenerated, because of Him who is generate (231) by nature. (229). Bright's Greek text of St. Athanasius' Historical Writings, page 259, has here li^aarijv, that is, Sosates. Newman's translation gives Sotades, (230). Greek, Tzo/'/.a. (231. Arius uses ^'getierate'' {ysvvrjrbi'), in the sense of "created," and " un- £-enerated" {'A-yiwr/rop), in the sense of "uncreated." Niccsa, A. D. J2^: Ariiis and his Heresies. 203 We hymn Him as without beginning because of Him who had a beginning: and we worship Him who is eternal, because of Him who came into being in time. He who is without beginning made the Son a beginning of things created, and advanced him into sonship to Himself, having made him [His] child (232). He has nothing proper to God, as regards the property of substance (233), for He is not equal [to Him], no, nor of the same substance as He is (234). And God is wise, for He Himself is the teacher of Wisdom. There is full proof that God is invisible to all beings. He is invisible both to things [made] through the Son, and to the Son Himself. And I will tell plainly in what sense the Invisible One is seen by the Son; by that power by which God is able to see, and in His own measure the Son endures to see the Father, as is lawful. Therefore there is a Trinity who are of unlike glories (235); their substances are not mixed up with each other. One [of those Three Substances] is infinitely more glorious than either of the other two (236). As regards substance, the Father is foreign to the Son (237), because the (232). Or ^'having adopted Him,'''' rsKvoKoiyaac, or "having generated Him,'' or "having created Him.'" (233). Here before Nicaea we find, (i), i'To/iorzV, that is Borne Forth out of the Father by Birth out of Him just before the worlds were made, and to make them. His Subsistence-Word was a mere creature, and so he was a creature-server. According to Arius, the Monad became a Duad, when the eternal Father,, the Monad, created Arius' non-eternal Son. (240). That is, seemingly foreign to the Father and the Holy Ghost. The Greek is, fiovoytvfjq Qeoq iari, kuI EKarepuv a?MTptog ovto^. (241). The Father, evidently. (242). According to Arius' common use oi generate {yzvvav), it means here to create. (243). Greek, Ix. tov Qeov vnicrij. But Arius differs fundamentally from the Orthodox sense of in Qeov\ for they meant by it, as in the Creed of the First Ecumenical Council, that the Logos had come out of the very Substance of God the Father, and was co-eternal with Him; whereas, Arius understood the expres- sion not "out of God''' at all, but "of God^'' or "from God" in the sense of being a creature made by God. (244) Greek, t'/c fiepovc. Newman renders that expression, "in His degree.'*' (245). The Father, according to Arius. Nkcsa, A. D. j2^: Arius and his Heresies. 205 able to the Son: for He is to Himself what He is, that is, unspeakable, so that the Son understands not to explain any one of the things mentioned, so far as relates to comprehending it (246). For it is impossible for Him to search out the Father who is above Him. For the Son does not know His own substance. For though He is a SoUj He really came into existence by the will of the Father. What reason then permits [us to think that] He who is from the Father should know by comprehension Him who generated Him 247). For it is plain, that it is impossible for Him, who had a be- ginning, to comprehend by the mind, or to grasp how He w4io is without a beginning, exists" (248). From these documents we see, 1. That Arius made the Son of God a creature: 2. That he made all worship of Him, mere creahire-iuorship also: 3. That he called Him God, and, hence, 4. He had two Gods, the Father, an uncreated and eternal God; and because an uncreated and eternal God, therefore a superior God; and the Son a created and so non-eternal God, and because a created and non-eternal God, therefore an inferior God ; and so he landed in polytheism. In other words he apostatized from the two fundamental prin- ciples of Christianity, 1. That there is only one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and, 2. That He alone is to be worshipped: and so he was what Athanasius brands him, an apostate to polytheism and creature- sen'ice. We will quote Athanasius further on. Besides Arius' own utterances above, there is another important document on his side by his friend and partisan, Eusebius, of Nicome- (246). Newman in a note on this place, page 96 of his St. Athanasius' Treatises Against Arianisnt, shows that the heretic Eunomius diflfered from Arius on the point of God's being comprehensible. (247). According to Arius, created Him. (248). I have translated the above from the Greek in Bright's St. Athanasius' Historical Writings, pages 259, 260. '. 206 Chapter III. dia. It is found in Chapter VI., Book I., of Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History. It is wholly Arian. The above-named were not all the heresies of Arius. St. Athana- sius, in his Treatises Against Arianism, expressly says that he was a Theopaschite. And the same charge we find in a work Agai7ist Apollinaris, which is published under the name of St. Athanasius. Besides, this last named work shows that Arius did not believe that Christ's humanity is perfect, but that it lacks a human mind, which he supplies by putting in its place his created God the Word. I quote two passages in proof : Passage I. — In Note 6, page 119, of his translation of .S*. Athayi- asius' Treatises Against Arianism, Newman shows that "Arianisnx involved the docftrine that our Lord's divine Nature suffered. ' ' Athanasius brings this accusation against them distinctly in his work Against Apollinaris. ' ' ' Idle then is the fiction of the Arians, who suppose that the Saviouv took flesh only, irreligiously impiiting the notion of suffering to the im- passible Godhead. Co7itr. Apollin. i., 15; vid. also Ambros. de Fidey iii., 31." Passage II. — St. Athanasius, in Section 3 of his Second Book Against Apollinaris, addressing him, points out as follows another error. I quote the place as in the Oxford translation : ' ' And Arius acknowledges flesh alone, in order to a concealment of the Godhead, and says that instead of that inward man which is in us, that is, the soul, the Word came to exist in the flesh ; — for he dares to ascribe to the Godhead the idea of suffering and the resur- rection from Hades." As Arius made his God the Word a mere creature he could there- fore logically enough, from that false position, make him liable to suffering ; and denying that Christ's humanity was perfect in that, according to his heresy, it lacked a rational soul, that is, a mind, he could also put his mere created Word in place of the human mind in Christ's humanity. He was hence a Monophysite of a certain pecu- liar sort, in that he ascribed but one Nature to Christ, and that a merely created one. He was also a certain peculiar sort of a Mono- thelite, in that he ascribed to his created Christ but one w'ill, and Niccca, .1. D. ^2^: Ariiis and his Heresies. 207 that will not a human one, but the will of his created God the Word, which stood in place of it, according to his heresy. St. Athanasius, in his First Oration Against the Arians, shows that Arius granted, however, that his created God the Word was be/ore all other created things, and that God the Father made litem through Him. . Hence, he differed radically from the view of St. Theophilus, of Antioch, and the Christian writers before Origen, that God the Word was co-eternally in God the Father, as a part of the Divinity, but was not bom out of him till just before the worlds were made and to make them. Arius denied that whole teaching by deny- ing that the Word is a part of God, or ever came out of Him, or ever was any part of the uncreated Jehovah at all, and by making Him a mere creature, created just before the worlds were made, and to make them. I quote Athanasius on that and on some other heresies of Arius. According to St. Athanasius (who knew Arius and his writings well, for they were all then extant, not partly lost as now), Arius held as follows: ' ' God the Father was not always ; the Son was not always ; but forasmuch as all things were made (249) out of nothing, the Son of God was also made out of nothing (250), and forasmuch as all things, are creatures. He also is a creature and a work; and forasmuch as. nothing existed at first, but all things were made afterwards, there was once when the Son of God also was not (251) and He was not be- fore He was generated (252), but had a beginning of existence, for He was made when God willed to create. For the Son Himself also is one work among all [created] works (253). And though by nature He is mutable, yet of His own power over Himself he willed to remain (249). Greek, tS, om ovtuv. Here we iiave one of the heretical expressions condeumed in the Anathema at the end of the Creed. (250). Greek, f f ovk ovtuv. (251). Greek, rjv ttote ote ovk t/v. Here we have another of the expressions ■which are condemned in the Anathema at the end of the Creed of the 318. (252) Greek, ovk jjv rrplv yevvrfifivai. Here we have another expression condemned in the Nicene Anathema. It is diametrically opposed to St. Theophilus' dodrine that the co-etemal and consubstantial Logos was in the Father till just before the worlds were made, and that then He was bom out of the Father's substance to make them. (253). This sets forth an error which is anathematized in the Creed of Nicaea. 208 Chapter III. good (254). When, however, he wishes. He Himself can make Himself changeable, just as all things can. * * * Christ is not real God, but He is called God by communion [with Divinity] (255) just as all other men may be. He is not the Reason (J> Aoyoi) who is by nature in the Father, and belongs to His Substance, and is His own Wisdom, by which [Wisdom] He made this world, but the Reason {o Ai>YoK * * By that Spirit the a7igels also bow to the Son; and the archangels and all the natures of invisible and heavenly beitigs by it bow to the Son, and through the Son, to the Father. * * * Ayid the Holy Ghost Himself before all things, and for all things, and above all things and with all thi?igs, bows to the Son (and it so does, Itself alone being zvithout a Mediator'), through Wlioni IT WAS IMADE before all things, as the Son also before all things, and for all things, and with all things, and above all things, bows to the Father and gives thanks without a Mediator" (262). (261). Athanasius' Oration I., Against the Arian, as quoted in Contogonis' Literary and Critical History of the Holy Fathers of the Omrch who flourished from the First Century to the Eighth; arid of their writings, (in Greek), tome 2, Athens, A. D. 1853, pages 149 and 150. (262). Migne's Patrologia Latina, torn. 13, col. 618. Hune Spiritum opor- tet nos necessarie coufiteri * * * tertium post Patrem et Filium natura 210 Chapter III. The Arian author of the Sixteenth of those Fragments, perhaps of the Fourth or Fifth Century (263), pubhshed by Migne under the heading '' Old Monuments pertaining to the Don,rine of the Arians,'* quotes as favoring his side a certain Bishop Bithe?ius, ' ' of whom an annotator in Migne remarks, " This Bishop Bithcnus is tuikyiown to me. An Arian Bishop Bitinicus occurs in the siibscriptions of the Coun- cil of Sardica, in Hilary Op. Hist. Frag. Hi. Bithynicus, a heretic^ occurs in the time of the Emperor Constantius in Athanasius, {0pp. t. i., p. 377,^'^ (264). If, as I presume, he was an Arian, and worshipped the Son as a creature, relatively to the Father, we have here an instance of professed relative creature-service in the following passage: "But we do homage to the Son, because, in our opinion, it is certain that that glory .of his ascends to the; father" (265). Here the following facts are evident. The Arians believed I. That the Holy Ghost is a creature. This is evident from the expressions : ''He is the [or " a "]y?r^/ and greater work of the Father through the Son, created through the So?i." This, of course, makes His creation posterior to the Son's. * * * Hie est primnm et majus Patris per Filium opus, creatum per Filium. * * * Hie Spiritus sanctus nou Deus neque Dominus, nou Creator neque Factor, nou cole.ndus neque adorandus. * * * In isto Spiritu et angeli ador- ant Filium, et arcangeli et omnes invisibilium et eoelestium naturae in isto adorant Fiiium, et per Filium, Patrem ; * * * et ipse Spiritus sanetus ante omnia et pro omuibus et super omnia et cum omnibus Filium adorat ipse solus sine mediatore, per quem factus est ante omnia : sicuti et Filius ante omnia et pro omnibus, et cum omnibus, et super omnia Patrem adorat, et gratias agit sine mediatore. (263). A note on the Sixth of those Arian Fragments puts its date about A. D. 381. See note " li," col. 610, tome 13, of Migne's Patrologia Latina. This, Fragment xvi., is perhaps of about the same age, though it contains no clear record as to its exact date. (264). Id., col. 622, Note "/z." (265). Migne's Patrologia Latina, torn. 13, col. 621. Similiter etiam Bithenus episcopus et cognitus ad Papam. * * * " Veneramur anient Filium, quia apud nos certum est hanc ejus gloriavi ad Patrem ascettdere.'* On the words ad Papam, the author of note " /," col. 622, id., states : " Perhaps Pope Julius is to be understood, to whom iJie Epistle 0/ Sardica was written, Hilary, Op. Hist. Frag, ii." jV/ara, A. D.j2j: An'us and his Heresies. 2il 2. The Ariaus seem also to have held that the Holy Spirit is of a different nature from the Father and from the Son also. For this Ariau writer sa3-s that the Holy Spirit is, ' ' The Third in Nature aud in order after the Father and the Sonf the third in order, that is, as being a creation of the Father by the Son, ("through whom," as it adds below, " It was made; before all things ;'') and so as having the Third place after them, and the third in nature after them, because, as the Arians denied that the Son is of the same sub- stance with the Father, so they made the Holy Spirit to be of a dif- ferent substance from either. That, indeed, was the teaching of Arius himself, for in the Con- fession written by him and several others of his party to St. Alexan- der, Bishop of Alexandria, they expressly say, " There are Three Subsistences.'''' And in the Thalia Arius writes : " There is a Trinity ivho are of unlike glories; their substances are not mixed up zuith each other.'" 3. Yet it is added, singularly enough, that this creature worships another, whom the Arians held to be also a creature ; that is, accord- ing to those creature-ser\^ers, a creature worships a creature ! For the writer adds, " The Holy Ghost Himself {He Himself alone [being] without a Mediator), before all things, and for all things, and above all things, and 'with all things bows to the Son." 4. Next follows the important statement which is closely con- nected in ideas with what just precedes : " This Holy Ghost is not God, nor Lord, nor Maker ; // is not to be worshipped nor to be bowed to." 5. The Arians worshipped God the Son as a creature, relatively, hotvevcr, to the iincreated Father. This, of course, was a return to the sinful^ heathenish principle of relative service; that is, serving a created thing, or a created person, for the sake of the true God, as the Israelites served the true God through the golden calf in the wilder- ness, and through the calves at Bethel and at Dan, and so were accursed and scourged by God. And what is more, in one of the following passages, that Arian relative service of a creature, by a creature, is charged to the influence 212 Chapter III. of the Holy Ghost ! I quote Passage I. : " But ive do homage to the Son, because, in our opinion, it is certain that that glory of His AS- ce;nds to thk Father." passage ii. ' ' By that Spirit [the Holy Ghost] the a^igels also bow to the Son ; a7id the archangels and all the natures of invisible and heavenly beings, by It bow to the Son, and through The Son to the Father;" that is, relatively to a creature for the sake of the Father. And, in what at once follows, the Arian blasphemer makes the Holy Spirit not only a mover to that crea-ture-service, but also a par- ticipant and chief in that Arian relative-service. For he immediately adds : " A?tdTJiii H01.Y Ghost HimseIvP be/ore all things, and for all things, and above all things, and with all things, bows to the Son;' ' that is, in the way It is represented above, ' ' Through the Son to the Father;'' as I understood him to mean. But according to the Arian view, the Spirit, though a creature, was in one respect at least like the Son Himself ; that is, It did not need a mediator. From the foregoing passages it will be seen that Arianism, which worshipped a created God the Son, and which made that created and therefore inferior God to be worshipped by a created Holy Ghost and by all other creatures, and which fell into the sin of relative-servdce, was a plain and evident apostasy back to the heathen sins of relative- service and creature-service. I will add that by its making two Gods, the Father an eternal, and because eternal, therefore a superior God, and the Son a non- eternal, but created, and because non-eternal and created, an inferior God; it was a plain apostasy to Polytheism. And by its denial of the real divinity of Him whom the scriptures again and again call really ''God," as for instance in I. John, v., 20; John I., I, 14; John xx., 28 ; and by its denial of the eternity of that divine Spirit Whom the Holy Ghost by Paul in Hebrews ix., 14, expressly terms ''eternal,^'' it was evidently both illogical and infidel, for while professing to receive the Scriptures which teach those truths, it rejedled the Scriptures in effect, by denying those truths, for they necessarily stand or fall together. Niccsa, A. D. 32^: An'us and his Heresies. 213 8. St. Athanasius brands Arms' heresy as resulting in Polytheism and Creature-Service. St. Epiphaniiis, and other Fathers, to the same effect. St. Athanasius has so much on those themes, that we can give only a small part of it here. The reader can readily find more in the Oxford translations into English of some of his works, and in the originals of all of them. Again and again he insists on the truth that thelyOgos has come out of the Father's substance, and that He is consubstantial and co-eternal with Him; and that the Arian denial of those truths necessarily ends in Polytheism and in the creature-service of bowing, as an act of religious worship, to a creature, and of pray- ing to a creature: whereas, he shows, the Otthodox refused to invoke any creature whomsoever and to bow to any creature as a6ls of relig- ious worship. And this he could say with truth, for as yet we never read of any saint-worship in the Christian Church. On the contrary, as that very able Anglican, Rev. J. Endell Tjder in his Primitive Christian Worship has shown, the Primitive Christian writers express themselves strongly against that Sin. No son of the English Church of our day has deser^^ed so well of it, as that too little appreciated and scholarly man. Arianism was the door by which the soul-destroying sin of sennng creatures first entered the fortress of the Universal Church, only however to be cast out of it at once by the First Ecu- menical Synod. Yet contrary to Nicaea, it spread for some years, by the aid of the Arian Emperors over most of the church, for Orthodox prelates were thrust out of their sees, and creature-worshipping Arians were put into their places, and for a long period, the poor people were taught that creature-service is right, that creatures may be invoked, bowed to, etc. ; and some of those so trained seem to have retained something of that error, for we find it afterwards among some, though forbidden by Nicaea and by all the Five Ecumenical Synods after it. For we must remember that even in the latter part of Con- stantine's reign, Orthodoxy was more or less harassed, and that from the beginning of his Son Constantine's reign to its end, A. D. 337— 361, it was persecuted; that during Julian the Apostate's swa)^, A. D. 361-363, it could look for no special favor, for as a creature-server he was naturally nearer Arianism than Orthodoxy; it breathed freely during the short reign of the Orthodox Jovian, A. D. 363-364, that is from June 27, A. D. 363 to February 16, 364, that is less than eight months: and that during the reign of Valens over the Eastern 214 Chapter III. Empire A. D. 364-378, it was persecuted there. From A. D. 364, when Valentinian I. became Western Emperor, the Western Orthodox had peace. But from the accession of Constantius in A. D. 350 to the rule of the whole Roman Empire, West and East, till his death A. D. 361, the Western Church was under the harrow. Wordsworth in his article in Smith and Wace's Din.ionary of Chi-istian Biography on the Sons of Constantine, Volume I., page 652, tells us from ancient authors how bitterly the Western Orthodox were persecuted during those ten years. He writes: "It would take too long to recount the disgraceful proceedings at the Council of Aries in 353, where the legates of the new Pope, Liberius, were taken in, or at Milan in 355, when Constantius declared that his own will should ser\'e the Westerns for a canon as it had serv^ed the Syrian Bishops, and proceeded to banish and imprison, no less than 147 of the more prominently Orthodox clergy and lait}' (^Hist. Ar. ad l\Ion. 33, etc.: see De Broglie, III., p. 263). The most important of the sufferers were Eusebius of A'ercelli, Lucifer of Cagliari, and Dionysius of Milan. Soon after followed the exile of Liberius, and in 355, that of Hosius. All this was intended to lead up to the final overthrow of Athanasius. ' ' Early in 356 Syrianus, the Duke of Egypt, began the open perse- cution of the Catholics at Alexandria, and Constantius, when appealed to confirmed his adtions, and sent Heraclius to hand over all the Churches to the Arians, which was done with great violence and cruelty, {^Hist. Ar. 54). George of Cappadocia" [an Arian] "was in- truded into the church, and Athanasius was forced to hide in the desert. In the same year Hilary of Poitiers was banished to Phrj^gia, ' ' During Constantius' time as Jerome vvTites, " The xohole world groaned and wondered that it was Arian.'' Edgar, who is not always sound, nevertheless says well, what I here quote to show how thor- oughly Arianism had befouled the Church by violence and t3Tanny. He writes on pages 307 to 309 as follows: ' ' The Arians, supported by the emperor, continued the persecu- tion of the Nicene faith, till the world, in general, became Arian. The contagion of heresy, like a desolating pestilence, spread through the wide extent of eastern and western Christendom. The melancholy tale has, among others, been attested by Sozomen, Jerome, Basil, Augustine, Vincentius, Prosper, Beda, Baronius, and Labbeus. NiccBa, A. D. S25' Arms and his Heresies, 215 '"Theeast and west,' says Sozomen, 'seemed, through fear of Constantius, to agree in faith.' Arianism, all know, was the faith produced by dread of the emperor. 'The whole world,' says the sainted Jerome, 'groaned and wondered to find itself become Arian.' Gregory's relation is still more circumstantial and melancholy. 'All,' says this celebrated author, ' except a very few whom obscurity pro- te(5led, or whose resolution, through divine strength, was proof against temptation and danger, temporised, yielded to the emperor, and betrayed the faith. Some,' he adds, 'were chiefs of the impiety, and some were circumvented by threats, gain, ignorance, or flattery. The rightful guardians of the faith, aAuated by hope or fear, became its persecutors. Few were found, who did not sign with their hands what they condemned in their hearts ; while many, who had been ac- counted invincible, were overcome. The faithful, without distindlion, were degraded and banished.' The subscription of the Byzantine confession was an indispensable qualification for obtaining and retaining the episcopal dignity. ' ' Basil on the occasion, uses still stronger language than Gregory. He represents the church as reduced to that ' complete desperation, which he calls its dissolution. ' According to Augustine, ' the church, as it were, perished from the earth. Nearly all the world fell from the apostolic faith. Among six hundred and fifty bishops, were found scarcely seven, who obeyed God rather than the emperor, and who would neither condemn Athanasius nor deny the Trinity.' The I^atins, according to Vincentius, ' yielded almost all to force or fraud, and the poison of Arianism contaminated, not merely a few, but nearly the whole world.' '"Nearly all the churches in the whole world,' says Prosper, * were, in the name of peace and the emperor, polluted with the com- munion of the Arians.' The councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, which embraced the eastern and western prelacy, all, through treach- ery, condemned the ancient faith. The Ariminian confession, the saint denominated 'the Ariminian perfidy.' 'The Arian madness,' says the English historian Bede, 'corrupted the whole continent, opened a way for the pestilence beyond the ocean, and shed its poison on the British and other western islands' " (266). (266). 'E(5())cft rore (5m tov tw liaaileug (pojiov, avaro?.?/ kuI ()i'aic 6un(ppovdv -rrepl rb 66-yua, (Sozomeu, IV., i6.). lugemuit totus orbis, et Arianum se esse miratus est. 21(5 Chapter III. Few systems of error have been more violent and brutal than Arianism. In the days of its power it was ruthless. Witness its out- rages, murders, and tyrannies at Alexandria and elsewhere, its op- pression of the majority of Christians, who still remained true to the Nicene Creed, its removals of sound Bishops from their sees, its fill- ing their places with creature-serving Arians, its persecution of the Trinitarian clergy and laity in the whole Roman Empire; an I in Spain after the Gothic conquest. And its terrible slaughters of the Trinitarians in Africa in the Vandal invasion, its confiscatings and exilings of the people, and its punishing and exiling of Trinitarian Bishops there, and its wholesale confiscation of their Churches and its use of them for their polytheistic, Christ' s-Divinitj^-denying wor- ship, and its outrageous treatment of females for professing the Nicene Faith are all told even by the skeptic Gibbon in the thirty-third and the thirty-seventh Chapters of his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Its policy in Africa was one of general spoliation and con- fiscation, and cruelty (267). Even Gibbon in the index to his Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, under ''Arians,'" witnesses to their cruelty in the East, that they ''abused their victory over the Coimcil of Nice, ' ' and that they ' ' displayed less firmness in adversity than their opponents'' The fact is that they had but little strength in the Church at the start; and that their chief reliance, as Athanasius shows, (Jerotn. adv. Lucif. 4, 300)- n/l7)v okiyidv ayav, (Naziaii. Or. 21). E/f u-oyvumv mvruv epxoucOa. Travri/i?) ATj7.vTat Trapa kanlrima, (Basil, ep. 82. ad Athau. 3, 173). Tanquam perierit ecclesia de orbe terrarum, (August. Ep. 93). L'eglise etoit perie, (Apol. I, 100). Dilapso a fide Apostolorum omni pene mundo. De sexcentis et quiu- quaginta, ut fertur, episcopis vix septem inventi sunt, quibus cariora essent Dei praecepta quam regis, videlicet ut nee in Athanasii damnationem conveuireut, nee Trinitatis coufessionemnegarent, (Augustin, Contra Jul. 10, 919). Ariauorum venenuni non jam portiunculam quandam, sed pene orbeni totum contamina- verat, adeo ut prope cunctis I^atini sernionis episcopis, partim vi., partim fraude, caligo qusedam mentibus ofFunderetur, (Vincent. Com. 644). Omnes pene ecclesiae, toto orbe sub nomine pacis et regis, Arianorum consortio polluuntur, (Prosper, Chron. i, 423). Ariana vesania, corrupto orbe toto, liauc etiam insulam veneno sui infecit erroris. Non solum orbis totius, sed et insularum ecclesiis aspersit, (Beda, i, 8). Fere omnes episcopi in fraudem sunt iuducti, ut Occiden- tales Ariminensi illi formulae, ita Orientales subscriberent, (Baron, in Bisciola, 230). Omnes pene totius orbis antistites metu exilii et tormentorum per vim, induxerunt, (Labbeus, 2, 912). (267). Gibbon's i?o;«^, Chapter XXXIII., Vol. III., page 543, and Vol. IV., p. 1 38, of Bohn's seven volume edition. See the original sources there cited. Niccea, A. D.^23: Arius ajid his Heresies. 217 was on the secular power, and that when it failed to support them they naturally fell, but not however till they had indocftrinated. during long years, many with the belief that creature- worship is right. If in the following pages St. Athanasius uses strong language of the Arian heresy, we must remember its long and bitter struggle to force on the Church its fundamental heresies of denying God, the Word's Divinity, and its necessary corollaries of Creature-Service and of Polytheism, and its persecuting and wasting spirit. Even after the desolating and destroying Arian deluge passed, it left in Arian minds, which outwardly conformed to Orthodoxy, the seeds of crea- ture-serving error, which were to appear here and there later on. For that heresy tyranized over the West for ten years, and over the East during most of the long period, A. D. 337 to 378, that is, during the reigns of the persecuting Arian Emperors, Constantius and Valens, a. period of about thirty-eight years. I quote certain passages of Athanasius against its novelty, its denial of God the Word s Divinity, its Polytheism a7id its Creature- Worship, rr j PASSAGE I, OF -ATHANASIUS, FROM SECTION I. OF HIS ORATION I. AGAINST THE ARIANS: St. Athanasius, in his righteous abhorrence of the great heresy of Arius, which denied the Divinity of God the Word, and brought in Polytheism and creature- worship, speaks of it as from its ''father, the devil, ' ' as making a pretence to be Christian, as perverting Scrip- ture, as without reason, but using sophistry in its place, and at the end says that, ' ' Those who call these men [the Arians] Christians, are in great and grievous error, as neither having studied Scripture, nor under- standing Christianity at all, and the faith which it contains." See the whole passage on pages 178 and 179 of the Oxford translation. St. Athanasius did not believe in that false charity which de- ceives the erring denier of Christ's Divinity, and of the truth that God alone is to be worshipped ; but, as his bounden duty was, warned him, that he might be saved. His course was noble, and deserves to be imitated by every true bishop, presbyter, and deacon, and by every Christian. "218 Chapter I. PASSAGE II. ATHANASIUS BRANDS SERVICE TO CHRIST AS A CREATURE AS NOVEI., AS A HERESY, AND AS FROM THE DEVIL, AND THOSE GUILTY OF IT AS NOT CHRISTIAN. Atlianasius, in Sections 8, 9 and 10 of his Discourse I. Against ■the Arians, in denouncing the novelty and heresy of their assertion that the Word of God is a creature, and is to be worshipped as such, says : " For who at any time yet heard of such doctrines f Or whence or from whom did the flatterers and bribe-takers of the heresy hear such things ? When they were being instru(fted as catechumens, who talked such things to them ? Who has said to them. Cease to zuorship the creation, and again come and worship a creature and a work ? But if even the}- themselves confess that //;c'_>' //az^*? heard such things nocv for the first time, let them not deny that that heresy is a thing alien, and not from the Fathers (268). But what is not from the Fathers, but has been now invented, what is it but that of which the blessed Paul has prophesied in the words, ' hi the latter times some shall depart from the so wid faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and to doHrines of demons, in the hypocrisy of liars, having their own cqn- sciefices seared (269), and turning away from the truth'' (2'] o). 9. For, behold, we speak boldly from the Scriptures of God con- cerning the pious Faith, and set them up as a lamp on its lamp-stand and say, that He is by Nature Real and Genuine Son of the Father, of His own Substance, Sole-Born Wisdom, and Real and Sole Word of God. He is not a creature nor a work, but is an offspring of the Father's own Substance. For that reason He is Real God, being of one and the same Substance with the Father. For He is ' Character of His Substance ' (271). But all those other things to which He said, (26S). St. Athanasius' Oration I. Against the Arians, Sectiou 8, (page 8, Bright's edition). T(f a'vTu'iq dpijKev on, " rr/v e'lg rtjv ktIglv Tiarpeiav CK^hreq, KTiafiari Kcu TZDii/fiaTL Tta/jv nimaepxiaOe ^arpeveiv; " El Jf Kal ahrol irpuTov vvv ofioloyovatv aK^Koinai TO, Toia'vra, jijj upve'iaOuaav aXkorpiav Kal ju// £k Tvarkouv elimi rf/v a'ipeocv ravrijv. (269). I. Tim. iv., I, 2. (270). Titus i., 14. (271). Heb. i., 3. XapaKTf/p T?)g vTroardaeug avTov. Newman's translation, most of it, is good, but it is very faulty in such passages as John viii., 42 ; John xvi., 28, and Hebrews i., 3, and in some other passages, including some in the Niccea, A. D. jSj: Anus and lu's Heresies. 219 ' I have said yc are gods' (272) have that grace from the Father by communion only with the Word, through the Spirit (273). For He is ' CharaSler of the Father' s siibstance' (274), and Light out of Light (275), and a real Likeness (276) of the Father's substance (277), For in another place the lyord said, ' He that hath seen Hie hath seen the Father' (278). And He alwaj-s was and is, and never was He not. For inasmuch as the Father is eternal, His I/Ogos [that is ^^ His Rea- .son"'\ and His Wisdom must also be eternal. Septuagint, because be gives the readiugs of our Coninaou English Version of those places, instead of a literal rendering of the Greek, and so blurs the sense. Some of Newman's Notes are good, others methaphysical rather than theolo- gical, and others of them in favor of Roman creature-worship and against the truth that God alone is to be worshipped, (Matt, iv., 10). (272). Psalm Ixxxi., 6, Septuagint, Psalm Ixxxii., 6, English Version. (273). That is, the Logos is really God ; but no creature is really such, though, as Rosenmiiller, on Psalm Ixxxii., 6, explains, the term is applied there to creatures as bearing authority or mission or function from God. The term there used {or ^ods is not, however, the incommunicable name, JehovaJi, which is never given to any creature, but Elohini, which is sometimes given in Holy Writ to mere creatures, sometimes to the sole true God. This is a noteworthy explanation which serves to illustrate other places in Athauasius where men are spoken of as ^Ort'5. Compare Rosenmiiller's ScJioUa in Veins Testaine7itiun on Psalm Ixxxii., 6. Athanasius shows that he means that any Christian can be called a god by virtue of his communion with Christ by his Spirit that dvvelleth in us, though as the Scripture rarely applies the term god to men we should use it very rarely, because it is very likely to be mis- understood. The Greek is, A). All the passages where 'Aarpt'vu and KpuaKwho occur in the New Testament may be found in the English- man'' s Greek Co7icordance of the Neiv Testament, uuder those two words. On the other hand, lariiri'O), "/ serve," is used both of the service of the true God, as, for instance, in Matthew iv., 10; Hebrews xii., 28; etc.; and for the forbidden worship of the Host of Heaven in A(?ts vii., 42, and for the service of creatures in Romans i, 25. The fact is, that there is only one kind of worship tolerated by God, and that is the Worship of Himself. All other kinds are forbidden by Him in Holy Writ and damn the soul to the endless flame, (Luke iv., 8; I Cor. vi., 9, 10; Galat. v., 19 to 22; Rev. xxi., 8). (303.) This accords with the common portraiture of things in the Scriptures where the prophets speak of the Israelites who worshipped animate creatures by bowing, invocation, etc., and mere things such as the golden calf iu the wilderness, at the same time as they worshipped Jehovah, as having forsaken Jehovah; for they violated His fundamental law to worship Him alone, and so in that fundamental sense forsook Him to their own eternal loss. For He pro- claims Himself again and again as the Jealous God, who will not give His glor\- to another, nor His praise to graven images (Exod. xx., 1-7; Isaiah xlii., 8; Matt, iv., 10, etc). Account of the Six Ecumenical Coxmcils. 229 they can not see the latter in the former because their natures and operations are foreign to each other and different from each other. And so thinking, they will certainly add more Gods still [to them]. For that is what those who have fallen away from God have taken in hand to do. Why then, when the Ariajis so infer and hold, do they not 7-eckon themselves to be of the mimber of thi5 pagans? For those pagans also, like them, serve the creature contrary to the God wha created all things (304). But yet they flee from the name pagan, in. order that they may deceive those who are without mind, though they secretly hold an opinion similar to theirs (305). For their wise say- ing, as they are wont to call it, [that is] ' We do not assert tzco Un- made'' [Beings], they plainly say to deceive the simple; for when they make the assertion. We say not two JJjimade Beings' They [neverthe- less] ASSERT TWO GODS, and that they have different natures, for one God is a made God and the other is Unmade. And though the pagans ser\'e one Unmade and many made gods, whereas those [Arians] ser\'e one Unmade God and one made God, they do not even then differ from the pagans. For He who is called by them [the Arians] a made God is one of many Gods: and, on the other hand, the many gods of the pagans have the same [created] nature as that one [created] God [of the Arians]: for both He and they are creatures. Wretched are they, and so much the more misled, in that their minds are against Christ: for they have fallen away from the truth, and have gone beyond the treason of the Jews by denying the Christ, and God-hated as they are, they wallow along with the pagans by SERVING A CREATURE AND DIFFERENT GODS. For there is One God, and not many, and His Word is one, and not many" (306). (304). Romans i., 25. (305). That is, like the pagans, they hold to more than one God, and like them hold that it is right to worship a creature, that is their created God the Word. (306). St. Athanasius' Oration III., Against the Arians, Section 16, (pages 169 and 170, iu Bright's Greek edition). Ei <5f (j\ iiiv "E//.»/i'ff Eft a)ev>]-(f) koI ■Ko72mq y^vi^rolq Aarpeinvacv, ovrvi tie hi ayev- r}-(f) Kal evi y£vr/-(^ ov6 ovtcj diacpsfjovaiv 'E'a?//vuv. "0 re yap Trap avruv Xeyo/uevoc ' yFvrjToq'^ f/f e/c TTo/J.uv icTL- Kul 01 -kuaTioX 6e Trdhv tuv 'WCkrivuv ryv av-rjv rcj hi to'vt(j (fi'vaiv exavar Kal ol'Tog yap kcikeIvoi KrhfiaTa. elmv. 'A8?uoi, Kal n?,elov ucov k^Mjiijaav Kara Xp/arov. (ppovf/aavreq. 'E^iircaav yap Tfjq alTjdnaq, Kal ttjv f/h 'lovdaiuv npodoaiav vvFpkftnnnv apvov/xevoi tov Xpicrbv, role de "E?i?L^ai cvyKV/Jovrai, KTiafian Kai 6ia(j>6potq Oenlg 7a-pi. vovreg ol deocrvydq. Elf yap Gedf icrt, Kal ov ito'/jmI, kuI t'lg 6 to'vtov Xuyoq kuI ov K0/.?i0L 230 Chapter III. PASSAGE 5, OF ST. ATHANASIUS, IN WHICH HE BRANDS THE ARIAN ASSERTION, THAT THE SON IS A CREATED GOD AS RESUI.TING IN POI.YTHEISM. IT IS FROM SECTION 64, OF HIS THIRD ORATION AGAINST THE ARIANS. In the context just before the following passage, St. Athanasius is engaged in refuting an attempted evasion of the Arians, which con- sisted in saying that, ' ' The Son was made by the pu7-pose arid will of the Father, ' ' and replies that that expression really amounts to the same thing as the other Arian statements, which, I would add, were condemned in the Nicene Creed, namely, " There 71' as cnce whe?t the Son of God ivas not;'' and " The Son zcas made ont of nothing;'' and ' ' He is a creature. ' ' Athanasius compares the Arian docftrine to the Valentinian. At the end he concludes that their making the Son a creature ends in Polytheism. I quote that part: ' ' The many headed heresy of the godless men falls into poly- theism AND UNMEASURED MADNESS, iu wliicli they wish the Son to be 'a creature' and to have been made ' 02it of nothing' and express iu another way the same errors [as the Valentinians] by bringing for- ward their phrase [the Son was made by the] '■purpose and ivilV [of the Father], which certainly in all fairness should be asserted onh- of things made and of things created (307). PASSAGE 6, Athanasius in Sedlion 13, of his Second Discourse of W\q Four Against the Arians, argues that because the Word zvas boiccd to by Abraham as Lord, He must have been God. I quote it, mainly as in the Oxford translation : "If then they [the Arians] suppose that the Saviour was not (307). St. Athauasius' Oratioti III. Against the Arians, Se<5lion 64, page 217 of Bright's edition; EvfiiaKtrai, ruv aOiov y Tm}.vKe(f>a?.oc alptaig fJf 770?a>Ht6Ti/-a TriTCTouaa kuI ajUTjMv iiavlai/, iv y " uTiafm " Kal "i.f ovk ovtuv " dilovTe^ elvaiTov Ttof, ircpuc Ta avTO. a/ftaivovai. NiccEa, A. D. j2^: Arms a7id his Heresies. 231 I/Ord and King, even before He l)ecame man and endured the cross, but then began to be Lord, let them know that they are openly utter- ing again the errors of the Samosatan (30S). But since as we have quoted and declared above, He is Lord and King, everlasting, seeing THAT ABRAHAM BOWS TO HIM AS LORD (309), and,Moses says. And the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrha brimstone and fire from the Lord out of Heaven (310), and David sings. The Lord said zinto my Lord, Sit thoic o)t my right hand (311); and Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever, a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy Kingdom (312); and, TJiy Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom (313). it is plain that even before He became man, He was King and Lord everlasting, being Image (314) and Word (315) of the Father. And the Word being everlasting Lord and King, it is very plain again that Peter did not say that the Substance of the Son was made, but spake of His Lordship over us, which came to pass when He became man, and redeeming all men by the cross, became Lord of all and King of all" (316), (317). (30S). Paul of Samosata, who made the Son to be a mere creature, aud \vas condemned and deposed for that heresy in the Council of Antioch, A. D. 269. (309). Genesis xvii., 1-4, and after. Athanasius and the ancient Fathers generally believed that the angel here mentioned as boivcd to, that is as worship- ped, and in Genesis xlviii., 16 as invotied, (aud both bowing and invocation are a(5ls of religious service in Holy Writ), and who is called Cod by Jacob in Genesis xxxii., 30, was God the Word before His Tncarnation. They so judged because of His receiving those two a6ls of religious service, and because He was called God. And that view is borne out by such passages as Genesis xii., i: Genesis XV., 7, and after, where that Angel, that is Messenger of the Father, asks for w^orship from Abraham, who gives it in the form of sacrifice: Nehemiah ix., 7: Acts vii., 1-4, and I. Cor. x., 4, 9. Their view is undoubtedly correct, for the notion that a mere creature was bowed to as God, aud invoked, aud called God would land us in creature-worship aud polytheism. (310). Genesis xix., 24. (311). Psalm ex., I. (312). Psalm xlv., 6. (313). Psalm cxlv., 13. (314). n. Cor. iv., 4: Col. i., 15. (315). John i., I. (316). The reference is to Peter's language in Acts ii., 36, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ." The Arians perverted the text to favor their own base and unworthy ideas of the Eternal Logos. (317). The Greek is found iu Bright's edition of St. Athanasius' Orations Against the Arians, page 81. 232 Chapter III. PASSAGE 7, OF ATHANASIUS, MEN-SERVICE AND CREATURE-SERVICE. The learned Suicer in his Thesaurus thus defines the expression crcahire-service, and -shows how the Orthodox Athanasius applies it to the Arians; which, in effect, even the Nestorian Theodoret also does : I quote: ' ' CREATURE-WORSHIP. ( hr 1(7 liar oAarp^ia^. ' ' The Lexicons do not have this expression. It means the worship of creatures. Theophylact has used this expression in his remarks on verse 6, Chapter 11. , of the Epistle to the Romans, page 21, as follows : " ' He said above that tlie reward for their error and for their crea- ture-service was rendered to the wicked in those things iii which they were gici/tj/ of [apiritnal and other] whoredom.' [compare Romans i,, 23 to Romans ii., 5, inclusive]. ' ' Creature- service {y.rKTiiaroXarptia) can be imputed to the Arians, and they themselves can be deservedly called creature-servers (xTiaixaToXdrpai) ^ because they said that the Son of God is a creature, but nevertheless worshipped that same Son. ' ' The following passage of an Oration of Athanasius Against the Arians^ tome 2, page 22, refers to that point: " ' The apostle charges it as a crime on the pagans that they worship creatures, when he says, that, they served the creature contrary to God the Creator. Btit those vien [the Arians] who say that the Lord is a creature, a7id serve Him as a creature, in what do they differ from the pagans ? ' " And what Theodoret writes in that .same place of theapostle, on Romans i., 25, page 19, refers to the same error: It is as follows: PASSAGE 8, ' ' ' Those also who call the Sole-Bom Son of God a creature, a7id nevertheless zuorship Him as God are stibject to those accusatio7is, ' ' ' [that is he means to the accusations made by the Apostle Paul in Romans i., 25, against the heathen that they ^^chatiged the truth of God into the lie aiid worshipped ajid served the creature contrary to the Creator^''\. For the same reason the Arians are accused of Man- Niccza, A. D. ^2^-' Arius and his Heresies. 23$ Worship QhOpwxolari)eiay, they are called Man-worshippers (avOpio~o/ji- ~/"^i), and are said io worship a vian (a'^Opio-olarpslv'). See under the words' AvOpioTzokarpeia [that is, " A/a?l- Worship "1, 'AvOpcuTroXarp^aj [that is "/worship a man"'], and "A-^Opco-oXdrprj?" [that is, " Afa7i-wor- shipper"]: that is, he means, those expressions in Suicer's Thesaurus. PASSAGE 9. The following passage from St. Athanasius' Four Orations Against the Arians, Oration Second, Secflions 23 and 24, makes. against any religious boxving or other zvorship to any creature, and impliedly against the Nestorian zvorship of the Man also whom God the Word put on: (Newman has given his own translation of the passage on pages 313, 314 of the Oxford translation of St. Athanasius' Tixa- tises Against Arianisni): I translate, premising first that Athanasius has just replied to the sophism and attempted evasion of the Arians. who said that the Son is a creature and a work, but ''not as one of the creatures." To this Athanasius replies that nevertheless, this leaves. Him a creature still, and then by way of showing its falsity shows that if He be worshipped because He is a superior creature, by the creatvires inferior to Him, then "each of lower creatures otight to wor- ship what excels itself." And then he lays down the alone Orthodox prijtciple that " To God alone appertains bozving, and this the very angels k7iozu, tho2igh they excel other beings in glory, yet they are all creatures and not to be bozued to, ' ' and this he shows at length. I quote all this part of the passage : "Moreover if, as the [Arian] heretics hold, the Son were ' a- creature or a work, bid not, as one of the creatures, ' because of His excelling them in glory, it were needful that Scripture should describe and display Him by a comparison in His favor with the other works,-: for instance that it should say that He is greater than Archangels, aud more honourable than the Thrones, and brighter than sun and moon, and greater than the heavens. But it does not in fact so- describe Him: but the Father shows Him to be His Own and Sole Son, saying, Thou art My Son (318), and This is My beloved Son, in zvhoni I am well pleased (319). And therefore the angels ministered (318). Psalm ii., 7; Actsxiii., 33; Heb. i., 5; Heb. v., 5. (319). Matt, iii., 17; Matt, xvii., 5; Mark i., 11; Mark ix., 7; Luke iii., 22;. Luke ix., 35; IL Peter i., 17. 234 Chapter III. unto Him (320) as being one beyond themselves, and He is bowed to by them (321), not merely as being greater in glory, but as being a separate [Person] beyond and aside from all the creatures, and as beyond and aside from themselves, ' and as being the Father's Sole [and] Own Son, as it relates to His Substance. For if He was bowed to as excelling them in glory, each of the lower creatures ought to bow to every other one who is above himself. But this is not the Qsc&Q., for creature does not bow to creature, but servant to Master, ayid creature to God (322). Therefore Peter the apostle hinders Cornelius who wished to bow [to him], [by] saying, I also am a man (323); and an angel in the Revelations hinders, John when he wishes to bow [to him by] saying. See thou do it not; I am thy fellow-slave, and of thy b7'ethrcn the prophets, and of those who keep the sayings of this book: ■bow to God{^^2\). Therefore it belongs to GOD ALONE to be boived to; and this the angels themselves know, for though they excel [or "are above"] others in their glories, nevertheless they are all crea- tures and are not of those who are bound to, but of those who bow to the Master. Therefore when Manoah the father of Samson wished to offer sacrifice to the angel, the angel forbade him [or "prevented him"] saying, offer not to me, but to God {^j'^h)-'' But [on the other hand] the Lord is bowed to even by the angels: for it is written. And let all the angels of God bow to Him (326), and [He is bowed to] by all the nations (327), as Isaiah says, Egypt (320). Matt, iv., 11; Mark i., 13. (321). Heb. i., 6, "And let all the augels of God bozv io him." So the Greek, literally trauslated, is. (322). Krca/xa yap uria^ari oh npoaKwei, a7i'Aa dov^MQ Aeanbrr/v aal uriafia Qeov. (323). Acts X., 26. The " wois hipped'" of our Common English Version in Acts X., 25; is in Greek TrpoaeKvrr/aav; so that the whole of that place is, " And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and bowed to him," that is he prostrated himself to him, for there was in this particular ■case a falling down at Peter's feet before the bowing to him was done. ■KpoatKuvr/aav expresses the bowing only. (324). Rev. xxii., 8, 9; and Rev. xix., 10. The "worship''' of our common Version is "bow" in all those places. The latter is the exact and only right rendering. (325)- Judges xiii., 16. (326). Heb. i., 6. (327). Or, "by all the Gentiles," better perhaps. Niaxa, A. D. j>^j.- Arius and his Heresies. 235 hath discovered thee (328), and the merchandise of the Ethiopians, and the Sabeans^ tall men, shall come through to thee and they shall be thy slaves (329). Then thereafter it reads, And they shall boza to thee, and by \or m] thee (330), shall they pray, for God is in thee, and there is no God besides thee (331). And He accepts His disciples' worship, and certifies them who He is, saying, Do ye not call Me, Tlie Lord and the Teacher f And ye say ivcll, for so I am (332). And when Thomas says to Him, My Lord and My God (333), He allows him so to speak; aye more. He accepts him [b}-] not hindering him. For He Himself is, as the other Prophets say and as David .sings, The Lord of Pozcers, the I,ord of Sabaoth which is interpreted, The Lord of Armies and very and Almighty God, even though the Arians burst themselves at this. But he had not beex bowed to, nor had those things BEEN SAID OP HIM, IE HE HAD BEEN ^. CREATURE AT ALL. ' ' But now, because He is not a creature, but the own Offspring of the Substance of the God who is bowed to (334), and Son by [His Divine] Nature, THEREFORE He is bowed to and is believed to be God and Lord of Armies and Ruler (335) and Almighty as the Father is: for He Him- self has said, All things that the Father hath are Mine {2,2,6). For it belongs to the Son to have the things of the Father and to be such that the Father is seen in Him (337), and that through Him all things were made (338), and that in Him the Salvation of all both comes to pass and stands fast" (339), (340). (328). Or, "hath watched [for thee]." (329). Or, ^'servants,'* 6ov7mi.. It is the Septuagint of Isaiah xlv., 14. (330). Ibid. The ev col irpoaEv^ovrai, refers as understood by Athanasius liere to praying to the Father in Christ's name (compare John xv., 16. : John xvi., 23, 24, 26,) and the Greek h>a h tiI> uvofian 'li/anv, of Philip, ii., 10, which maybe rendered, "that in the name of Jesus every knee should * * * bow," that is to the Father, or "at the name ' ' etc. , to the Sou. (331). Isaiah xlv., 14. (332). Johu xiii., 13. (333)- John XX., 28. (334). rov 77 poaKvi'oviiivov Oeov. {335). 'E^ovaiaar?)^. "Lord of Hosts" may be used instead of "Lord of Armies." (336). John xvi., 15, (337)- John xiv., 9. (338). John i., 3. Heb. i., 2. (339)- ^cts iv., 12. I. Thess. v., 9. Heb. v., 9, etc. (340). The Greek of the above place is found in Bright's Greek edition of St. Athanasius' Orations Agai}ist the An'ans, pages 91, 92 and 93. 236 Chapter III. passage; io, op athanasius: Athanasius, in Section 3, of his Epistle to Adelphius as quoted on page 210, of vol. iv., of Smith and Wace's DiHionary of Christian Biography, writes: ' ' We do not worship a creature. God forbid ! That is the error of the heathen and the Arians." PASSAGE II, OF athanasius: Athanasius, at the end of Se(5lion 6 of his Epistle to Adelphius,. writes : ' ' I^et them [the Arians] know, that when we worship the Lord in flesh, we are not worshipping a creature, but the Creator who has put on the created body, as we have said before" (341). See that sedlion quoted in full elsewhere in this work. The word rendered "worship," in both the last passages above means literally ' Ho bow;' ' that act of worship being the most common, and so being used for every other, as is common in the New Testament and in the ancient Christian writers. PASSAGE 12. Athanasius, in a noteworthy passage, insists that God the Word took flesh and became Man, and redeemed Man lest we should name another Lord besides the Word, that is the Man put on by Him, and fall into the Arian and Greek [that is "heathen"] folly of serving the creature besides the all-creating God. The passage is found in his Treatises Against Arianism, Oxford English translation, Discourse 2, pages 300, 301. Athanasius is dealing with the words of the Apostle Peter in Acfts 2, 36, and other passages which the Arians perverted to bolster up their service to the Word as a creature. And he has been contending that God the Word is our Apostle and High (341). Migue's Patrologia Craeca, tome 26, col. 1080, St. Athanasius' Epistle to Adelphius, a Bishop: Koi yivunKiruaav, on, tov Kvpiov ivaapKi vrpnaKv- vovvreg, oh Kria/^ari npocKwovfiev, a7<.7M tov Kt'lottjv evdvad/xepov to ktictov C7cj/za, Kada -rrpoeiTzouev. NiccBa, A. D. J2^: Arias and his Heresies. 237 Priest with the Father, (see id., pages 290, 291), and then further on states as follows, why He, that is God the Word, and not a Man, should redeem: ' ' For it was 7iotfitti7ig that the redemption should be accomplished by a7wther, but by Him who is Lord by Natiwe, lest though we iverc created through the Son (342), we should ?ievertheless name another, Lord, and fall into the Arian and pagan folly of serving a creature, contary to the God zvho created all things'''' (343). This dodlrine was afterwards enshrined in St. Cyril of Alexan- dria's Anathemas X., XI. and XII., which were approved with the whole XII. Chapters by the Third Ecumenical Council, A. D. 431. passage; 13, a passage of st. athanasius showing that hk econmically attributed to god the word the sufferings op the man put on by him, to avoid invoking a creature and other acts of creature-service. cyril of alexandria approves it and teaches the same doctrine. In a noteworthy passage, in Sedtion 32 of his Third Discourse Against the Arians, Athanasius, the great archbishop of Alexandria, tells us that the reason for ascribing Economically to the Word the sufferings of the Man put on by the Word is to avoid serving a crea- ture by prayer or in any other way (344). After showing in a long passage that the Arians failed to see, as, I may add, the Nestorians (342). John L, 3, where the Greek meaus through Hini,'" 6C avro'v, and I. Cor. viii., 6, where the same Greek words are found in the clause, ''''And we through Him.'''' (343). St Athanasius Oration II. Against the Arians, Section 15, at the end: (page 83 of Bright's Greek edition oiSt. Athanasius Orations Against the Arians'): Oil yap EirpEne (W krepov rf/v ?.vTpa)(nv yeveaBai, a7.1a (5m tov ^vaei Kvplov, 'iva fiij (ha yiov /liv KTii^ufieHa, aATio^' 6k Kuoiov ovofMni^ufifv, Kal neaufiev ctf tt/v 'ApEiavyv Kal tt/v ''E?.?.TjviKfjv acbpocvvjjv, kt'ioei. dovTidovreg napa tov KTiaavra to. -rravTa Qe6v. (344). This is St. Athanasius' and St. Cyril of Aiexandriai's doArine of Ecoftotnic Appropriation which was approved by the Third Ecumenical Council. I will treat of it, God willing, when I come to that Synod. It is, alas! too much forgotten in our day. 238 Chapter III. afterwards failed to see, that in the Son we are alwaj^s to keep in mind not two equal Natures; but one infinitel}' Supreme Nature, God the Word; and one infinitely lower nature, the human, which is the Word's clothing, that is the Man whom He put on and in whom He performed the human things, he adds : "It became the L,ord in putting on human flesh, to put it on whole with its own sufferings, that as we say that the body was his own, so also it may be said that the sufferings of the body belonged to Him [God the Word] alone, even though they did not touch Him so far as His divinity is concerned. If the body had been another's, the sufferings too would have been said to belong to that other. But since the flesh is the Word's, (for the Word became flesh) (345), of necessity then the sufferings also of the flesh are to be ascribed to Him Whose the flesh is. And to Whom [the Word] the sufferings are ascribed, such especially as are the being condemned, the being scourged, the thirsting, and the cross, and the death, and the other infirmities (346) of the body, to Him too belong the setting of things right and the grace (347). For this cause therefore, consistently and fittingly such sufferings are ascribed not to another but to the I^ord; that the grace (348) may be from Him, and that we may not become servers of another (349) but truly worshippers op god, because WE INVOKE no creature nor any common 7nan, but Him who has come out of God by Nature and is the very Son, even that very one be- come man, but yet nothing less the Lord Himself and God and Saviour" (350). (345)- John i., 14. (346). Or ''weak things,''^ aadevcKu. (347). Or "favor," xapt?. (348). That is, "favor," x^P'i- (349V The Greek as in Coleti Cone, torn. 3, col. 1413, ^as here instead of "and that we may not become servers of another,''' km /i?} d6o)?M^a.Tpat jivofiEfia. The margin gives yivufiiOa for yivo/xEda. I would therefor translate "and that we may not become idolaters, " or " and that we may not become servers of an image, " the image in this case being a man made like all other men in the image of God, as Genesis i., 26, 27, teaches. (350). Coleti Cone, torn. 3, col. 1413. I quote the whole of this part of the Greek, as there: A«a tovto to'ivw arnXovdug Kal Tvpenovrug ova a/J^ov, aXka tov Kvplov leytrai to, Toiavra naSrj, 'iva Kal y X'^pig t^ap avrov elt] Kal fifi €l6ulo7.aTpaL ytvofi^Oa [a?., yivufieda'], a/J.a dh/Oug Oeoae/3elc, uri tn/dlva rCiv yevvr/riov, fiy de koivuv viva iivHpunov, Nicaa, A. D. 323: Arms and his Heresies. 239' Here the worship is evidentl}^ given not after the Nestorian fashion to the man put on, but to God the Word, in accordance with Anathema VIII. of Cyril's XII., which were approved by the Third Ecumenical Council, and with the Ninth Anathema of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, A noteworthy fact in connexion with this very passage is that St. Cyril of Alexandria quotes it approvingly in his Defence of the Twelve Chapters Against the Oriental Bishops under Anathema XII. (351). It is certainly appropriate to the Defence of that Anathema, which, reads as in the same Apology as follows : " ANATHEMATISM XII. "If any one does not confess that the Word of God suffered in flesh, and was crucified in flesh, and tasted death in flesh and became \\\^ First Brought Forth from among -the dead (;^ 52) on the ground that He is Life and Life-Producing as God, let him be Anathema." (353)- The carefulness and even particularity of the Six Ecumenical Councils in guarding and explaining the prerogatives of God the Word as our Sole Mediator, Intercessor, and Atoner, are simply beau- tiful and wonderful. So when we bow or pray to Him we are to d'/.'/M. Tov eK eeov <},iaec kuI alrjeLvov Ylop, tovtop yevouevev av6pu-ov, ovdhv fjTTov tov Kbpiov avTov Kai e,dv ml lur^pa emKaXovfieda. * * * ^his is fouud without any im- portant difference on page 187 of Prof. Bright's reprint of the Benedidline text of t/ie Oration of St. Athanasius Against tlie Avians, (Oxford, 1S73), except that the latter has Kal fiy allov /Arpat ^,n>aj/xt0a, where Coleti, as above quoted, has Kal ,u] elduXoMrpai ycvofieda. There are a few other differences between the two editions on this passage, but they are of little importance, for they are merely verbal and do not perceptibly affect the sense. The passage is in Sedlion 32 ol vSt. Athanasius' T/ttrd Oration Against tiie Avians. As in Cyril's Defence of the XII. Chapters against the Orientals, in Coleti Cone, torn, 3, col 14 13 the passage above translated is preceded by the words : ^^ And it was sJiown 'that He Iiad a body not in [mere] appearance [only] but in [very] truth:' Then without any break, follow almost word for word the words above, "// became the Lord in putting on,'' etc. (351). See it in Coleti Cone, tom. 3, col. 1413, and on page 1S7 of Bright's Four Orations of St. Atlianasius Against the Avians according to the Benedict tine text, (Oxford, 1873). (352.) Col. i., 18. (553)- Coleti Cone, tom. 3, col. 140S, 240 Chapter III. •address His omnipresent and omniscient Divinity, never his mere . separate humanity, for it is a creature and does not possess God's attributes to hear us everywhere, and so it may not be separately worshipped. That is the teaching of those two remarkable Anathemas, and he who obeys them will not be a creature- server (xrt^rToAdr^Tj?), but a server of God alone, as we are all commanded by Christ Him- self to be in Matthew iv., lo, in the Words, '' Thou shalt bow to the Lord thy God, and Him only shall thou served For surely any man of logical mind should see at once that if in those Anathemas we are forbidden to give any act of worship separately, after the Nestorian fashion, to the human nature of Christ, which is the most perfect and the highest of all created things, much more are we anathematized if we give any act of religious service, be it bowing, prayer or any other, to the blessed Virgin Mary, who brought forth God the Word in flesh, to any archangel or angel or Saint departed, or to any other creature whomsoever, or to any created or made thing. PASSAGE 14. St. Epiphanius, in Sedion 50 of his Ancoratus, shows that bow- ing as an act of religious service is prerogative to Divinity, and that as it is given to the Son of God in Scripture, therefore He must be Ood. I quote. He is opposing creature-ser\^ers of his day: ' ' And let them not vainly heap up blasphemies to themselves. For if the Son is a creature He is not to be bowed to, according to the do(5trine of those [texts of Scripture]. For it is foolish to bow to a creature, and to do away the first commandment which saith. Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is [but] one Lord (354). Therefore the Holy Word is not a creature because He is to be botved to. The dis- ciples bowed to Him (355). The angels in heaven bow to Him, [for Scripture saith],, A7id, let all the angels of God bow to Him;' (356) (357)- (354). Mark xii., 29, Deut. vi., 4. (355). Matt, xxviii., 17; John ix., 38, etc. (356). St. Epiphanius' Ancoratus, Section 50, (page 144, vol. i., of" Din- dorf s edition), Et yap KricToq kariv 6 Tibq, ov 7rpooKvvj/Tdg, Kara tov hKeivuv /.oyov. Mupbv yap icri kt'low npoaKwelv Kal dderelv t^v npurnv ivToAr/v Tfp> Uyovaav, " "Akove 'Iapai/2, Kvpioq clg kariv." Ov ktictoq to'lvw 6 ayiog Adyog, on TrpoaKwrrrdq. JlpoceKivT/aav uvT(f> ol fiadijToi. npocKvvovmv avr(p ayyeloi h ovpavQ, " Kai, UpoaKvvr/adruaav ahri^ TrdiTtf dyyeTiOi QeovV (357)- Heb. i., 6. Niccsa, A. D. 325-' Arius and his Heresies. 241 PASSAGE 15. St. Epiphanius, writing on Heresy LXIX., that of the ^m- maniacs, in Se(5lion 31, charges the Arians with giving Christ the position of the execrable and detestable image, that is idol, set up by Nebuchadnezzar to be worshipped, in that they made Him a creature and then worshipped Him as such. In other words, they made Him a false God, because they made Him a created God. For there is no other God than the uncreated Jehovah. Epiphanius is here insisting especially on the point, that the whole question of His being wor- shipped depends wholly on His being uncreated God. He is deaUng with the passage in John xvii., 3, " This /^ * * * Hfe^ that they may know Thee the only true God, ' ' and he shows that they took it in such a sense as to make it mean that God the Word is not true, that is, not real God. He goes on to show that in denying that He is of one substance with the Father, and in making Him a created God, they must necessarily end in Polytheism and in Creature-Worship. I quote : ' ' Thereupon Arius and his followers leap up on account of the expression as though they had found something against the truth, because Christ said 'the 07ily trice God: Thou seest therefore \\he.y say] that the Father is 'the only trice [God].' But we ourselves also ask you, What then do ye say? Is the Father the only true [God]? What then will the Son be? Is not the Son true [God] ? If the Son is not true God our faith is vain; the preaching among us is vain. Ye will be found to utter blasphemies to your own hurt by likening, the Son to nameless and nefarious idols, to which the prophets have spoken in the person of the deceived ; when speaking, remembered that expression, and the expression, your fathers made false gods for themselves, and the hills became false (358). Is then even the Sole-Born so judged among you, and do ye think so disgracefully in regard to Him who redeemed you, since indeed (359) He did redeem you? But ye are no longer of His fold, for ye deny your Saviour and Redeemer. For if He is not real God, then He is not to be bowed to: and if He is a creature, He is not God. And if He is not to be bowed to why then is He called God ? Cease (358). Jerem. iii., 23, Sept. (359). Or, " if indeed, "« ye ff'y/opaw. 242 Chapter III. ye to work out the Babylonian nature again (360), for ye have set up the likeness and the image of Nebuchadnezzar (361), (362), and have sounded that much talked of trumpet to gather the warriors, and with music and cymbals and stringed instrument ye have made the peoples to fall by means of your deceptive words, for ye have got them to serve an image rather than God and truth. And what other is real [God] as the Son of God is ? For saith the Scripture, Who a»io)ig' the Sous of God shall be counted equal to the Lord (363) ? And, No other shall be compared to Him'' (364), (365). Just below, Epiphanius says that the Son is the truth, and quotes His words in John xiv., 6, ^' I am the Truths PASSAGE 16. St. Epiphanius on Heresy EXIX., Secflion 36, after arguing that a creature could not save us, and that we need a divine Redeemer, comes to notice the Arian absurdity that the Father had created a God and given Him to us to be worshipped: which he shows to be contrary to the Christian docflrine that no creature can be worshipped; but that all religious bowing is prerogative to God. For he writes : ' ' Moreover how could God have created a God and given Him to us to bow to, when He saith, ' Thou shall not make to thyself any like- ness of any thing on earth or in heaven, and Thou shall not bow to it (360). Diudorf, on page S35 of Part I., of volume iii., of his edition of Epiphanius, approves the reading (pl'/>aiv, mixture, instead of (i)i'aiv, nature, above. With oriicw, the translation would be, " Cease ye to work up the Baby- lonian mixture agai7i.''^ (361). Daniel iii., 1-30. (362). Epiphanius on Heresy LXIX., Section 31, (pages 176 and 177 of Part I., vol. iii., of Dindorf's edition, Lipsiae, A. D. 1861), Ei ovk. Ictlv a7iTjdi.vbg 6 Tide, fiaraia // niartg fifiuv fiaraiov to iv yji'tv Kr/pvyfia- evpeOi/aEode aTretKa^ovreg tov Yibv (i'/.aacpiifiovvTeg Kcift' eavruv, toIc avuvvfioig koI dtfe/uiToig eid, uf e(i>r/i: (372). Id. Niaea, A. D. J2^: Ariics and his Heresies. 245 "Yes, saitli he, I do bow to God (373). "What sort of a God then will that created God be who is called God by thee and bowed to by thee (374) ? For if the God who is to be bowed to created that One, and was well pleased that He should be bowed to, and nevertheless that very God who created [Him] is not willing that any other creature should be bowed to, but blames those who bow to a creature, and teaches in the L,aw [of Moses], Thou shall nol viake lo Ihy self any likeness and bow io it, be it of any thing- in Heaven, or 07i the earth, or in the waters (375); and the apostle saith, They served the creature besides the Creator and became fools (376)/ how comes it then that he commands that no creation at all shall be bowed to? Is there then respect for persons with God (377) ? God forbid ! For in showing that the One God is to be bowed to, he has certainly shown that the one bowed to is other than the creation, and tiiat the creation bowed to is other than the Lord who is to be bowed to, [that is] the Son of God who was born out of the Father. For because He was born out of Him, He is a Son like Him, and of His Substance (378): and for that reason He is to be bowed to by all. Through Him [the Son] He [the Father] made all things, and without Him was nothing made [that was made] (379). For by Him and by His Holy Spirit, who hath come out of Him (380), and receiveth from the Son (381), He [the Father] made and settled all things. For by the Word of the Lord the Heavens were settled and all their (382) power (373). Epiphauius' Pauarion, Heresy I^XXVII. , Sedlion 8. '^poGKwtlq roivw Tov I'luv Tov Qeuv, i/ oti TrpoaKvvE'i^; val, i^ijal, npoaKwu avrSv. Qi:bv npooKwel^, i] ovx'; val ^Tjal, Qebv TrpooKwu. (374). Greek, TvpoaKwovfiEtmc, that is, of course 7Vor shipped, for bowing is the most common act of religious worship and stands for all of them often as here. (375). Exod. XX., 4, 5. (376). Rom. i., 25. (377). II. Sam. xiv., 14: Acts x., 34. (378). Greek, ofioiov avru) nal kut' cwtov Tlov. Literally, "like Him and ac- cording' to Him.''' (379)- Jo'i" i-. 3- (380). John XV., 26. (381). John xvi., 14, 15. (382). Dindorfs text has "his,'' ahnw; but on page 864, Volume III. of his. edition of Epiphanius he restores "there." I follow his restoration. ■246 Chaptcy 111. by the Spirit (3S3) of His moutJi (384). For when the Sole-Born, (as has been said by me above), said That they may know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thon hast se?it (^t^S^), He separated Himself from the creation, as the apostle also saith. One God of wliom are all things, and 7ve through Hiin, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we through Hint (386). And thou seest how he hath showed that there is but one God the Father, and one lyOrd who was born out of Him (387): and he did not say, There is 07ie God, aiid 07ie Lord in such a sense that all things else were born out of the Father, as the Son was (388), but One Lord through 7vhom (3S9) are all things. And since He is [but] One l^or 6. through whom are all things, He is riot one of all [created] things, but is Maker of all things, for He is the Creator of all created things. " ' Further on, on the same Heresy LXXVI., St Epiphanius con- trasts as follows the entire freedom of the Universal Church from the fundamental error oi creature-worship. For he writes: "And we; ourselves do not worship anything inferior to THE SUBSTANCE OF GOD HIMSELF, BECAUSE WORSHIP IS TO BE GIVEN TO HIM ALONE WHO IS SUBJECT TO NO ONE, THAT IS TO THE UNBORN FATHER, AND TO THE SON WHO WAS BORN OUT OF HIM, AND TO THE HOLY GHOST, who has come from Him also through the vSole Born. For THERE IS NOTHING CREATED IN THE TRINITY. ^: * * ge- cause the Trinity is uncaused b}' any H< >i< * cause, It has uner- ringly taught that Itself alone is to be worshipped : for Itself alone is uncaused:* whereas all things [else] have been caused. For they have been made and created, but the Father is uncreated, and has a Son who has been born out of Him, but is no creature, and a H0I3' Spirit who goes out of Him, and was not made. Since these things are so, the Son who is worshipped is not liable to the suffering of a creature" (390). (383). Or ''breath,''' ru TTPEVfinri. (384). Psalm xxxiii., 6. •(385)- Jolin xvii., 3. (386). I. Cor. viii., 6. (387). Greek, t^ ahroh. (388). Or, " a?id one Lord together with all the things made by Him.'^ (389). Greek, '5/' nv. (390). Col. 609-612, tome 42 of Migue's Patrologia Graeca. Account of the Six Eaune^iical Coimdls. 247 Just before, on the same Heresy, Kpiphanius censures the Eunomians, that is the Aetiaus, for worshipping that which is not divine in its substance (391). Epiphanius is gloriously Orthodox against all creature-service. But to quote all the passages from him against that sin would occupy more space than the limits of this work pennit. On the Anomoeans, that is the Eunomiaus, for instance, he witnesses against it in Se(5tions 8, 9. So he testifies further on, on the same Heresy, on pages 430, 431, 435, 436, 445, 447, and 448, in Volume III. of Dindorf's edition. So he is especial!}' valuable also as a witness, in his remarks on the Colly ridian Heres}' (Heresy I^XXIX.) against the worship of the Virgin Mar}', of which he had just heard: so late is it. PASSAGE 19. Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia, was a valiant and noble champion for Christ against the creature-servdce of Arianism, which, in the passage below quoted, he calls '' Arian Idolatry;'' and justly, because it made one whom it called a creature, God, and worshipped that creature. Because of his stand for the consubstantiality and co- eternity of God the Word with the Father, the Arian Emperor Con- stantius banished him during the period A. D. 355 to A. D. 361. He spent part of the time in Palestine, at Eleutheropolis, where he is thought to have written his Two Books for Saint Athanasius to the Emperor Constantius. They are praised by Athanasius. He wrote other works also for Orthodoxy (392). This Litcifer oi Cagliaria in his work, ''^or Saint Athanasius, addressed to the Arian Emperor Constantius,''' tells him: ' ' And thou oughtest not to doubt that thy works are malign, but Athanasius' just. For thou art a murderer, a destroyer of God's religion, a denier of the only Son of God, an overthrower of the Apostolic faith, an establisher, of arian idolatry" (393). (391). Col. 60S, id. (392). On Lucifer %&& Davies' article " Liiciferiis I." in Smith and Wace's D'.dionary of Christian Biography. (393). Migne's Patrologta Latina, torn. 13, col. 905. Luciferi Episcopi Calaritani, Pro Sancto Atlianasio, lib. ii., Nee debes dubitare opera tua esse maligna, Athanasii vero jnsta. Tu etenim es homicida, religionis Dei destructor, unici Filii Dei negator, apostolicae fidei expugnator, idololatriae Arianae funda- tor. 248 Chapter III. In the same work before, I^ucifer with reference to the fact that Arianism brought in a created God in its Word, and so a new God besides the increate Jehovah, quotes against the Emperor, Deut v., 7-1 1 , which forbids to worship any such new God, and calls such creature-worship '''idolatry.'''' For he asks him, "/f it good to forsake God a7id to go after idolatry, or is it evil f (394). To show further the grievousnessof Constantius' sin in spreading such creature-ser\nce, he quotes as apposite Deut. xvii., 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, which infli(5ls the punishment of stoning to death on every man and woman who brings in a new God, such as the Arians made their Word to be b}^ pro- claiming that he was a creature, and hence not Jehovah. One thing about Lucifer however is censured by the ancient Orthodox, not his doctrine against Constantius and Arianism, for St. Athanasius himself uses similarly strong and deserved language of both the Emperor and his heresy, but his too severe spirit against the penitent Arian when he reformed and returned to the Church and laid aside his denial of the Word's consubstantiality and co-eternity with the Father, and renounced his creature-worship and his Polytheism. We should imitate God's mercy in the Old Testament and in the New toward creature-serv^ers when thej^ repent and sincerely reform : but, like Him, and in loyal obedience to His Holy Word and to the Six Ecumenical Councils of His whole Church East and West, through which He has spoken against all creature-ser\ace, by His Spirit promised to the Universal Apostolate, we should denounce them and all other errorists till they repentand reform, warn them of the threats in His Word against all creature-servers, and of the instances of his righteous wrath visited on them in ancient times by the Assyrian and the Babylonian, and in later times by the Persian, the Saracen, the Tartar, and the Turk. For unless we witness for Him in such things God will require their blood at our hands (Ezek. iii., 18, 20: Ezek. xxxiii., 6). As to every impenitent and irrefonnable creature-sen'cr and infidel, the Apostle Paul warns and commands, ''But now I have written tcnto you not to keep company, if any 7nan that is called a brother ^^ * * ^ an idolater, with snch a o?ie tio 7iot to eat,''^ (1. Cor. Y., 11). We should maintain that historic traditioit of Scriptural truth, for (394). Migne's Patrologia Latina, tome 13, col. 825 and the context; Luciferi Episcopi Calaritani, Pro Sancto Athanasio, lib. i. Bonum est dere- linquere Deum, et ire post idololatriam, an malum ? Niciza, A. D. J2^: Arius and his Heresies. 249" it includes the Scriptures, not all then written, but penned since, a part of which is loyalty to the truth that God alone is to be invoked, and bowed to as a(5ls of religious service (Matt, iv., lo); as to which Tradition the Holy Ghost by Paul saith in solemn language, ''Now we eom7na7id you, brethre?i, m the 7iame of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdrazv yoiirsclves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of ns,'' (II. Thess. iii., 6). The tradition which he means is not the legendary tradition which contra- di(5ls Scripture, but the historically attested Transmission in do(5trine, discipline, rite and custom of the Ante-Nicene Church which comes down from Christ and His Apostles. The ignorant often confound them. But alas ! in our day, how many disobey St. Paul's injuncflion and dote on such perverters of souls into creature-service as John Henry Newman, and praise him after his death in that idolatry against which Holy Writ utters the warning of Galatians v., 19-22 and Revelations xxi., 8. PASSAGE 20. Faustin, a Presbyter of Rome, who flourished in A. D. 369, and after, was a decided friend of St. Athananius and the Nicene Creed against the Arians, but was later a Luciferian, and so too uncharita- ble against the reforming and penitent Arian, who came back to the Church. He wrote a work on the Trinity, which he addressed to Flaccilla, the wife of the Emperor Theodosius the Great. He composed it at her request. It repays perusal. Among other things he shows that the Arians charged the Orthodox with having two Gods because they believed in the Father and the Son, but he denied that inference; and, following Athanasius and the rest of the Ortho- dox, retorts the charge on themselves, becau.se they had two separate Gods of unhke-substance. I would add that Faustin shows that the Orthodox Trinity are of but one substance, and, I will add, that according to the teaching of Tertullian and the earlier Orthodox, the Father, His co-eternal Word and His co-eternal Spirit are three Parts of one whole Divinity, and that therefore the charge of having two or three entire Gods is a self-evident slander. Whereas according to Arius, the Father is the entire God without the Son or the Holy- Ghost, each of whom is an entire being, separate from the other Two,, so that the charge of Polytheism can not be denied by any Arian. Faustin, the Presbyter, brings out in Sedion X., of Chapter I., "250 Chapter 111. of his work on the Trinity, the Arian weakness in making the Father and the Son to be of two different substances; one uncreated and the other a creature, as militating in effect, against any claim on their part to be Monotheists (395). In Sedlion 9., referring to the statement of Christ in John x., 30, / and the Father are one, he comes to accuse the Arians of Poly- theism, as follows : "Arius having reference to the term ^ are'' [in the plural], and understanding it to teach a plurality, introduced an impious plurality of Gods, and came to believe in one eternal God, and another who "began to be God; one Almighty, and another who is not Almighty. But O the blindness," etc. (396). PASSAGK 21. Further on, in Se(5lion 9., Chapter II., of the same work On the Trinity, Faustin again refers to the Arian heresy, as resulting in Polytheism and Creature- Worship, and brands it as destructive of the soul therefore. I quote : "For when he [Christ] said, For God so loved the zvotld that He gave His Sole- Born Son, He goes on and says, That whosoever be- lieveth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life'' ij^'^i). ' 'Again, I will say, He is the Sole-Born Son. [But] how can it be that 7vliosoevcr believeth in Him does not perish, but shall have everlast- ijig life, when to believe in a creature is an offence to the Divinitj'. Look at the Apostle Paul : consider what disgraceful things, what ■obscenities he reports of those, who, as he himself asserts, ehanged the triith of God into a lie, and zvorshipped and served a creature rather than the Creator (398). If thou so believest, and so worshippest, and [so] servest the Sole-Born Son of God, though thou sayest that He is a creature, there await thee, O wretched man, those evils by which (395). Migne's Patrologia Latina, tome 13, col. 44, 45. Faustiui presbyteri De Trinjtate, cap. x., Se6liou i. (396). Id., cap. xi., Sf.ftiou i, Arius respiciens ad hoc quod ait, shduis, iu hoc sermone, pluralitatem intelligeus, iutroduxit, impiam pluralitatem deorum, credeus uuum sempiternuni Deum, et alium qui esse coeperit Deus; uuum omui- j)otentem, et alium qui nou sit omnipoteus. Sed O caecacitas, etc. (397)- John iii., 16. (398). Romaus i., 25 aud after. Nica;a, A. D. J2j: Aii'iis a/id Iiis Heresies. 251 those are punished, who have ehanged the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served a crcatjire rather than the Curator'' (399). Then he takes up and refutes another Arian assertion, namely that " Christ is an adopted Son of God, and not the real Son ' ' (400). PASSAGE 22. Still farther on, in the same work On the Trinity, Chapter III., Sedlion 2, Faustin, like Athanasius, makes bowing (religious bowing of course) prerogative to God, and the fact that it is gi\-en in Scrips ture to Christ, to be a proof of His Divinity. He first quotes Isaiah xlv., 14, 15 and 16, which in his Latin reads (I translate), ^^ Egypt is wearied; and the btisiness of the Ethiopians, and the Sabeans, tall men, shall go over to Thee, and they shall be thy servants, and boicnd with fcttei's they shall follow after Thee, and shall bow to Thee, and by Thee shall they pray: for God is in Thee, and there is no God beside Thee. For thon art God, and we knew it not, O God of Israel the Saviour. All who oppose Thee shall be ashamed and con- fotmded, and shall go to cojifusion.'" Without any break he goes on to apply the passage to prove the perfect Divinitj^ of the Eternal Word. For he says, "Notice, that to the Son are uttered the words, 'And they shall be thy servants, and bound with fetters, they shall fillozv after Thee, and shall bow to Thee, and by Thee shall they pray (401). And The Son is proven to be very God by the fact that He is bowed TO. For it belongs to God to be bowed to: since indeed in an- other place, also an apostle teaches that concerning the Son of God it (399). Migne's Patrologia Latina, tome 13, column 57: Faustiui presbyteri De Trinitate, cap. ii., sect, ix., Iterum dicam, est unigenitus Filius: quomodo qui credit in eum, nou perit, sed vitam habebit aeteruam, cum credere in crea- turam sit Divinitatis offensio? Respice ad apostolum Paulum; cousidera, quae opproliria, quas obsceuitates de his reterat, qui, ut ipse ait, conimiitarertint veritatcm Dei in viendacio. et coluenint et servierunt creatiirae potiits quavi Crcatori (Rom. i., 25). Tu si sic credis, et sic colis, et servis unigeuito Filio Dei, ut eum dicas esse creaturam, ilia te mala miser exspedlaut quibus illi pun- iuutur, qui commiitavernnt veritatcm Dei in mendacio, et coluenint et servierunt creaiurae potius quani Crcatori. {400). Ibid. (401). Isaiab xlv., 14. Faustiu's Latin of that verse differs a little from Jerome's Vulgate, which was not made till later. 252 Chapter III. is written, And let all the angels of God bow to Him (402); that is because He is really God and Lord" (403). Then Faustin takes up the words ' ' God is in Thee, and there is no God beside Thee. For thou art God and we knew it not, Oh God of Israel the Saviour;''' and says : "Therefore since God is in God, and there is no God besides Hint in whom God is, and He Himself is God, the Saviour of Israel; there is shown [thereby] the oneness of the Divinity in the Father and in. the Son, as also the oneness of their ahnightiness, and im general terms of whatsoever belongs to the divine Substance" (404). But we will quote no more of Faustin, but limit ourselves mainly to those passages which speak of Arianisra as Polytheism and Crea- ture-Service, for that is the topic of this se(5lion. The Arians opposed the dodlrine of the primitive Christian Writers, St. Justin the Martyr, St. Theophilus of Antioch and others that God the Word had been from all eternity in the Father, as a consubstantial Part of Jehovah, but was born out of His mouth just before the worlds were made and to make them and they were vulgar and low enough and blasphemous enough to pervert it and to lug in mere human analogies which it rejedts. A very ancient Fragment of an Arian Writing, which is found on columns 593 and after of tome 13, of Migne's Patrologia Latina, perverts and blasphemes the Orthodox dodlrine as follows : the heretic is replying evidently to the reproach that the Arians are Ditheists, that is Two-Gods-ites; and is. stung and angered by it: for he says: "If God has a Son, He must have a wife also, or surely He is. feminine, and has conceived and brought forth a Son by another Per- son, See ! you say therefore that there is more than one God. Why [then] do ye insult us, because we assert that there are gods?" (405). (402). Heb. i., 6. (403). Migne's Patrologia Latina, tome 13, col. 64, Faustini Presbyteri De Trinitate, cap. iii., sect. ii. : Intende quia ad Filium dicitur Et tui erunt sei~oi, et post te sequenttir aUigali vinculis, et adorabimt te, et in te deprecabnntur (9). Ergo et hinc Deus verus osteuditur Filius, cum adoratur. Dei euim est adorari: Siquidem et alibi docet Apostolus de Filio Dei esse scriptum; Et adorent cum. omnes angeli Dei (Heb. i., 6); scilicet quia vere Deum et Dominum. (404). Ibid. (405). Sermonum Arianorum Fragmenta Antiquissima, * * * Frag- mentum Primum, col. 594, 595 of tome 13 of Migne's Patrologia Latina: Necesse. Niccea, A. D. J2^: Arius and Ids Heresies. 253 There must have been much of such Arian stuff. For Hilar>-s Book Against Constayitius, page 7, states that ''All the writings of the Churches, and all the books are filled with the most impious blasphemies of the Arians,'' (406). Some of them are still found, at least in palimp- sests (407). St. Chromatins, the friend of Jerome, and Bishop of Aquileia in Italy in the last years of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth, in his TraHates on the Gospel of St. Matthew, TraHate Second, referring to the Father's words in Matthew iii., 17, This is my beloved Son, incidentally condemns the Arian ser\dce of a created Christ as follows: for he says on those words of God the Father: ' ' His Son certainly, not by adoption and grace, nor by creature- religion (408) as the heretics wish to have it, but by the property of His kind and in the verity of His Nature" (409). Sea ion 9, Spread of Creature-Service the result of Arian teaching. I have seen no proof that any Arian worshipped angels or saints. On such matters they seem not to have swerved far from the dodrine of that Universal Church which they forsook. Yet as during their long control of all of it by violence. and tyranny during part of the reign of Constantius, and of the Eastern part during the reign of Valens, they expelled or imprisoned or killed all the sound bishops and clergy, and taught the people that creature- worship, as applied to their created Christ, is right, they blunted the moral sense on that point of many, and prepared the way for those who would teach the invocation of saints and of angels, and the wor- ship of relics by kissing (Hosea xiii., 1-4). At any rate we find no creature-worship in the church before the Arian Controversy. There is no creature-invocation in any genuine Ante-Nicene Christian writing, nor in any genuine writing of Athanasius, or in any si Filium habet Deus, et uxorem habet, aut certe feraineus est, et aliunde con- cepit et genuit Filium. Ecce vos dicitis jam plures deos; quomodo nos iusultatis, quod deos dicimus esse? (406). Quoted in note "a," col. 593, id. (407). Ibid. (408) . Ox ''by the worsh ip of a creature. ' ' (409). Col 331, tome XX., of Migne's Patrologia Latina, Hie est Filiiis mens. Suus utique, non per adoptionem gratiae, neque per religiouem creaturae, ut haeretici volunt, sed sui proprietate Generis et veritate Naturae. 254 Chapter III. Orthodox writing of St. Athanasius', life-time. On the contrary, all: the primitive writings which touch on creature-worship of any kind condemn it. The mart3-rs died to oppose it and to witness to the fundamental do(ftrine of Christ's saving Gospel, that all acfls of relig- ious ser\'ice are prerogative to Almighty God. Yet creature-service in the form of prayer and bowing to the mere Arian created Christ was preached in the reigns of Constantius and Valens, in the Chris- tian Church by the Arians who had, by the aid of the persecuting civil power, driven out the Orthodox pastors and usurped their places. It is true, as we see from a passage of Epiphanius on the Ano- mean heresy (Heresy I^XXIV.), quoted above, that even that radical Arian sect seem to have refused worship to any other creature than their created Christ; for the old Scriptural spirit of the primitive Church against all creature-service still survived to some extent even in their per\'erted minds, and still more in the minds of the people, upon whom they had forced themselves: so that to preach the invocation of the Virgin Mary, or of angels, would have made trouble for them among the sound people, who were compelled by the terrors of the stern power and tyranny of Constantius and of Valens to endure them. Hence wisdom and prudence would keep them from invoking angels or saints. Yet their evil course in sandlioning and teaching the principle that creature- worship, if given to their created Christ, is lawful and right, would naturally be carried out to its logical results by the more depraved and lead in their minds to the worship of the Virgin Mary and angels. Indeed not only Epiphanius as above, but Athanasius also had predi(5led that their creature-worship would not end with worshipping their created Christ, but would extend itself to other creatures. I have given the quotation from Athanasius above. Even John Henry Newman in a note to page 3 of his Translation of >S. Athanasius' Treatises Against Arianism, justly spoke of the Arian denial of Christ's divinity and the creature- worship consequent on that denial, as a ''bringing back idolatry and its attendant spiritual igftora7ice,'' and refers to ''the idolatrous character of Arian worship on its own shoiving, viz. , as worshipping One whom they yet viaintained to be a creature:' Eater on, Mohammed, the Arab impostor, adopted and propagated with the sword the Arian denial of the Divinity of the Eternal Word. In a work by some old author, Against Mohammed, we find the statement: Niccsa, A. D. 325: Arms and his Heresies. 255 ^ "He drew the do(5lrine of but one God from the Hebrews; and the do(5lrine that the Word and the Spirit are creatures from the Arians; and the worship of a man from the Nestorians. And he com- posed for himself a rehgion made up from them all" (410). The corruptions and creature-worship and image-worship which had entered the Church brought God's curse upon it, but since the Reformation the deluge of Arab and Tartar and Turkish conquest has been receding, and let us hope, will soon utterly subside; and the Faith of Nicaea will again control all it ever had. It will if the Christians under the Mohammedan sway will only reform. Happily the Church Universal is perfedlly clear from all stain of creature-service. The invocation of angels is condemned by Canon XXXV. of the local Council of I,aodicea about A. D. 364, when it first appears, and that canon was invested with Ecumenical Sancflion by Canon I, of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod. Of course by equality of reasoning (pari ratione) all other creature-invocation is forbidden by that enaclment. For it is all creature-service contrary to Christ's own saving law in Matthew iv., 10, Thou shalt bow to the Lord thy God, a?id Him only shalt thoic serve. St. Epiphanius, in the last half of the fourth century, in his ac- count of the Heresy of the CoUyridians, shows that the worship of the Virgin Mary was then a novel thing and was regarded by all Orthodox men as silly and sinful. And the Third Ecumenical Council by approving St. Cyril of Alexandria's Anathema VIII., which condemns the Nestorian way of ser\'ice to the human nature of Christ by itself and the IXth Anathema of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod which condemns the same error, in effect, forbid a fortiori, that is iimeh more all creature-service. For surely if I may not worship by itself the highest of all mere created things, that is Christ's humanity, much less may I worship the Virgin Mary, or any other saint or angel. (410). Migne's Patrologia Graeca, tome 104, col. 1447, 144S aud 1449, Contra Mutiatnined. 25G Chapter IV. NICtCA, a. D. 325: THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. Introductory Matter. CHAPTER IV. THE SYNOD ITSELF. 1 . Events just before it. 2. Whe7i didit meet f 3. In what buildiyig did it meet? 4. Number of Bishops present. 5. Whence they came. 6. The dispidatio7is at Nicaea before the Synod met. 7 . Who presided f 8. The Afis, that is Minutes of the First Synod. 9. On what topics Nicaea decided. lo. Why should not the gathering of the Apostles at ferusalem, which acquitted Peter, as told in Afls xi. , be deemed the First Fcutnenical Synod, and that which vindicated the claim of Gejitile Christians to be free from the Mosaic Lata, be deemed the Seco7id, iyi which case Nicaea would be reckonca the Third? I. Events between Arius' expidsion from the Church in A. D. ^20, orj2i, ayid the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea, A. D.j2^. Alius, after attempting to excite his followers and the populace, and the civil authorities, many of whom were pagans, against his Nicaca, A. D.32S: The Coicncil Itself . 257 Bishop, Alexander (411), and after his consequent expulsion from Alexandria, went, as we have seen, to Palestine, where he found some friends, chief among whom was Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, the noted Church Historian, who sympathized with his heresy. But here the diligent pursuit of Bishop Alexander followed him, as was right and just, for Arius was acftively engaged in corrupting the faith, and in ruining souls. Thence he went to his strongest partisan, Eusebius of Nicomedia, after whom the whole heretical party are often called Euscbtans by St. Athanasius. There Eusebius and his partisans issued an Encyclical addressed to all Bishops, asking them to admit the Arians to communion, though they had justly been excommunicated. The response, judging from what occurred soon after at Nicaea, could not have been much. One thing however at this time helped Arianism. It was the disorder into which matters had fallen in the war between Constantine and the Emperor Licinius, which began in A. D. 322, and ended in A. D. 323, with the victory of Constantine. Egypt and Asia belonged before the war to Ivicinius, the champion of paganism, and during the turmoil when he persecuted the Orthodox Bishops, Arius was permitted to return to Alexandria. Constantine on becoming Master of the whole empire undertook to reconcile the Orthodox and their opponents by condemning both Alexander and Arius, and by representing the questions involved as of no importance, a thing which displayed his own ignorance of their tremendous import. The contents of the letter which was sent from Nicomedia show the hand of the Arian Bishop of that see, and his influence on Constantine, who, by the way, had not yet been baptized. It was sent to Alexandria by the venerable Bishop Hosius, of Cordova, the one Ofithodox Bishop who seems to have had most influence over the Emperor's mind, with whom it is thought he may have become acquainted when he held Spain in his jurisdidlion after the death of his imperial father. Hosius, of course, could not make oil and water mix, for the Orthodox were righteously firm and the Arians were obstinate, and so he returned to the Emperor. According to Sulipicius Severus, it was held that Hosius was the cause of the holding of the Synod (412). For he seems to have (411). See Hefele I., 248, Clark's translation, Edinburgh, and the authori- ties there cited. (412). Sulpit. Sever. Hist, ii., 55. He writes, as quoted in Hefele I., 261, Nicaena Synodus, auctore illo (Hosio) confedta habebatur. 258 Chapter IV. advised the Emperor to summon the Bishops of the Christian world to meet there. Constantine, as Rufinus states, a(5led in the matter in accordance with the advice of the Bishops (413). That advice was given by Westerns Hke Hosius for instance, and by Oriental prelates also. Some have thought that the Bishop of Rome, Sylvester, was not consulted, while Hefele argues that he was. To prove that he was, is no argument for any alleged supremacy of Rome, as distin- guished from her primacy, for the letter of convocation was sent by the Emperor everywhere. And in an Ecumenical Synod every see had a right to be heard. Constantine put the public conveyances at the disposal of the Bishops to help them on their way, and provided a daily maintenance for them. 2. IVhcJi did it meet ? On May 20, 325, according to Socrates (414), the Council met, and on June 19 put forth its Creed (415). 3. In what building did it meet? On this matter there has been some doubt among some, as we see in Hefele's note 7, page 279, volume i., of the English translation of his History of the Christian Councils. Eusebius in his Life of Con- stantine, III., 10, states that it was ''in the viost central house of the iynperial palace buildings. ' ' Theodoret in his Ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapter 7, as in Bohn's translation, describes it as follows: "When they [the bishops] were all assembled, the Emperor ordered a large apartment to be prepared for their accommodation in the palace, in which a sufficient number of seats were placed: and here the bishops were summoned to hold their deliberations upon the proposed subjeas. The Emperor, attended by a few followers, was the last to enter the room." * Sozomen in his Ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapter 19, speaks of the bishops having summoned Arius before them, and of their examining his dodlrine and of their withholding their decision, and all this before the day of their meeting with the Emperor, from all (413). Rufiuus' Hist. Eccl. I., i. (414). Socrates' Ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapter XIII., at the end; Act. II., of Chalcedon in Harduin. Condi. II., 286: Mansi vi., 955. (415). Mansi VI., 955: Hard. II., 286. vSee on those matters Hefele's History of the Church Councils, Clark's English translation. Vol. I., page 274 and after. Nicaca, A. D. j2j: The Coimcil Itself . 269 which it appears that the final decision on the faith was done in one day. Eusebius in Chapter lo, Book III., of his Life of Constantine, impHes the same. And a note on page 122 of Bagster's English translation of that work, well infers from Eusebius' statement in that Chapter: ' ' Hence it seems probable that this was the last day of the Council; the entire session of which occupied more than two months, and which was originally held in a Church." The Synodal Epistle speaks of the matters being settled in the presence of the Emperor, which implies that they must have been settled on the day the Emperor met them, and he met them in session, so far as appears, on that day only. That they met before in a Church seems clear from Eusebius of Caesarea's statement in Chapter 7 of Book III., of his Lfe of Conslantiiic, where he speaks of their assembling before in a house of prayer. 4. Number of Bishops who icere present at the Council of Nicaea. This, according to Athanasius himself, was three hundred and eighteen (41 6 j. 5. Whence they came. From the whole Roman Empire, though as the Council was held in the East, most present were Orientals. Vet Eusebius, of Caesarea, s\.^\Q.'5,\\\\\\=, Life of Constantine, Book III., Chapter 6, that the Em- peror assembled an Ecumenical Synod {c!wo<^i>v ohou;i.vHy.r^'?) that is a Synod of the whole '"inhabited zcorld.'" Eusebius in the same place states, that by "«;; honoring letter,''' Constantine besought the Bishops of every quarter, {a.-a-^Tayfji-^')^ to assemble speedily at Nicaea. Recognizing their supreme right to rule in the spirituals, he referred the whole question to them. According to Rufinus' Ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapter i, (or by another reckoning, Book X., Chapter i), the Emperor asked Arius to come. Of the Westerns, there were present only Hosius of Cordova in Spain; Caecilian, Metropolitan of Carthage, or, as w^e would now say, antocephalous Patriarch of all Eatiu Africa; Marcus of Calabria in Italy; Nicasius of Dijon in Gaul; Domnus of Stridon (in Pannonia); the two Roman Presbyters, Vitus and Vincent, representatives of Sylvester, Bishop of Rome. The (416). Hefele, iti his History of the Cliristian Councils, English translation, Vol. I., page 270 and after, has gone into detail on that matter. See there. 260 Chapter IV. Orient, including its Apostolic sees, was more fully represented, for we find the names of Alexander of Alexandria, Eustathius of Antioch, and Macarius of Jerusalem, and a host of other sound Bishops; and with them the great patrons and defenders of Arius and his heresies, Kusebius of Nicomedia and Kusebius of Caesarea. Two Bishops came from outside the limits of the Roman Empire, one a Persian, the other a Goth. But as yet the lands of northern Europe lay in the darkness of paganism, and therefore we find no Anglo Saxon, no Hollander, no Dane, Norwegian, Swede, Finlander, German, Polander, Bohemian, or Russian among them. A still greater glory awaits their prelates in a seventh Ecumenical Council of the future which shall purge away all idolatry and all creature-service, and all infidelity and reunite in unsullied and perfect Orthodoxy, all who claim to be Christians. The strong arms of the Teutonic converts to the faith did their part nobly in the great battle near Tours, in turning back the desolating hordes of Moors and Arabs in the eighth century, who threatened to subjugate all Christendom. John Sobeiski and his Poles succored Vienna in its dire extremity in 1683, and saved Christendom again; and the Russian who at the time of the Council of Nicaea was a barbarian and a pagan, has stood as the champion of Eastern Chris- tianity for centuries past, has waged successful war for it, and seems destined, if he reforms, to win back all it has lost by the destroying sword and torch of the cruel Arab and Turk. 6. The Disputations at Nicaea before the Synod met. Arius was there, and no less than seventeen bishops, led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, were among his partisans. On the side of the Orthodox were many champions for Christ against the creature-ser\'ers, but pre-eminent among them all was Athanasius, inwiortal in name and immortal in fame, the Bishop who stands greatest among all prelates since the Apostles, though he was then only a deacon. Sozomen as in Bohn's translation writes: "Many of the bishops and of the inferior clerg}' attradted the notice of the Emperor and the Court by these disputations. Athan- asius, who was then a deacon of Alexandria, and had accompanied the Bi.shop Alexander, greatly distinguished himself at this jundlure" (417). Gregory of Nazianzus bears similar testimou}" to Athanasius' merits. (417)- SiozovaQu's Ecd. Hist. I., 17. Nicaea, A. D. 325: The Council Itself . 261 "Theodoret," writes Hefele, "praises Athanasius equally, who, he saj^s, ' won the approbation of all the Orthodox at the Council of Nicaca^ by his defence of apostolic doHrine, and drew upon himself the hatred of the enemies of the truth''' (Theodoret' s Eccl. Hist. /., 26^. "Rufinussays, 'By his controvcrsiar ability {suggcstioncs^ [literally ^ suggestions ''\ he discovered the subterfuges and sophisms of the heretics (dolos ac fallacias)' "(418). We can easily see that chief among those suggestions, that is inferences suggested by him from the Arian denial of Christ's divinity, were the two necessary and inseparable ones of Polytheism and Creature- Worship, on which he insists in the passages quoted above, and elsewhere, as the unavoidable outcome of that denial. 7. Who presided f Hefele, in Sedlion 5 of the first volume of his History of the Christian Councils, page 27 and after, of Clark's translation, treats of ' ' The Presidency of Councils, ' ' and shows that a certain supervision of their proceedings, not in the way of voting but by suggestion, en- treaty, and by preserving order, was sometimes wielded by the imperial power: while the whole decision on dogmas, discipline and rites rested with the bishops alone: both which positions are easily proven, though when the mere lay power of the Emperors became bossy and attempted to control the Bishops in the just -exercise of their prerogatives, they rejeAed it where they were free to do so, as for instance St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Bishops of the Third Ecumenical Council rejedled the attempt of the Emperor Theodosius II. by his representative, Count Candidian, to control the Synod's adlion against the heresiarch Nestorius. Hefele goes on in a cunning and insinuating way to argue that the Bishop of Rome presided in the Ecumenical Synods by his legates. In that he fails, for to prove that his representative signs first simply proves that the Orientals admitted the Bishop of Rome to be Bishop of the first see of the then Christian world; but it does not prove that he was what we now understand by a President of a deliberative assembly: for, as has been said, and as is proven by the Adls of those Councils themselves, and as even Hefele shows, much of what in our day would be styled mere chairma^iship duties, was performed by the mere lay power, though such a thing as lay power over Bishops is (418). Hefele, I., 278, Clark's translation. 262 Chapter IV. not mentioned in the New Testament, and is not at all necessary but novel and unauthorized, and was even reje(5led by the Third Council when it interfered with the Bishops in the performance of their duties. Hefele finds that seme Roman Bishop is spoken oi 2iSpraesidcns, that \sforcsitting in other Ecumenical Councils (419), or that Hosius is mentioned as having beoi a leader Qrjrjiazo) in Councils (420), and he immediately jumps to the conclusion that he was the ojily foresitter and the only Icadej; and in brief the Chairman or President of the Council. But in the Six Ecumenical Synods no one man had the sole power of putting motions, etc. , after the model of our modern Chair- manship or Presidentship system. Indeed, the facts prove just the very opposite, and show that he was only ''First among his equals'' (primus inter pares) For no representative of the Bishop of Rome was at the Second Ecumenical Council; and at the Fourth the attempt of his legates to hinder the adoption of the twenty-eighth Canon of Chalcedon did not prevent the Orientals from passing it right in their teeth, and the Fifth Ecumenical Council treated Pope Vigilius as a wayward brother who was subject to it, and not at all as its President, and went on without hiiu and finally made him submit to its decisions. As to Nicaea, but little or nothing is said definitely as to who presided in the Disputations between the first meeting of the Council on May 20th, 325, and the formal session of June 19, of the same year which adopted the Creed and condemned Arianism. Though two Roman presbyters, Vitus and Vincent, were present to represent Rome, yet no one is mentioned as presiding in them or any of them as a legate of Rome. Nor in the formal session of June 19, is there any mention of any exclusive Presidentship of Hosius or of any other, though it is definitely stated that the Emperor Constantine, after a modest Oration to them in which he counselled unity, ' 'handed -over the matter to the Foresitters' ' (421), that is to the occupants of the chief sees. If Hosius were a representative of Rome as Hefele contends, (419). Hefele's History of the Church Councils, Clark's translation, pages 3i> 32. (420). Id., page 39. (421). Eusebius' Life of Constantine, Book III., Chapter XIII., ■Kapt6i6ov Tov \6yov Tolg r?;f avvodov TrpoEdpoig. Nicaea, A. D. 32^: The Council Itself , 263 lie, Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, and Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, would be among them, and certainly they were among the Foresitters that is Presidents (ro?^ TzpoiSfHU^) as Hefele on pages 35, 36, of his Volume I., admits. There seems to have been a tendency in all the Ecumenical Synods to imitate the form of procedure in AAs xv., where each Apostle had the right to speak, though some " are more prominent than others, where singularly enough no one is termed President. Yet tliere are leaders in them all, and Rome's representatives, while they could not of themselves decide any question, and while they could cast but one vote, that of the Bishop of Rome, nevertheless stood and voted first, but every Bishop could speak and cast one vote also, whether his see was great or small. So Peter spoke first in the Council of Jerusalem in A(5ts xv., but his mere opinion given in that address of his did not settle matters, but the Synod went on to hear ^' the apostles Barnabas and Paul;' and finally James suggests the form that the decision should take, and then the apostles adopted his suggestion and the thing was settled. In all this Peter had only one voice and one individual vote. He is simply First among his equals. That is the type of things in the Six Ecumenical Councils. Peter's successor votes first and signs first, but every Bishop votes and signs independenly after him, and the majority of votes decides every ques- tion. Peter had no power to decide any question separate from the rest of the Apostles. He had a Primacy among them, not a Suprem- acy over them. The power of binding and loosing was given to all (Matt, xviii., 15-21: Johnxx., 21-24). So was the power of teach- ing (Matt, xxviii., 16-20). And those powers are exercised by the Universal Apostolate in Ecumenical Synods. No valid and sound bishop may be deprived of them. Nor is he dependent on what the bishop of Peter's Roman see may think or say as to their exercise. On the contrary', the Universal Apostolate can judge and condemn any bishop of Rome. As a matter of fact, the Fifth Ecu- menical Council censured Vigilius, and the Sixth condemned Pope Honorius as a heretic. Moreover, the creature-invoker and image- worshipper, Leo XIII., is not a valid successor of Peter; for the Orientals, comprising all the rest of the Apostolic sees, justly brand him as a heretic condemned by the decisions of Ecumenical Councils, and deny the validity of his baptism and his orders, and the Angli- 264 Chapter IV. can communion, in its formularies, justly condemns him as an idolater and a heretic. And he is condemned as an idolater, a creature-server and a heretic, by the decisions of the Six Ecumenical Synods. So that one of the first things to be done in a future Seventh Ecumenical Council is to put a sound and valid successor to Peter in his place. We have seen that there is no proof of any exclusive Presidency of Peter's Romam see in the first meeting of the Council on May 20; nor is there any in the period between that day and the formal open- ing of the Council on June 19. How was it then? L,et us see. There was on the 20th of May a meeting of the Bishops in a house of prayer, as we see above. From that day on till June 19, wdien the Emperor opened the Council formally, there were repeated discussions between the Orthodox and their opponents, and it soon became clear that the great majority of the Bishops were on the sound side, and a small number on the side of Arius. Arius himself was examined again and again and his heresy was made fully manifest to all. Yet no definite sentence was passed, for the Council still awaited the coming of the Emperor. Finally after his arrival, he arranged a large room in the most central house of the palace buildings, and invited the Bishops to enter it (422). That was seemingly on the 19th of June, thirty days after the gathering of the Synod in the house of prayer of which Eusebius speaks, on May 20. The 19th of June seems to be sure for the date of the Creed, for Hefele has adduced two authorities for that view; they are: (A). That date is on the copy of the Nicene Creed which was read by Bishop Eunomius of Nicomedia in the second session of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, A. D. 451. (B). It is also in the Alexandriaii Chronicle ( 423). On that day the whole work of the Synod on the Creed and Easter and perhaps also that on the Meletians seems to have been done. I judge so from the following: (A). From the statement of the Synodal Epistle it is clear that all the matters regarding Arius and his heresies and the promulgation of the Creed were done in the presence of the Emperor: and it does not appear that Constantine met them in session except on that day, June (422). See Hefele, I., page 274, for tlie original authority. (423). Ibid. Nicaea, A. D.j2^: The Council Itself . 26^ 1 9, 325, though he gave them a banquet after the conclusion of the Council of which Eusebius writes in Chapter XV., of Book III., of his Life of Constanline. That banquet was at the celebration of Con- stantine's Vicennalia in July, but the day is not given. And there was quite an interval between June 19 and it. (B). Constantine in his Epistle to the Churches on the Council of Nicaea in Eusebius' Life of Constantine, Book III., Chapter XVII., etc., and Eusebius of Caesarea in Book III., Chapter X., and after, mention no more than one session of the Council, at which seem- ingly not only the Creed but the Pask matter also w^as settled. Com- pare Eusebius' Life of Constantine, Book III., Chapters X. to XV., and Chapter XVIII. Eusebius in those places tells how, direcftly after the Emperor's speech in opening the Council on June 19, and his exhortation to the Bishops to unity, the Emperor ' ' gave permission to those who presided in the Council to deliver their opinions. On this some began to accuse their neighbors, who defended themselves, and recriminated in their turn. In this manner numberless assertions were put forth by each party, and a violent controversy arose at the very commence- ment." That is, this Arian shows that the Orthodox accused the Arians, who retorted. ' ' Notwithstanding this, the Emperor gave patient audience to all alike, and received every projxjsition with steadfast attention, and by occasionally assisting the argument of each party in turn, he gradually disposed even the most vehement disputants to a reconcilia- tion. At the same time, by the affability of his address to all, and his use of the Greek language (with which he was not altogether un- acquainted), he appeared in a truly attracftive and amiable light, per- suading some, convincing others by his reasonings, praising those who spoke well, and urging all to unity of sentiment, until at last he succeeded in bringing them to one mind and judgment respecting every disputed question. CHAPTER XIV. Unanimous Declaration of the Council Concerning Faith, and the Celebration of Easter. ' ' The result was that they were not only united as concerning the faith, but that the time for the celebration of the salutary feast of Easter was agreed on by all. Those points also which were sancftioned 266 Chapter IV. by the resolution of the whole body were committed to writing, and received the signature of each several member: and then the Emperor, believing that he had thus obtained a second vidtory over the adver- sary of the Church, proceeded to solemnize a triumphal festival in honour of God. CHAPTER XV. Constantine Entertains the Bishops on the Occasion of his Vicennalia. "About this time he completed the twentieth year of his reign." All this which I have quoted from Bagster's translation implies that the Emperor a(5ted like a Reconciler, though not exactly like our modern Presidents, though still an unbaptized man. The cir- cumstances were peculiar. The influence of Hosius seems to have led the Emperor to favor the Orthodox faith and to plead with the Arians for it. In all the accounts of the proceedings at Nicaea in Eusebius' Life of Constantine, and in the Histories of Socrates and Sozomen, and in Athanasius there is proof of his influence. There is no proof that the two Roman priests, Vito (Vitus) and Vincentius, ever acled as Presidents of the Council. The fact is the form of man- agement of business at Nicaea and at Ephesus as we shall see was different from our modern system; for they discussed the matter and pra(5tically settled the chief points before the Council met, so that at Ephesus and at Nicaea a single day sufficed to settle the chief matters. The Bishops of the chief sees had the lead and seem to have arranged the business. So Constantine, as Eusebius writes, after his speech to the Bishops and his arguments for unity ' ' turned the matter over to the Foresitters, ' ' that is to the Presiding Prelates, who then managed matters: and when they could not convince the heretically inclined small minority, he helped them by his exhortations. The language of Constantine's speech was in Eatin, and it had to be translated to be luiderstood. It is not likely that either of the two Roman Presbyters would be allowed to preside over Bishops; nor is it clear that they knew Greek well enough to do so. The Roman legates were em- powered to represent the views and beliefs and interests of their Bishop; but the management of the business of the Council of Nicaea and that of Ephesus was in the hands of the Prelates of the chief sees, one of whom who understood Greek well taking the lead generally. If Hosius, as Hefele contends, was empowered to represent Rome, though he was a Spaniard, and not a Roman, and so not of Rome's Nkaea, A. D. S2S-- The Council Itself . 267 jurisdicflion, he was only first among his equals and had only one vote for Rome. But scholars are divided as to whether he represented Rome or not. We may speak more on that point elsewhere. But we shall see from the A(5ls of the Councils that the Bishop of Rome had uo supremacy in them. 8. The Ans of the First Synod of the Christian World, A. D. 32§, which zvas held at Nicaea. No copy of the Acis of the First Ecumenical Council has reached us. Athanasius when consulted as to the transa(5lions at Nicaea, does not refer to any A(5ls as existing, but gives an account of them him- self in his work 07i the Nicene Definition. See it, Se(5lion 2, page 4, of the Oxford translation in S. Athanasius' Treatises Agai7ist Arianisni. Photius, patriarch of Constantinople in the ninth century, makes no mention in his Bibliotheca of any Book of the ABs of the First Ecumenical CoJincil, except that of Gelasius of Cyzicus: but of that he says in Sedlion XV. of his Bibliotheca as follows: I translate the whole secftion with its title: ' ' Book of the AHs of the First Sj'nod: ' ' I have read a Book of the A£ls of the First Synod in three books. The work bears the name of Gelasius in its title, but it is no more a book of the Adls than it is a history. And futhermore it is mean and low as to style: but he narrates in detail those things which were done in the Synod (424). Gelasius of Cyzicus is of very little authority. Scholars like Cave, Dupin, Natalis Alexander, and Valesius assure us that it con- tains spurious matter and is not always correct, as to facfts. See Venables' article ''Gelasius (13) of Cyzicus'' in Smith and Wace's Diflionary of Christian Biography, where their judgments on the work are mentioned. In the article on " Theodorus of Mopsuestia'' hy Professor Swete in Smith and Wace's Z)/r7/w/«;j of Christian Biography, Volume IV., page 943, right hand column, we read the following: (424). Migne's Patrologia Graeca, tome 103, column 56 : Photii Patriar- chae C. P. Bibliotheca, CoJ. XV., ^UpaKTiKov rf/g Tlfjun/g Si'iorfoy * * * E!'-rt'//)c 6e Knl raTTFivor 7//v (ppriniv, tt'/J/v ye TieTTTo/uepcjg dit-^tiai ra kv ry mnm^u. The Latin in the parallel column in Migne renders the last Greek sentence above as follows: "Seruio vilis et humilis, nisi quod minima quaeque in Syuodo gesta narret. " 268 Chapter IV. "A MS. history of the Nicene Council by Theodore of Mopsu- estia is said to be preserved in the Hbrary of the American Mission at Beirut (Laurie, Accoicnt of Dr. Grant, Edinb. 1853)." Swete thinks "// may possibly be a fragment of the catechetical knures''' of Theodore of Mopsuestia of which Swete speaks in the parallel column. Whatever it is, it might be well for the Amerian Mission- aries there to describe it, and to publish it, for the information of scholars. If Theodore wrote it, we might naturally expect it to con- tain much heresy. It may be of some value, or it may be one of those spurious and worthless documents of which Hefele speaks on Nicaea. Balsamon, who died about A. D. 1204, mentions the A5ls of the First Ecumenical Synod. For, referring to the decision of the Coun- cil on Pask that is Easter, he remarks on Canon I. of Antioch as follows, "That is not found among the canons of the Fathers at Nicaea, but it is found in the Adts of the First Synod" (425). Canon I., of Antioch refers to the decision of Nicaea on that topic. But no man can, from that language, feel sure that those words must mean that Balsamon had seen the Adls of Nicaea. Indeed, on refle(5lion, it seems to me much more likely to refer to the decision on Pask in the Synodal Epistle of Nicaea, not in its Minutes. There is no proof that its Minutes existed in Balsamon's day. The fact is that Eusebius of Caesarea, in his Life of Constantine, Book III., and Socrates in their Ecclesiastical Histories, and Athanas- ius in his works on the Arian controversy, give us the fullest details we possess on it. The main decisions were formulated in one day, June 19, 325. I have seen no details as to the time when the canons were made, whether on that day, or at a later session. Perhaps no Minutes of Nicaea were ever made: though the Decisions were written and w^ere preserved. 9. On what topics Nicaea decided. (425). Ralle and Potle's 1,vvTayfia tuv * * * Kavovu^; tome 3, page 124, (Athens, 1853). Balsamon on Canon I., of the Synod of Antioch: "But the holy Fathers of the present Synod, say that the matters regarding that Feast [Easter] were decided by the First Synod. 'Ev yovv rolq Kavoai tuv ev 'NiKaia Uaripuv tovto' ovx Evpr/Tar eif di to. rrpaKTim ryq irpuTTjQ aw66ov evplaKSTat." Nicaca, A. D. 32^: The Council Itself . 2(>9 The great and most vital decisions are those against the denial of the Divinity of God the Word, and against its corollaries of Creature- Worship and Polytheism, yet hke the Second Ecumenical Synod, the Third, and the Fourth, it decided in its Canons on other matters of dodlrine, discipline and rite. We shall see what they are when we come to them. 10. Why sho2tld not the gathering of the Apostles at ferusalem, which acqiiitted Peter, as told in AHs XI., be deemed the First Ecumen- ical Synod, and that in AHs XV., ivhich vindicated the claim of Gentile Christians to be freed from the Mosaic Laio be deemed the Second, in which case Nicaea would be reckoned the Third? Afiswer. Because, i, Ecximenical means of the inhabited ivorld: and because at neither of those gatherings was the inhabited zvorld represented. The matter discussed at the gathering in Adts XI., oc- cured at Caesarea in Palestine, and so far as appears, only Palestinians were present. The gathering of the Apostles at Jerusalem, mentioned in Acts XV., was not Ecumenical either; for only Jerusalem and Palestine and Antioch in Syria were represented, though the faith had spread through the converts at Pentecost to different nations, and though we know that, before that, there were disciples at Damascus, cue of whom baptized Paul. 270 Chapter V. N1C^A,A. D. 325: THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCII,. Introductory Matter. CHAPTER V. DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COUNCIL, BUT BEARING ON IT. 1. A Synodical Epistle of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria^ and his Synod, to Alexander, Bishop of Co7istantinople. 2. An Encyclic Epistle of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, to the Bishops of the Universal Church everywhere. The next two documents are really not Foreniatter, but part of the docunients of the Council itself. 3. A71 Oration of the Emperor Constanti7ie to the SyJiod of Nicaea on Peace. 4. Aji Oration of the Orthodox Eustathius, Bishop of Afitioch, in the Nice?ie Sy^iod, which is addressed to the Emperor Con- stantine. DOCUMENTS PREFIXED TO THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA, A. D. 325^ IN MANSl'S CONCILIA. It is customan^ in modern editions of the Councils to prefix to the Adls proper such documents as bear on the Synod most appositely and importantly. I give a list of all in Mansi's Concilia, that is Coinicils, tome ii., page 641 and after: I. A Synodical Epistle of Alexa^ider, Bishop of Alexandria, and of the Synod of Alexandria, 7vhich was held A. D.32T, to Alexander, Bishop of Byzantium, that is of Co7istantinople. It is in Theodoret's Nicaea, A. D. 32^: Documents before it. 271 Ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapter IV. It is found in an English translation in Bohn and in Bagster. It is found in the Tripartite History, Book I., Chapter 14. It is a valuable document as show- ing the positions of the Alexandrian and Egyptian Orthodox at that time, and the tenets of the Arians, and the early history of the struggle. 2. An E?icyclic Epistle of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, to tlie Bishops of the Universal Clnirch everywhere, against the Arian heresy. This is found in Socrates' Ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapter 6, and in Gelasius of Cyzicus' ColleflioJi of the things done in the Council of Nicaea, Book II., Chapter 3. An English translation of it is found in Bohn's Ecclesiastical Library and in Bagster. 3. An Oration of the Emperor Constantino to the Synod of Nicaea on Peace. This is found inEusebius' Life of the Emperor Constantine, Book III., Chapter 12. It is found in the translation of that work which is published by Bagster. Another and longer form of this Oration is found in Gelasius of Cj'zicus' Collection of the things done in the Council of Nicaea, but, as much that he writes is romance and not history, it can not be relied on as genuine. 4- An Oration of the Orthodox Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, in the Niccne Synod which is addressed to the Emperor Constantine. It is really only a short, but valuable address which Hardouin in his Concilia, tome i., index, mentions as from Baronius, Anno 325, Num. EV. It is found in Mansi, in a Latin version only. Venables* article on ^'Eustathius (3), Bishop * >ts >i« of Antioch" in Smith and Wace's DiHionary of Christian Biography, states that "The Allocutio ad Imperatorem,'' [that is the address of Eustathius to the Emperor] " given by Labbe {Concil. II., 633) is cer- tainly supposititious. This fact is asserted by Theodoret (H. E., I., 7), but contradidled by Sozomen (H. E., I., 19), who assigns the dignity to Eusebius. Eusebius himself maintains a discreet silence, but he evidently wishes it to be inferred that the anonymous occupant ii72 Chapter J'. of the place of honor mentioned by him was himself i^Euscb. de Vit. Const. III., ii). This is accepted by Valesius (not. ad loc. "). Hardouin does not £^ive it in column 310 or 311, tome i., of his Councils, but mentions it only in the Jndcx at the beginning of that tome, where he speaks of it as "from Gregory of Caesarea, the pres- byter in his Oratioji on the Holy Fathers of the Nicene Council in Lipo- mannus, tome vi. " Migne gives it in Greek in his Patrologia Gracea, tome 18, column 673 and after. Mansi gives it in full in columns 663, 664, of the second tome of his Concilia, but in Latin form only. But deferring, for the present, the question whether there was more than one address to the Emperor, it will sufhce to say here that it does not seem probable that the great Orthodox majority of the Coun- cil would depute the persistent Arian, Eusebius, to address the Emperor for them, but would instigate one at least of their own number to speak to Constantiue in their own behalf. And Eustathius .stood deservedly high among them. From the wording of this address of Eustathius, I at first thought that it was delivered after the formal convidtion of Arius and his heresies in the Council, on June 19, and that Eusebius of Caesarea spoke before. But, on reflection, that does not seem a probable view. For it should be said that Eusebius does not assert that he himself spoke, though Sozomen, writing in the century following, in Chapter XIX. , of Book I. , of his Ecclesiastical History, says that it was he who delivered the opening address in the Council to the Emperor. But, as Baronius thinks (426), Sozomen may have misunderstood Eusebius' non-mention of the name of the Bishop who made that address to Constantine, to imply that it was he (Eusebius) himself, but that from motives of modesty he omitted his own name. But Baronius states that Sozomen seems not to have well understood the habits of Eusebius, for he never omits any oppor- tunity of speaking in a way to confer honor on himself, and passes over in silence only what proves his own baseness: "But," adds Baronius, " it is rendered sufficiently clear that he himself [Eusebius], from envy, kept silence as to the name of the Bishop who in that most magnificent assembly was holding the first place on the right side, and first of all addressed the Emperor in that Oration. But that speaker was that great Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch, who had been preferred to Eusebius himself for that see (as has been already (426). Baronius' Annates Ecclesiastici. ad Annum 325, num. LIV., LV. Nicaea, A. D. ^2^: Doacments before it. 273 told in detail); which Theodoret was not ignorant of, for" [in Chap- ter VII., (al. VI.,) Book I., of his Ecclesiastical History] "he says," [I quote a little more of the chapter than Baronius gives, and I render it from the Greek. Theodoret is describing the entrance of the Emperor Constantine into the Council of Nicaea, and writes: (Chrystal)]: * ' And a little seat having been placed in the midst [of the Council] he [Constantine] sat down [on it], after he had first asked the bishops to permit that thing, and with him sat down all that godly choir [of bishops]. Ajid straightway first spoke the great Eicstathius, who had gotten the foreseat (427) of the church of the Antiochians. For Philogonius, of whom I have spoken before, had passed over to the better life, and the high priests (428) and the priests (429) and all the Christ-loving people (430) had, by a common vote, forced him [Eustathius], though he was unwilling, to accept the shepherdship, in his [Philogonius'] place. He crowned the head of the Emperor with the flowers of praises, and returned him bless- ings for his zeal for divine things. And, he having ended, the all- well-famed Emperor spoke words to them as to oneness of mind and harmony of speech," (431) etc. ' ' These things, ' ' continues Baronius, ' ' Theodoret writes of the Oration of Eustathius. Moreover, Cassiodore has attempted to make Sozomen agree with Theodoret by saying that Eusebius spoke after Eustathius ; but Eusebius himself testifies that only one delivered an (427). Greek, ti/v Trpoe6piai>, that is t/ie Presidency, that is the Episcopate. The throne of the Greek bishop when he is not iu the chancel is before all the people, at the side, as I have seen in the Anglican church and in the Latin. Hence his title often among the old Greeks was tlie Foresitter, 6 Tlp6£6(Mg. The Foresitters to whom the Emperor, after his own speech, turned over the business of the Council were the bishops of the great sees; Rome, present by his legates, and Alexandria, Autioch, etc., who were present in person. Any other noted bishop, like Hosius of Cordova in Spain for instance, might be added to them for convenience. I have seen no convincing proof that Hosius was a Roman legate, for the oldest authors mention only the presbyters Vitus and Vincent as such. (428). That is, the bishops, Greek, apxiepelg. (429). Greek, iepe'ig, that is, the presbjrters. (430). That is, the laity. (431). Theodoret's Church History, Book I., Chapter VI., col. 917, tome 82 of Migne's Patrologia Craeca, 274 Chapter V. oration, and no one after him discharged the same function [of orator] in the Synod. Indeed, Gregory, the Presbyter of Caesarea, gives the very short oration which was dehvered by Eustathius, as follows' ' : Then Baronius gives a Latin translation of Eustathius' oration above. The place in Cassiodore, to which Baronius refers, is Chapter v., book II., of his Tripartite History (see note 46, col. 1066 of tome 20, of Migne's Patrologia Graced). This last-named note states from Nicetas that Theodore of Mopsuestia writes that the honor of making that address had been ascribed to Alexander, Bishop of Alex- andria; but I presume that statement was based on the fact that as prob- ably neither Vitus nor Vincent, the two legates of Rome, the first see, was able to speak in Greek, the language of the bulk of those present, and so could not so well represent them, nor be understood by them; and as, moreover, neither of them was a bishop, that honor would naturally fall to the see next in rank at that time, which was Alexandria. But the statement of Theodoret contradicfls that view and assigns that oration to Eustathius, of Antioch, the see next in rank after Alexandria. And that is not strange, for as those two bishops were in all probability among the Foresitters or Presidents, (toj? t-^? uo'm'x'jiio -fj<>i(Jf>'.y," Kbpiifi ^t/.Tiiri /J.S ap/rjv oviov aorob, in which he explains orthodoxically that text which the Arians so much perverted. Venables, in his article on Eustathius, in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography, remarks : " Excerpts from his Eight Books Against the Arians, gathered from Photius, Facundus, Gelasius, etc., are given by Galland {ii. .?.), Fabricius {Biblioth-Graec, IX., 131, ff. ed., Harles), and Migne {u. s., p. 61, ff.)." We see from this how much he wrote against Arianism, and how able he was. He might be deservedly chosen, therefore, to address Constantine against it. On the Arian side, as showing their heresies in their owm words, may be especially mentioned the three documents from the pen of (^435). Migne's Patj-ologia Gracea, tome 18, col. 673-676 : SancSli Eustathii episcopi Autiocheni Allocutio ad Imperatorem Constantinuin in Concilia Nicaeno : lov yap novo^cvfj Tlov kqI A6-}ov tov Jlarpug aTrnarepe'iv rf/g o/ioovatOi >iTO^ Tol) UaTpijg oiiK ivrpeTverai, Kul rij kt'lcel tov Kticttjv 6 KTiCTo/Mrpr^g avvapiOfielv iKEiyerai, (436). Ibid. 278 Chapter V. Arius, mentioned in Chapter III. above, and the Epistle o f Eusebius, Eishop of Nicomedia, to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre, which is in Chapter VI., Book I., of Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History. Eustathius, though only the third of the great bishops of the Church, and therefore after the Bishop of Alexandria, was perhaps the chief actor. Even the partisan Romanist, Hefele, proves his high position in the Council. I quote page 3S, volume i, Clark's English translation of his History of the Christian Councils : "Eustathius, Archbishop of Antioch, * >i< * according to Theodoret (^Hist. Eccl. /., 7), pronounced the speech in c^uestion [at the opening of the Council] which was addressed to the Emperor. He was one of the great patriarchs ; and one of his successors, John, Archbishop of Antioch, in a letter to Proclus, calls him the 'first of the Nicene Fathers.' The Chronicle of Nicephorus expresses itself in the same way aljout him (Tillemont, Hfemoires pour servir a V Hist. Eccl. VI., 2-J2, Brux. 1732). He can not, however, be considered as the only president of the Council of Nicaea ; for we must regard the expression of Eusebius (437) which is in the plural (-o?? r.pnidpot^) ; and besides it must not be forgotten that the Patriarch of Alexandria ranked higher than the Patriarch of Antioch. To which, thirdly, it must be added, that the Nicene Council itself, in its letter to the Church of Alexandria (Cf Socrat. I., 9), says: ' Your bishop zvill give you fuller explanation of the Synodical decrees; for he has been a Master (438) {lin[,u>i) and participator (j. yeyevr/fievuv Nicaa, A. D. ^2^: Documents before it. 279 ander and Eustathius were both presidents, and that they are intended bj^ Eusebius (440) when he sjDeaks of the -/>(>£o,o«j," that is the Presidents^ (literally, *^ ihe Foresittcrs'"').'" There may have been more than two, or three, including the two representatives of Rome, Vitus and Vincent, as representing one see, and Hosius may have been added as a friend of the Emperor ; for if Hosius was, as one account has it, an Egyptian, or even of Egyptian descent only, he might well know Greek, and as long resident in Spain he knew Latin fluentl}', and hence was well adapted to be an intermediary between the Latin-speaking Emperor and the mainly Greek-speaking Council. The greater metropolitans were prominent at Ephesus, that is the Place-holders of Celestine, Metropolitan of Rome, Cyril, Metro- politan of Alexandria, and of all Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, Memnon, Metropolitan of Ephesus, and of the Diocese of Asia (441), etc. So it was in other Ecumenical Councils, the first generally leading if he understood Greek well; if not, the second if he did. I would add that the fact that we .see the greater Metropolitans (called later often Patriarchs), leading their suffragans in the Councils is easily explained by the fact that they led and ruled them at home. Yet every Suffragan could speak and vote in every Ecumenical Council, and had one vote just as his metropolitan had. The letter of Theodosius II., convoking the Third Ecumenical Synod orders each Metropolitan to select and bring with him to it such of his Suffragans as were most fit. Hefele next attempts to show that Hosius was President of the Council. He seems to have been one of them and a very acflive one, for he certainly seems to have inclined the Emperor to the Homo- ousion. Hefele further tries to make out that Hosius was a legate of Rome. But Morse, in his article on Hosius in Smith and Wace's Din.ionary of Christiaji Biography, shows that that notion. c>jiginated with the very inaccurate Gelasius of Cyzicus in the last half of the fifth century and that Eusebius of Caesarea who was present at the Council enumerates only the two Roman Presbyters, Vitus and Vin- cent, as Roman legates, and that Sozomen doe$ the same, and that {^o). Eusebius' Life of Constantinc, Book III.. > Chapter 13. (441). Bingham's ^«//y., Book IX., Ch».p?T- 1., Section 6. 280^ Chapter V. the bulk of all the testimony is against the notion that Hosius was a legate of Rome. See Morse's remarks on that matter on pages i68 and 169, of Volume III., of Smith and Wace'sZ>^■^/(?;^ar^' of Christian Biography. Compare also the three lists in Cowper's Syriac Miscellanies, pages 8, 25 and 31, of the bishops at Nicaea; the last two of which mention Hosius as from Spain, and Vitus and Vincent (misspelled in list 3) as the representatives of Rome. List i . agrees with them except in putting Hosius' see in Italy, but he does not even then sign as representing Rome, but himself; whereas Vitus and Vincent alone sign in all three lists as representing the Bishop of Rome. Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Gemdne Utterances. 281 N1C^A,A. D. 325: THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUISTCIX. Its Genuine Utterances. CHAPTER VI. CONTENTS. 1. The Synodal Epistle. 2. The Creed. ■•■% 3. The Twenty Canons. The Genuine Remains of the First Ecumenical Council are: 1. Its Synodal Epistle. 2. Its Creed. J. Its Twenty Canons. The Doubted, and the Spurious Matter ascribed to it will be- mentioned further on. I. the synodal epistle. This is extant in Greek in Socrates' Ecclesiastical History, Book- I., Chapter IX., from which we give it. It is found also in Theo- doret's Ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapter VIII., which is some- times numbered 9. ITS CONTENTS. The Epistle treats mainly of four matters: (A.) Arius and his heresies, of which we have spoken sufii- ciently above, are condemned. The names of two Egyptian Bishops., 282 Chapter VI. 'Theonas of Maraiarica and Secundus of Ptolemais are specified, as having been condemned with Arius by the Synod, evidently to warn the Alexandrians against them. (There is a short account of Secun- dus under "Secundus (3)" in Smith and Wace's Diflionary of Christian Biography). (B.) The l\lclctian Schis^n ivhich had distraHed part or all of Egypt is condcunicd, and order is given as to hozv Meletins and his partisans shall be received. Who Meletins was. He was one of the principal bishops of Egypt and was subject to the Metropolitan of Alexandria, who had the right to ordain all the bishops of Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis, as Bingham 'Shows (442). The Metropolitan had supreme control over all the provinces of the whole Diocese of Egypt, which according to the civil Notitia were six in number (443), and according to another were three, and according to still another were nine (444). On those points Bingham gives the details in his Aiitiquities of the Christian Church, Book IX., -Chapter I., Secflions i to 9, and Book IX., Chap- ter II., Secflion 6. In Book II., Chapter XVI., Sedlions 13 and 23, and in Chapter XVII., Se(5lion 11, he gives the details as to the rights and powers of the Bishop of Alexandria over all the bishops of all the provinces of Egypt. They were very great. Meletius, or Melitius, as Hefele tells us (445), Athanasius spells the name, started a schism, as did the Novatians in Ital}^ and the Donatists in Africa, on the plea that the church was not severe enough towards those who had fallen in persecution and afterwards repented and came back to the church, rebelled against his own Met- ropolitan, Alexander, Bi.shop of Alexandria, usurped the power of ordaining bishops which belonged to him alone, and .set up bi.shop against bishop and presbyter against presbyter and altar against altar. The Council then in that case vindicated the claim of the Chief Metropolitan of the nation of Egypt, Eibya and Pentapolis to rule and to order all his suffragans, whether they were at the head of a (442). Bingham's Aritiq, Book II., Chapter XVI., Sections 13 and 23, and Chapter XVII., Section II. (443). Id., Book IX., Chapter I., Sections i to 9. (444). Id., Book IX., Chapter II., Section 6. (445). Hefele's Histojy of the Christian Councils, Clark's translation, Vol. I., page 345. Nicaea, A. D.j2j: lis Goiuinc Utterances. 2S3 province or not, and condemned the suffragan Meletius for usurping those powers of ordination and rule which belong to the supreme National Metropolitan alone. Canons IV., V., VI. and XV., of the Council have reference to Meletius and his schism. Whether Meletius was a Primate of a province, or a mere sufifragan, is not so clear. In either case he was a usurper. THE LESSON TO US. The canons, in making the highest Metropolitan of a nation, what we would now call a National Patriarch, guarded the religious unity of Egypt and fortified it against schisms; for the tendency would have been for each minor Metropolitan if offended with his Patriarch, to burst away from him; and the local feeling of his partic- ular province would in many cases help him to break unity, just as our state S3^stem has a tendency to break up our national unit}-, and to split us into fragments. I have seen no proof that the term vietj'opolitan is applied to any bishop under Alexander, Metropolitan of Alexandria, and certainly it could not be used of any of the bishops under hini, in the sense it is of him in Canon VI., of Nicaea. The chief bishop of a province under Carthage was called a Primate, that is a First, but originally not a metropolitan, that term seemingly at first being limited to the bishop of the chief see of the nation, that is of its capital, or INIetro- polis. For originally at the first planting of the Gospel the Metro- politan of Rome was the only chief bishop in his country' of Italy; so the Bishop of Alexandria was the only chief bishop in Egypt; so the Bishop of Antioch was the only chief bishop in Syria; so the Bishop of Carthage was the only chief bishop in Latin Africa, etc. But in time lesser primates became necessary as numbers and Church "business increased, and so the term Arehbis/iopis found in Epiphanius on the Heresy of the Ariomaniacs of Meletius, the head possibl}' of such a province, under Alexandria, and the term primate, or senex of the head of such a province, under Carthage in Africa: and as time wore on such minor metropolitans began to be called Metropolitans, after the old greater Metropolitans began to be called Patriarchs, though the term Patriarch itself does not occur in the Ecumenical Canons, and though some scholars regard it therefore as a merely complimentary name. Yet for convenience sake it seems best to re- tain it, and to apply it and Exarch to the head of every national 284 Chapter VI. church. The latter term is used in the sense of Patriarch in Canon IX. of Chalcedon, as Hammond, on it says. He is the head Bishop of the Diocese, and presides in the Council of the Diocese of Canons II. and VI., of the Second Ecumenical Council. Jerome, and others as Bingham shows (in his Ayitiquities^ Book II., Chapter XVII., SecT;ions 7, 8 and 9, etc.), held, in eifect, that Canon VI. of Nicaea guarantees the power of the Patriarch of Alexandria over the Metro- politans, as we now term them, under him. The Metropolitan, or as we now say, the Patriarch of Carthage, held a to some extent similar power over the Primates of all the prov- inces of L,atin Africa; and preserved their ecclesiastical and national unity. For he defended their ecclesiastical weal against schisms at home, and against the attempt of the Bishop of Rome abroad to secure Appellate Jurisdiction there, and so to subjugate Latin Africa's Church, as the secular power of Rome had subjugated the secular dominion of Carthage. We shall see this on Canons of Nicaea further on. Carthage, in other w^ords, was the head of the National North African Church. So the Metropolitan of Antioch, the Patriarch of it, as we would now say, was the head of the National Church of all Syria, and controlled its other Metropolitans. So the Bishop of Rome was the head of the National Italian Church of the seven provinces of South Italy, and of the three Italian islands, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica, and was over the other Metropolitans there. The powers of every such National Patriarch are confirmed in Canon VI. of Nicaea, and Canon VI. of i Constantinople. As Bingham shows in his Antiquities, Book II., Chapters XVI and XVII., they were great, though not always the same. Such power is necessary in every National Church, Hence the Bishop of London at the next vacancy of the see of Canterbury should be Patriarch of all England, and head of the Diocesan Synod of all England, and have such power over the Archbishops of York and Canterbury, and over all other metropolitical sees of England, if any others are created, and over the whole English National Church as the Patriarch of Alexan- dria had over his Metropolitans and the National Church of Egypt, the Patriarch of Antioch over the Metropolitans and National Church of all Syria, the Patriarch of Rome over his national South Italian Church, or over the whole Italian Church, if it be deemed best, etc. And so the Bishop of New York or of Washington should be Nicaed, A. D, J2^: Its Gemiine Uttei-ahccL S85 Patriarch of all the National American Church, and should ordain and control all its other metropolitans, and to preser^-e the national religious unity, there should be but one Diocese in all the United States and -to its Diocesan Council should there be the right of appeal from the decision of every provincial council in our land, the Bishop of New York or Washington being ex-officio its President. This would be in accordance with Canon VI. of Nicaea and Canons II. and VI. of i Constantinople. That Diocesan Council, as well as each provincial Council, must consist of Bishops alone, according to those laws of the Universal Church. Such praaically Patriarchal power has existed from the begin- ning, as I show elsewhere, as we see in the rule of the Apostle Paul over those who were pracflically his suffragans, Timothy and Titus. And gradually the people of each nation grouped themselves naturally, as a matter of convenience, about the Bishopof their chief city, whose language and race was theirs, and whose interests were theirs in diurch and state. That system is approved in those canons. Rome in the middle ages and since has praaically opposed it, and a^ing in accordance with the maxim, ' ' Divide et inipera, " " Divide and rule, lias set up the power of minor Metropolitans against their chief national Metropolitans, that is against their own should-be Partriarchs, and by working craftily on their jealousies and ambitions has set them at variance, drawn appeals from their own should-be Patriarch to Rome, and has tyrannized over them, and forced the I.atin language on them in service and corrupted their faith. But no appeals are allowed according to the canons from the Diocesan, that is the National Synod, except. I, to the whole sound Episcopate of the Christian world distri- buted, that is, at their homes; and, 2, to the same Episcopate in Ecu- menical Council assembled. Hence those appeals, when the uni- versal episcopate becomes sound again, should be allowed from the Patriarch of London, and the Diocesan Synod of all England; and in the United States from the Patriarch of New York or Wash- ington, and the Diocesan Council of the whole United States. So shall we preserve our language and keep our people free from Roman idolatry. The secular power which has so often in every Western land helped Rome against their own chief national Prelate should help him in every way, and forbid Rome to usurp his canonical power. Otherwise we shall become not brethren to foreign bishops, ;but their helots and slaves,, lose our language in the ser\-ice, and be- 286 Chapter VI. come creature-servers, to our endless loss. Canon IX. of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod is peculiar in allowing an appeal from all the Patriarchs of the National Church of the Eastern Empire to its chief National Patriarch at Constantinope. This, however, is only art instance of an appeal to the head of a National Church. (C). The Decision on the Paschal Festival is next mentioned. This, though originally only a slight difference in rite between certain churches of Asia and the rest of the Christian world, had be- come grave in its consequences: for some, as Eusebius states (446), were celebrating the Easter Festival in joy while others were still fasting, and much inconvenience resulted. Besides the stiff Quarto- decimans, in their zeal for the obser\^ance of the Paschal Festival,, were, as Epiphanius on that error shows (447), prone to Judaize by" asserting that it was commanded in the L^w of Moses ; which argu- ment was folly, for the Eaw of Moses had never been given to the Gentile World, and, as Epiphanius in effect argues, the law is done away. Hence one might as w-ell quote to a Christian the abolished law of Moses for circumcision, and for other peculiar Jewish obser- vances, as for the fourteenth day of Nisan. Epiphanius tells us that the Quartodecimans held to the common articles of Christian faith, but were peculiar as to the da}^ of the Paschal feast (448). We find, the following summary on them in his Panarioi: "The Fourteenth- dayites are those who keep the Pask on the same day every year, that is on whatsoever sort of a day the fourteenth day of the moon may fall, whether it be on Saturday or on the Lord's day; and they fast and at the same time keep vigil on it" (449). Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, in his Ecclesiastical History, Book v., Chapters XXIII. , XXIV. and XXV., shows how much contro- versy there was, even in the second century, on that matter, how Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, went to Rome to see Anicetus, Bishop of that see, and tried to persuade him to observe his pradlice which he derived from St. John, and how Anicetus tried to persuade him to follow the Lord's Da)^ Pask, old in Rome, how neither succeeded, (446). Eusebius' Life 0/ Constantifie, Book III., Chapter V. (447). Epiphanius' Panarion, Heresy 50. (448). Ibid. (449). The Sj'nopsis of the Quartodeciman Heresy, just before the Book in. which it stauds (page 420, vol. i., of Dindorfs Epiphanius). NiccBa, A. D. J2^: lis Geiminc Uttcrancey. 287 how Anicetus yielded to Polycarp the office of consecrating the Eucharist, how they communed with each other and separated in peace. Anicetus was Bishop of Rome about A. D. 157- i6i. On other matters they disputed and were reconciled, but on Pask, St. Polycarp stood firm. Afterwards Viiftor, Bishop of Rome, A. D. 185^. I97> P'^it the Quartodeciman brethren out of his own communion and tried to get others to do the same, but failed; for Eusebius, as above, shows that bishops who were not Fourteenthdayites, like Irenaeus, and others ^^ pressed tipon Viflor with imtch severity''^ and rebuked him for his rashness, and counselled moderation and unity and forbearance. The Quartodeciman brethren accordingly were in communion with the Church till the Council of Nicaea, when they came around to the common view, as Eusebius sbows (450). The. facfls incontestibly prove that while the Bishop of Rome was regarded with respect, he had no power to cut off any church out of his own jurisdi(5lion in Italy, nor any power of himself alone to settle any religious controversy; but that an Ecumenical Synod had; for the few who did not submit to Nicaea were deemed heretics in that they re- fused to hear the Church (4502). Those chapters oi^Ms^ms' Ecclesiasti- cal History are well translated by Dr. Cruse, and published by Bohn, and well repay persusal. Besides, the following authors have gleaned the ancient authorities on the early disputes as to the proper time of ob- serving the Paschal Festival: 1. Bingham in his Antiquities of the Christiaji Church, Book XX., Chapter V., page 10. That chapter is well epitomized in the begin- ning of Volume VII. , of the Oxford ten-volume edition of A. D. 1855- 2. Hensley's article ''Easter,''' in Smith and Cheetham's Dic- tionary of Christian Ajitiqiiities. 3. Hefele's History of the Church Councils, Volume I., Clark's translation. Index, nndex '"Easter." He is, however, partisan, and sometimes very inexact, where Rome is mentioned. (450). Eusebius' Life of Constantine, Book III., Chapter XIV. i45o>2). No one Apostle, even though, like Peter, he be ''first among his equals,''' can usurp the powers of rule, and of defining on docftriue, discipline and rite, which Christ gave to the whole body of the Apostles. Paul, an Apostle, "withstood" Peter, an Apostle, ''to his face because he zvas to be blamed,''' Galations II., 11. Paul and Barnabas, Apostles, differed on a small matter, like Pask, and did not excommunicate each other, Adls XV., 29. 288 Chapter VI. AUTHORITY GIVEN BY THE vSYNOD TO THE BISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA TO DETERMINE THE PASK LORD'S DAY. — DIFFERENCES AFTERWARDS AMONG THOSE WHO HELD TO NICAEA , AS TO WHAT lord's day SHOULD BE KEPT AS EASTER. - FINAL AGREEMENT OP ALL, AND DISAPPEAR- ANCE OF FOURTEENTH DAY SECTS. — FOLLY OF SOME MODERN DIFFERENCES AS TO EASTER. /The -First Ecumenical Council deputed the work of computing Easter to the Bishop of Alexandria, because, according to the ex- planation of Pope Leo I., Alexandria excelled in learning for that purpose. This is clear from Pope Leo the First's Epistle CXXI., in Migne's edition, which is addressed to the Emperor Marcian. Leo I. states that there had been error and consequent differences as to what day should be observed as Pask, and then refers to the Decision of the First Ecumenical Council on it, as follows: " Therefore the holy Fathers studied to remove the occasion of that error, by delegating all that care to the Bishop of Alexandria, {foras- much as from old time skill in that sort of compjcting seemed to have been handed dozi'71 amorig the Egyptians'): in order that through him, '•[the Bishop of Alexandria], the day of the aforesaid Festival should every year be made knozmi to the Apostolic See, and that by his letters the general notice [of the correct day] might run through to the more reinote ch urches ' ' (45 1 ) . Then he refers to a difference between his own reckoning of Easter, as to when it would fall in the seventy-sixth year of Theo- philus, the Bishop of Alexandria's, computation of one hundred Pasks, beginning with that for A. D. 380, and prays the Emperor to deign to pay attention to that matter, and to induce ' ' the Egyptiatis, or whosoever else may have certaiti knowledge of that sort of reckoning, (451). Migne's Patrologia LatiJia, tome 54, col. 1056 Leon. Magn. Episf. CXXI., {Ad Marcianmn Aiigustuin), de Paschate, cap. i, Stiuluerunt itaque sancti Patres occasioueni liujus erroris auferre, omueni lianc curam Alexandrine icpiscopo delegautes (qnouiam apud ^g>-ptios liujus supputatiouis antiquitus .tradita esse videbatur peritia) per quem, quotaunis dies praedidlae solemnitatis Sedi Apostolicae. indicaretur, cujus scriptis ad lougiuquiores Ecclesias indicium generale percurreret. Nicaea, A. D. J2^: Its Ge7mme Utterances. 289 to solve his doubts'' on the matter (452). lyeo I. has reference to the Easter of A. D. 455. I find that there is an alleged Paschal Prologue of St. Cyril of Alexandria, which states on the year 437, as follows: ' ' By the agreement of a Synod of the Saints of the whole world, it has been decreed that inasmuch as it has been found that the Church of Alexandria has been famous for science, as to when on the Calends, or Ides, or moon, the Pask ought to be celebrated, it should every year intimate it in a letter to the Roman Church, whence by Apostolic authority, the Universal Church throughout the whole world should learn without any doubt, the exact day of the Pask ' ' (453)- This is so much stronger in favor of Rome, than I^eo's language above, that I have been led to doubt its genuineness, the more par- ticularly as it is found, according to Hefele, in Latin only (454). From Leo's language above, we should infer that the Bishop of Alex- andria was to tell the exact day of Kaster to the Bishop of Rome, in order that he might transmit it by letter ' ' to the more remote chjirches, ' ' that is, evidently, of the West, such as Gaul, Spain, Britain, etc., which did not, however, imply any jurisdidlion over them; whereas the alleged Paschal Prologue of Cyril of Alexandria might be taken to mean that the Bishop of Rome was to announce it to the whole world. But I am not aware that Rome at any time announced the time of Easter to any Oriental Bishop, whereas in the matter on the struggle between Carthage and Rome, translated farther on in this work, we find the same St. Cyril of Alexandria announcing, before that, the day of Pask to the North African Latin Church. But we do find that not every year, but on some one or more years, the Bishop of Rome had announced the date of the Pask to the farther West Churches, as had been their wish at the Council of Aries, A. D. 314 (455); hence to Britian also, for on Augustine's going there to con- (452). Id. '453). Id., col. 1055, quoted in note "g" there. (454). Hefele's History of the Christian Councils, Vol. I., page 326, note 3. (455). In Migne's Peltier's Dictionnaire des Conciles, under "Aries * * * I'ati 314,''^ we find the statement in column 190 that the bishop of Rome announced the day of Easter to the Westerns, and the Bishop of Alexandria to the Easterns. The remark is made by a Romanist. 290 Chapter VI. vert the Saxons and on his trying to induce the British Christians to accept the new Roman computation of Easter, they refused, and adhered to an older Roman computation which had reached them before, either directly from Rome, or indirectly through Gaul, or elsewhere. That of course shows that the Britons had not got the time from Rome every year, or they would have known the new rule. It shows, moreover, that they did not deem themselves bound to accept a date for the Festival just because it came from Rome, though Nicaea seems to have intended, if Leo be correct, that the Alexan- drian time should be passed on by the Bishop of Rome to the remoter churches of the West. But as Rome, by receiving it from Alexan- dria, did not admit any jurisdidlion of the Bishop of Alexandria at Rome; and as Carthage by receiving it from Alexandria, did not admit any jurisdiction of the Bishop of Alexandria in North Africa;, so neither did Britain, by receiving it from Rome, admit any jurisdic- tion of the Bishop of Rome in Britain. The giving out the exact time from Alexandria to the East and to Latin Africa, and from Rome to the '■'more remote churches''' of the West, was merely a brotherly act on the part of those two chief bishops to ensure uniform- ity as to the day of its observance, and, so far as the computation of it by Alexandria is concerned, it rested on the authorization and ap- pointment, and order of the Supreme Tribunal of the whole Church, its Court of Final Appeal, an Ecumenical Council, that is that of Nicaea, not on the Bishop of Rome nor the Bishop of Alexandria, nor on any other one Bishop. Hefele shows, further on, that after the Council of Nicaea, while Alexandria and Rome both agreed in keeping the Pask on the Lord's Day, there remained a differing way of reckoning it, so that some years one kept it on one Lord's Day, and the other on another; and that the Emperor Theodosius the Great, asked Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, for an explanation of the fact that in the year 38.7, the Romans kept Easter on March 21, whereas the Alexandrians did not keep theirs till five weeks later, that is not till April 25. Theophilus explained to him the principles of the Alexandrian computation. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan sided with the Alexandrian computation (456). That makes against the story of the alleged Prologue of Cyril, that Rome announced Pask to all the world after receiving it (456), Hefele I., 329- Nicaea, A. D. 32^: Its Genuine Utterances. 291 from Alexandria. Hefele goes on to state that ' ' C)Til ' ' of Alexan- dria ' ' showed in a letter to the Pope, what was defecflive in the Latin Calculation; and this demonstration was taken up again, some time after, by order of the Emperor, by Paschasinus, Bishop of IJiXy- baeum and Proterius of Alexandria, in a letter written by them to Pope L,eo I. In consequence of these communications, Pope L,eo often gave the preference to the Alexandrian computation, instead of that of the Church of Rome" (457). Finally, after different attempts to make the Roman and the Alexandrian reckonings of Easter agree, it was accomplished b}' Dionysius the Little, a monk of Rome, in the sixth century, and in the reign of Charlemagne, that is Charles the Great, who died A. D. 814, his Calculations were accepted by all the West, and so harmony on the date of Easter was assured, after long and vexations differences. It is to be regretted that we have lost the exact form of the edict of Nicaea, which made the Bishop of Alexandria the Computer of the time of Pask for the Universal Church. The fact, however, that it did so is incontestibly proven. Valuable references as to the disputes among those who were not Quartodecimans, but adhered to Nicaea, but nevertheless had different ways of computing Pask Lord's Day, are as follows : (A.) Hefele, on pages 29S-341, of Volume I. of his History of the Christian Councils, treats learnedly of the Decision of Nicaea on Easter, and of the differences before and since on that point. (B.) Much of the Originals to which he refers may be found in tome 54 of Migne's Patrologia Latina, Index under '' Paschalis dies.''' (C.) The authorities as to the difference between the British Churches and Augustine, the Roman missionary to the Saxons, at the end of the sixth century, and in the seventh, as to the particular Lord's Day on which the Paschal Festival should fall, are given in Smith's Gieseler's Church History, Volume I., page 530, note 4. Compare also page 531, note 8. Gieseler there shows that the Britons were not Quartodecimans, as has sometimes been ignorantly supposed, but always kept Easter on a Lord's Day, but followed an old and antiquated and erroneous table to compute it. We see then, (to sum up), that the first Ecumenical Council decided i, that the Pask must always fall on a Lord's Day, the joyful Festival on the joyful day; and 2, that it must not be celebrated (457). Ibid. 292 Chapter 17. on the same day as the Jewish Passover, hence not on the Fourteenth day of Nisan. These points are gleaned from the Synodal Letter of the Council and from the Emperor Constantine's Letter on the sub- ject (45S). That became the universal custom. A few in Asia would not however receive it, but split off from the church and were called Qicartodccimans, that is Foiu-tcenthdayites. A few small sedls also opposed the Council's Decision. The Ebionites had been Quarto- decimans because they believed in the perpetual obligation of the Mosaic Law. Disappearance of the sects which opposed the Nice7ie Decision on Easter. Folly of the difference between the Greeks and Latins on it in our day. The Novatian sect rose in the Roman or Italian Church in the third century; and at first, as Sozomen tells us, kept the Paschal Festival at the time the Roman Church did (459), which custom they and the Romans seem to have claimed to be from the Apostles Peter and Paul. Afterwards, about A. D. 375, some of them in the East, under the lead of Sabbatius and others, began to keep it on the same day as the Jews (460). That appears to have been one thing that led him to split off from them. The Montanists, in the fourth cen- tury- at least, followed in the main, the Jewish against the Christian Paschal custom (461). Yet Sozomen shows that the Quartodecimans differed both from the Fourtenth Day wdng of the Novatians and from the Montanists, in that they always kept their Pask on the Four- teenth Day, whereas those Novatians and the Montanists in certain cases did not; through when they did not, they still varied as to the time of its observance from each other. However, all the Fourteeth Day sedls soon died out, and the Nicene usage became universal. In later times, after the separation of East and West, and the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar, as the Easterns still continued, unwisely, to refuse to do a little mathematical work and to correct their Old (458). See the Synodal Letter above, and the quotation from the Emperor's Letter in Hefele I., pages 322-324. (459). Sozomen's Eccl. Hist. Book VI., Chapter 24, page 279 of Bohn's English translation. (460). Sozomen's Ecct. Hist., i])id, and book VII., Chapter 18. (461). Ibid. Xictxa, A. D. j2^: lis Genuine Utterances. 293 Style, and as the Westerns did, the Latins first, and the Protestants afterwards, a difference of twelve days was made in their time and a difference also as to the day of keeping Pask. This useless and silly difference should be done away and all should stridlly follow the Nicene rule. If there be differences as to the exact Lord's Day when it should be kept, that is a mathematical question, and fairness and good feeling should settle it in a few hours. Otherwise we can not expect a universal observ^ance of the same Paschal day till the Seventh Ecumenical Synod meets. The absurdity of adhering to a style which all parties, East and West, admit to be twelve days behind the right time, and the folly of failing to see that it is not a question of Theology, but of mathematical science, are too clear to need discussion. If the papers can be trusted, Russia at least has lately had the common sense to decree that in civil matters at least, the new and correct computation of time shall be observed in its dominion. (D.) Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, who had led in Christ's battle against the creature-serving Arius and his partisans, and had excommunicated them as duty demanded, and so made the whole heretical party in Alexandria and elsewhere his bitter enemies, is vindicated and commended. 294 Chapter VI. THE SYNODAI. EPISTI.E. Tr^ ayia 6zou ydjJiTt^ xat fj.eyd^.rj ^A/.z^w^dpicuv ixx/.rj/ria, xai rot? xar' Al'yUTZTov, xat A'.fjorf^ x tto/ecov re xai iTZu/tycw'^, iJ.sydAy] xa\ dyia GU'^()d() 7:apa>4)p.iav 'Apscou xai rwv nhv adzaj, ^tz) Tzapouaia TOO 6edp.aza zd ^)j'j.(y(fT^p.a^ ol^; ixiypy^zo ^Xa(jo3o<}j obdk orruv dxouaai r^9 da(Tyopiv7j. ha\ zd piv X-az" ixslvov ouio ziXoO'? rszbyrjxe, ra^rw? rj dxr^/.dazz t] dxobffBffds^ 'iva p.ri dd^ojp.av i-spiSaiyziv d'/dp\ di olxziav dp.apziav a^ia zd i~iyzipa xopi- aap.i'/tp. Fdooozov 8k layum abzoo i] aaiCeia^ w? xai Tza.parzoXiaai Oew^dv dizo MappapiX7j xa/.odo^iaq ixz.i/r^'i xa\ d(jefi=.iazii\tyiOi\tzuyr x bp.V^^ dya~rjZo\ dds.X(foi, "JEdu^ev uuv MeXiziov pkv^ (fO.a'^Opuj-dzepov xvjrjOzi(jrj<^ -r>^s' (To-^ddoo^ — xazd ydp rdv dxpi^rj Xdyov ubdzpid^ <7oyy^d)prf'i d^io<} tjv^ — pi'^t'.v i'^ rj TzdXsi iaozob, xa\ p.r^8spiav i^oufTiav kyeiv abzdv pr]zz yeipoOszelv^ P-^j'^ Tzpoysipi'^edOaij pr^zt iv yu)p fromi the Sacred Synod, in order that ye may be able to know what things have been agitated and inquired into, and what things liave' seemed ■good and have been established. First, then, the matters relating to the impiety and the lawless- ness of Arius and of his partisans have been inquired into> by all in the presence of the most dear to God Emperor Constantine, and by the votes of all it hath been decreed that his impious opinion is to be anathematized and the blasphemous expressions (462) and names (462). The '■'blasphemous expressions^' especially referred to, are' evidently those anathematized in the Nicene Creed, such as are specified further on. ia the above Epistle, such as, 1. " The Son of God was made out 0/ things not existing." 2. "Before He was born He was not." 3. " There zvas once wJten He was not." 4. ' ' Tlie Son of God is capable of vice. ' ' In this Epistle, as in Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History, Boofc L,, CBapter VIII., we find expression 2 above. It is not in Socrates Yet I suppose the reference is to all the blasphemous language- useiiby 'Anus, who came before the Bishops of the Council and vented his iinipieties^ 296 Chapter VI. xai erj/at'} (3/z£r//>a.'9 iv ptrj^s-A a-^iaiiazi eupzOivza^^ aXla d/.7j?u8 cur ou? iv t^ KaOoXurj "Exx.).rj(7ia o-^ra'^, xai i^ouirtav £/£CV r.pir/^sipiZtffdai, xa\ dvofiara iruXiy- saOai nuv d^tiuv zoo xXrjpou, xai o?m<} navra izote'iv xaxd vi'>iiov xai Ozapw tom ixx?.r/(Tca(7TCx6v. El di Ti>a? auiifiairj fhar^auaanOai ribv iv r^ ^ ExxXrjdia^ Trjvv/.ahra 7:po(ra'>ai3aiveiv ei'^o'/AX£:dvdp(JO,abzu'}7zapu}v dxpifiitrzepov dvotijsnzpd'} u;/af, aze dij xa\ xbpco? xai xov^covo^ zwv ysys'^r/rxi'^ajv zuy/dywj. EbayyshX.oiJ.eOa 3k V[xTv, TTspl ZYJ? iTu;icfco'^ia? zoo dyiujzdzou lldirya, ozi bpezipai^i ebyal^ xazwp- OihOfj xa\ zouzo zo pipor u)v 'loudaiwv zd Tzpozspov Tzoiouvzai^^ vu>a 6^ov Ilaripa dopdruiv —zii/.pd7, ye^^^rjOivza iK TOO Ilazpdg pir^iiyz-,:^^ zouz^azcv ix zr^'f ro'j Ilazpo? /y.<(vr;j'£v/;, zouzitrziv ix t^? ouffia? TOO Tlazpu'i, Osov ix 0£<>^>, tfco'} ounia^ znb Ilazpu^^, ^i-Jy ix 6>coD, (pwg- ix yujzd<;,6£du dXr/J:>ov ix 0SOO rV.rjOf^o^j, ix fwrof, 0sov d/.r^OcWr^ ix 6hoo dhfii- yvjvTiOivza^ oo -otrjOi-^za, ofioootriov rcS voj, y^y^TjOhza, 00 -oafihza, vnoourr- Hazfii, oi' xaze'/Jh'r^za xa\ aapxM- zr^v r^p.tzipa-^ Giozripiav xaztkOza, iya>Opu)zrj>Ta'^za, -aOd-^za, xa\ aapxioOhza^ ha'A)pu)-r]f!a\>za, -alhhza^ ava(T7'/vr«, t^ t,"!'~j; yipipa^ d.'zUhhza xai dyanzd-^za zrj rpizrj r^'dpa, xa\ d^z).- £1? onpayiih^, xa\ ipy(>ii.t'M>'^ xpn'MU Od-jza e*s" zoh^ oupayoh^^ lpydp.vMiv Cwvra^ xai '.izxpnu'i- Kill eti' Ka\ £'.<{ zij Uyzupa To "Ayiov. Teh's OS /JyoyzaSf ^//v ~ozz, oze obx T/V, X(Li, llpvj yi/\n^(K^'Mn obx ^v, xa\ ozt '/ic obx Ijyzurj iyi'^ezii, rj i^ iripais 6~()iTzdf7zoj'} 7j iib(7ia'^zaat that is ''made''' instead of ytwrfiJ,vai that is '' generated^ But that is evidently a copyist's or printer's mistake, for the language, of Eusebius of Caesarea and of Athanasius himself, as both are elsewhere quoted in this volume, shows that 'fv^'^rfiiivai is meant. The Nicene Creed was read in Act I. of the Third Ecumenical Council, held at Ephesus A. D. 431. As in that Act, in Tome V. of the Royal Edition of the Councils, Paris, A. D. 1644, it differs from the same Creed as in St. Athanasius' Epistle to Jovian, in column 817, tome 26, of Migne's Patrologia Graeca, only as follows: 1. It has not ''the'' before '' one Lord Jesus Anointed.'''' 2. It has not ''both'' before "in the heaven'' 3. I^ike the form in Migne's Patrologia Graeea, tome 20, column 1540, above quoted, it has "in" before "the earth," not "oil the earth ' ' as in Athanasius. 4. It has not " a/id" before " zaefit up." 5. It omits "or created" in the Anathema. Otherwise it is exacflly the same as the Nicene Creed in Athan- asius' Epistle to Jovian as in Migne's Patrologia Graeea, tome 26, column 817, as above. In the Royal Edition of the Church Councils, Tome VIII., Paris, A. D. 1644, on page 405, we find the Creed of Nicaea again. It was read publicly in Act II. of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod. It agrees ivith the form of that Creed in column 817, of tome 26, of Migne's Patrologia Graeea in Athanasius' Epistle to Jovian, with the following exceptions : 1. It has not "the" before "one Lord." 2. It has "in" before "the earth." 3. It has " and" before "put on a ma?t.' 4. It has "and" before " luent iip." 5. It has " and again" before " cometh.'^ 6. It has not " or created " in the Anathema. These differences are evidently copyist's errors somehow. 310 Chapter VII. Yet in Act V., of the same Fourth Council, in its definition we find the unusual and peculiar form of the Nicene Creed which has so many additions from the Constantinopolitan of which Hahn speaks. See below in Secftion 2. It is in the same Tome VIII. of the Royal Edition, on pages 636, 637. On page 630 of the same tome we read, " Tlie things n'hich follow are translated from Latin into Greek,'' but I am not aware that the Definition is included among the thi?igs so translated. If it were we might suppose a corrupt Latin copy. So I must confess my ignorance why the form of the Creed of Nicaea in the Definition of Chalcedon differs so much from that in its Act Second. Certainly an old translation of that Definition into Latin gives the Nicene Creed in a form which is utterly without any additions from the Constantinopolitan. See it noted below. Section 2. — IVe here note the \"ariatio)is in the Greek Text of the Nicene Creed, and i)i the Lati>i Translations oj it : Christian W. F. Walch, in his Bibliotheea Symbolica Veins (Lem- goviae, A. D. 1770), pages 75-80, gives us the te.Kt of the Nicene Creed from Eusebius of Caesarea's Epistle to his Paroeeians, that is to the people of his Diocese, and notes the differences between that text here and there and others. He has, however, failed to accent his Greek. Hahn, in his Bibliothek der Symboie, pages 78-Si, has followed him, but abbreviates some of his notes and leaves out others. He there summarizes the places where texts of the Creed of the 318 may be found, as follows. I translate from his German and Latin. Writing on the text given by himself, Hahn remarks : " It is according to Eusebius, in his Epistle to the Cacsareans in Athanasius' Epistle on the Definition of the Council of Nicaea, Tome I., Part I., edition of Montfaucon, page 239, whence the above text is taken. Besides, that Epistle of Eusebius [to the Caesareans] is also found in Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapter XII.; in Socrates' Ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapter VIII., and in Gelasius' History of the Nicene Council, Book II., Chapter XXXV.; in Mansi's Tome II, page 916. With that Eusebian Recension are also to be compared the Recensions of the Nicene Fonmila in Atha- nasius' Epistle to fovian, in the place mentioned, Part II., page 781; in Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History, Book IV., Chapter III.; in So- crates' Ecclesiastical History, in the place mentioned ; in Basil the Nicaca, A. D. J2^ : Its Creed. 3ll Great's Epistle, CXXV., Tome III., page 215, of the Benedictine •edition ; in Cyril of Alexandria's Epistle to Anastasius, in Tome V., Part II., edition of Jo. Aubert, page 174, and in Mansi's Tome V., page 387 and after ; in Gelasius, in the place mentioned, in Chapter XXVI.; in Mansi's Tome II., page 878 and after ; Eutyches, in his Confessional Statement, in Mansi in the Acts of the Council of Chalce- don, Tome VI., page 629 ; in Theodotus of Ancyra's Book Against N'estorius, edition of Combefis, Paris, A. D. 1675, page 24. In the Code of the Canons of the African Church, according to Justellus, in Mansi's Tome III., page 70S, and besides in the Acts of the Council cf Ephes2is, Act VI., there is a form [of the Nicene Creed], in Mansi's Tome IV., page 1341 ; and there are two forms [of it] in the Acts of the Council of Chalccdon, the one in Act II., Tome VI., page 955, the other, which is less true, in Act V., Tome VII., page 109; there is also one in the Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, in Act XVIII., in Mansi's Tome XL, page 633 (the Third Council of Constantinople, in the following notes). Compare Walch's Bibliotheca Symbolica, page 75 and after, where he .specifies with great diligence the litera- ture relating to the topic, and compares almost all the other Recen- sions with the Eusebian ; and on page 87 and after he has given the various readings [of the Creed of Nicaea] in a seemly and complete manner." Hahn then adds that in his own notes he gives the more important readings, and corrects some things in Walch's statements. I will note the more important of those various readings in Walch and in Hahn, though I ought to say at the start that they are mainly verbal merely, and do not affect any dogma. Such of the texts as were written after the adoption of the Creed of the Second Ecumeni- cal Council show, once in a while, that the transcriber, in quoting the Nicene from memory, adds in something from the Constantino- politan, or omits what is not in the Constantinopolitan, but is in the Nicene. The form in Act V. of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, that is that of Chalcedon, which is quoted below, follows, in some places, the ConstantinopoHtan, not the Nicene. The words, " both those in the heaven and those on the earth,'' are lacking in Act V. of the Council of Chalcedon, probably because they are not in the Constantinopolitan, and so the transcriber thought they were not in the Nicene. The addition, '' oid of the heavens,'' which is found in Act V. of the Council of Chalcedon, and in the editions of Basil after ''came 312 Chapter VII. dow7i,'" is not found there in the manuscripts. It is evidently an ad- dition from the Constantinopolitan. After ''took on flesh,'' the Fifth Act of the Council of Chalcedon adds, ' ' of the Holy Ghost and of Mary the Virgin, ' ' evidently from the Constantinopolitan. Gelasius of Cyzicus, in the place above mentioned, pages 880 and 916, after '' siifered" adds " buried" from the ConstantinopoHtan. Act V. of the Council of Chalcedon, after '' afid put on a man,'' adds, exactly as in the Creed of the Second Ecumenical Council, "■And was cntcified for iLS under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and 7vas buried,'" and just below, after the words ''on the third day," the same Act V. of Chalcedon adds : " According to the Scriptures," as in the Constantinopolitan. So Gelasius, in the place above mentioned, page 880, the Code of the Canom of the African Chinch, and Act V. of the Council of Chal- cedon, after "■went up into the heavens," adds, "And sitteth at the right hand of the Father," as in sense in the Constantinopolitan, and in almost exactly or in exactly the same words. So, in sense, we find it in the Council of Ephesus and in the Third Council of Con- stantinople, A. D. 680, with slight change in the wording. So Gelasius, in the place mentioned—///.? Code of the Canons of the Church of Africa, and Acts II. and V. of the Council of Chalcedon — with " cometh" add "again" from the Constantinopolitan, and Act V. adds, as in the Constantinopolitan, "with glory," and after the words "to judge the living and the dead," it subjoins, "of His Kingdom there will be no end," as in the Constantinopolitan. Gelasius, in the place mentioned, instead of "And in the Holy Spirit," has "And in His Holy Spirit." And Act V. of the Council of Chalcedon has instead, "And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Life- Giver," from the Constantinopolitan. I would add that the Creed of the 318, as in the Definition of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, in Labbe and Cossart, in Hardouin and in Mansi, in the additions of them mentioned below, lacks rj y.rifrTov, that is "or created," in its Anathema. Hahn does not note that lack. Athanasius, in his Epistle to fovian ; Socrates, Gelasius, on page 880 ; Basil the Great, the Code of the Canons of the African Church, Theodotus of Ancyra, Eutyches, and the Council of Chalcedon, in its Nicaea, A. D. 323: Its Creed. 313 Acts II. and V., have, in the Anathema, instead of " The Universal Church,'''' the fuller phrase, " The Universal and Apostolic Church,' ' to which Socrates adds, ''of Gody Gelasius, on page 916, has, " The Apostolic and Catholic Church.' '' Theodoret, in both places, and Socrates once, have, ' ' the Holy Uni- versal and Apostolic Churchy The Council of Ephesus and that of III. Constantinople have, " The Holy Universal and Apostolic Church of God'' To sum up as to the readings of the Greek of the Creed of the 318 in the Ecumenical Councils aforesaid. There is very little in the way of divergence in the text of it, as in the First, the Second and the Fifth Ecumenical Council. The different readings above specified refer to the Third Ecumenical Council, the Fourth and the Sixth, as- in Mansi's text. lyCt us glance at them. First, as to the Third Synod : St. Cyril of Alexandria, in his long letter to Nestorius, which has the AT/. Chapters, gives the Nicene Creed. It is found in Mansi's Concilia, Tome IV., column 1072. It was read in Act I. of the Third Ecumenical Council. It differs from Hahn's text, as on pages 78-80 of his Bibliothek der Symbole, as follows : 1. It puts roy /iovfyevj (that is ''the Sole- Born'') next after rov vlw rob Osod (that is after "the Son of God"), whereas Hahn puts " Sole- Born" (fiovoysv?^) without rdv (that is without "the") after i< rot) -ar/x'/i (that is after "out of the Father"). 2. It has za': (^" and") before byavOpw-rjfravra (that is before "put on a man." 3. It has no za; (" and") before lp'/fiiv>»-j (that is " conicth "). 4. It has TO TTvsufxa TO (XYWJ (that is "the Holy Ghost"), which. differs in wording a little — not at all in sense — from Hahn's text. 5. It has TVJi'tq (" any ") before bTzoj^: before l'yfrA)pio-ri(7avTa and -dh-^ before ipyojisvov^ and TO -y^uiia to (iyutv instead of Hahn's to ajXim r.'^vjiuj., and it omits ■'^TKTTw in the Anathema at the end, and has xat a-oaToXv/.r^ be- fore its final word k/./lr^aia. Or, to put those differences into English, it has • 1. ''And''' before '' put 07i a vian.'" 2. ' 'Again ' ' before ' ' cometh. ' ' 3. It has a different wording for the ''Holy Ghost,'' but not a different sense. 4. It has " and Apostolic'' before " Chnrch." The form in that Act II. professes to be the Creed of the 318, rand is formally given as such. For Cecropius, Bishop of Sebastopolis, .asks for the reading of the Creed of the 31 8 Holy Fathers. In response we read : " The most glorious Archons and the most ample Senate said. Let there be read what was set forth by the Three Hundred and Eighteen Holy Fathers, who came together in Nicaea. Eunomius, the most reverent Bishop of Nicomedia, read from a .Book : " The Statement of the Synod held at Nicaea." Then follows the Creed of the 318, as above mentioned. Now, third, as to the SiJ^tli Synod. Nicaea, A. D. 323: Its Creed. 81ff The Nicene Creed, as in the Definition of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod, Act XVIII. (column 633 of Tome XI. of Mansi's Concilia), differs from Hahn's text : 1. It has y. (that is ''or created''), and 4. At the end it has rouTao^ a'MxOtij.ariXBi ij ayi'i. r(r> Hatrj xaOa/.c/.r/ xat ■d7:o(Tr<)?.cx7j ixx^.rjcria, instead of Halin's Eusebius' reading, a'^aOzfm-i'U'. i/ xaOuXuri ixxXr^aia ; that is, it has : "These the Holy Universal and Apostolic Church of God An- athematizes, " instead of "The Universal Church Anathematizes." So much on the various readings of the different Greek texts of the Nicene Creed. Sometimes, in the editions of the Councils, only the beginning of the Creed of the 318, and of that of the 150 of the Second Synod, is given. For instance, we read, here and there, the Nicene as follows : " We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker 0/ all visible and of all invisible things, etc.," the rest being understood while the Nicene Creed was still in common use. I have thought that in Act V. of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and in Act XVIII. of the Sixth, the original might have had that only, but that at some later time, when the Creed of the 150 had taken the place of that of the 31 8, another copyist might give the Creed of the 318 in full, as he understood it, no matter how mistakenly, and that hence the variations from the original form of it might have arisen. The Bishops of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, A. D. 451, witness in their exclamations in the Council that it was the Creed into which they had been baptized, and into which they baptized. And so it must have remained, the Creed still taught the Catechumens. How long after that it was that the Creed of the vSecond Ecumenical Council supplanted it may admit of some doubt (472). But we know (472). Swainson, in his article "■Creed,'' in Smith aud Cheetham's Dic- tionary of Christian Antiquities, tells us, from Theodorus Ledlor {Hist. Eccl:, p. 563) that Timotheus, Bishop of Constautinople, A. D. 511, ordered "that the Creed should be recited * * * at every congregation, whereas previously it had 316 Chapter VII . that the Creed of the 150 was used at the Eucharist in Spain in A. D, 589, and that that was the custom of the Oriental Churches before been used onlj- on the Thursday before Easter, when the Bishops catechized tlie candidates fur baptism." Swainson adds that the order speaks of "the Creed of the 318," but thinks it must there mean the Creed of the 150 Bishops of the Second Ecumenical Council. But to the Greek of that day the words would mean, as they did at Chalcedon only about sixty years before, the Creed of the First Ecu- menical Council. The reason why Swainson thinks that the Creed of the 150 must be meant, and not the Nice'ne, is that Timothy's object "was to express the continued abhorence which the Church felt for the teaching of Macedonius." From that language of his, Swainson seems to think that the Macedonius meant is the notorious heretic who denied the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, and was made Bishop of Constantinople A. D. 342 or 343, and that Timothy aimed to oppose his errors on the Spirit, on which the Constautiuopolitan Creed is fuller than the Nicene. But the context of Theodore Lector, just before, shows that not he but the Orthodox Macedonius, who was made Bishop of Constantinople A. D. 495, is intended. He was exiled by the Monophysite Emperor Anastasius, and Timothy, a Monophysite heretic, was put into his place in A. D. 511 by that monarch. Timothy undoubtedly ordered the Creed of the 318 to be recited, as Theodorus Lector asserts— not that of the 150. The Monophysite party were wont to assert that the Orthodox did not admit the Creed of the 318 because tliev did not admit their heretical Monophysite sense of it. There was no dis- cussion between the Orthodox and the Monophysites as to the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, for both admitted it. Their difference was on the two Natures of Christ, on which the Symbol of the 318 is so full. Hence the passage of Theo- dorus Lector relates to Macedonius, who was made Bishop of Constantinople in A. D. 495. I quote the passage of Theodorus Lector from colunm 201, Tome 86, of Migne's Patrologia Graeca. Translated, it is as follows : "Timothy contrived that the Symbol of the Faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers should be said in every Church gathering, undoubtedly to" favor a slanderous charge against Macedonius, as though he did not receive the Symbol, it having been said before once a year [only] on the Holy Preparation Day of the divine suffering [our Good Friday], at the time when the Catechetical instructions were given by the Bishop." See the articles in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Chri%tian Biograptiy, on "Macedonius (3) II.," "Timotheus (24)." Daniell's article on the latter states that the custom of saying the Creed at every service has been ascribed to the Monopliysite Peter the Fuller, who was the intruding Patriarch of Antioch, A.- D. 471-488. Indeed. Nicephorus Cal- Hstus states of Theodorus Lector (column 208, Tome 86, of Migne's Patrologia Graeca) that he was the originator of that good custom, and also of the idola- trous and creature-serving one of naming the Virgin Mary in every prayer. Anr. it was no wonder that the creature-servers who, as Monophysite heretics, wor- shipped the merely created humanity of Christ as God, should go one step further and name, that is, I think, iiivotce here, the Virgin Mary, and so coii- trarv to Christ's own prohibition in Matthew IV., 10, give an act of religions Nicaea, A. D. 323 : Its Creed. 317 (473), and in baptism at Rome in the ninth century, for a Roman Baptismal Order of about that date has the ConstantinopoHtan— not the Nicene (474). After A. D. 800, when the Nicene had passed out of common use and was very Httle known except to scholars, a com- mon copyist would very naturally get it confounded with the Con- stantinopolitan, and sometimes would lug into it parts of the Con- stantinopoHtan, when he attempted to supply the words which might be lacking after the first line or so in older manuscripts, and from service to a creature. The term named is used iu the seuse of invoke iu Canou XXXV. of Laodicea, where the invocation of angels is forbidden. I quote Theodore Ledlor's language iu column 208 of Tome 86 of Migne's Patrologia Gmeca, as reported by Nicephorus Callistus. It is, translated, as follows : "Theodore Ledtor says that Peter the Fuller contrived that the sacred oint- ment shoull be consecrated in the Church before all the people, and that the invocation over the waters at the Theophany (our Epiphany, Sophocles' Greek Lexicon, under Otoi^uvM) should be performed in the evening: and that the Bringer Forth of God should be named in every prayer [or perhaps better "in every service of prayer,'' Greek iv sKnartj I'vxii] and that the Creed should be said in every meeting," [}:v ndo)) 2uvdf«.] The name of the Virgin is used in prayer in the public services now, alas! not only by the IMonophysites but also by the Greeks, but I am not aware that it is said " z« every prayer,'' though it is said iu services of prayer very often. At what time the Greeks took that creature-wor- shipping sin from the Monophysites, I can not say. The author of Note 7, column 209, Tome 86 of Migne's Palrologia Graeca, "understands by in every meeting" above, at every Eucharistic service, though "he admits that the expression in its literal sense may be applied to any meeting. Moreover, referring to the statement above, that the Monophysite Timothy had introduced the custom of so reciting the Nicene Creed, he thinks both that state- ment and this may be reconciled by supposing that Peter the Fuller first insti- tuted it at Antioch, and that it was afterwards adopted by his fellow-heretic Timothy, for Constantinople, which seems a rational explanation. That note concludes: "Indeed, those rites which are said to have been first instituted by the Fuller, were not used at once by all churches, but in the course of time, little by little, they got into use." Alas, that was so of his invoking of the Virgin, which brings God's curse. But the good custom of reciting the Creed at every Eucharist was produdtive of good. The Monophysites seem often, or generally, to have preferred the Creed of the 318, to that of the 150 for public recitation. For instance, the Creed com- monly used by the Armenian Monophysites at this hour is that of the 318, some- what added to. See page 62 above. (473). Id., page 491, vol. I., and Canon II. of Third Toledo. (474). Id., page 492, vol. I. It seems to me that the existence of the Con- 818 Chapter VII. such attempts by unscholarly copyists I have supposed that the ad- ditions to the Creed of the 318, in Act V. of Chalcedon, and in Act XVIII. of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, might have come. Yet, at the same time, it must be admitted that those who drew up the Definition of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and those whc^ drew up that of the Sixth, could, as Ecumenical Synods representing^ the whole Church and under the influence of the Holy Spirit prom- ised by Christ to the Universal Apostolate, have added in their Defi- nitions any such words as parts of the Creed in sB.\c}i Definition as- they might choose. That act would not, of course, abolish the older form put forth at Nicaea in A. D. 325. On examining the different editions of the Councils, I find that in the Definition in Act V. of the Fourth Ecumenical Council the following have exactly the same readings of the Creed of the 3,18, which Hahn, as above, mentions as not in the form of it as given by Eusebius of Caesarea, nor in that given by St. Athanasius in his Epistle to Jovian : 1. Labbe and Cossart, Tome IV. (Paris, A. D. 167 1), column 563. 2. Hardouin, Tome II. (Paris, A. D. 1714), column 453. 3. Mansi, Tome VII. (Florentiae, A. D. 1762), column 109. ptantinopolitan Creed in the Roman Baptismal Office is best explained by the fact that after the conquest of Rome by the Eastern Emperor Justinian, in the sixth century, and during the Greek occupation, in centuries VI., VII. and VIII., some of the Bishops of that city were Orientals, and as by their time the Con- stautinopolitan Creed had displaced the Nicene in the Greek Baptismal Orders, and as they, as Greeks, had never known the Roman toarl Creed, called the Apostles', and as they would naturally prefer the Creed of the Second Ecumeni- cal Council to it, as being of universal authority and use, they would naturally introduce it into the Roman Baptismal Order, the more especially as it guards the doctrine of the Trinity vastly better than the simple Roman Creed, and by the profession of belief in the "ofie Holy Universal atid Apostolic Church,'' it bound every one who recited it from his heart, in the sense of the Universal Councils, to accept, after A. D. 553, the Five Ecumenical Synods, and to accept the whole Six in A. D. 6S0, when the Sixth was held. It is strange that the Roman local Creed, which an Anti-Trinitarian can sign, and which the heresi- archs Arius and Macedonius could use, should still be used in any professedly Trinitarian Church at baptism. It really does not ask a man to believe in the Trinity at all, nor in the "one Baptism for the remission of sins." The Con- stantinoDolitan does. Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 319 But Baluze, in his iVeza Collection of the Councils (Nova Collectio Conciliorum), Tome I. (Paris, A. D. 1683), columns 1389- 1392, gives what appears to be an old Latin version of the Definition of the- Fourth Ecumenical Council. The Creed of the 318 in it differs very- widely from the present Greek in Labbe and Cossart, in Hardouin- and in Mansi, as referred to last above, for it lacks all the additions, to Eusebius of Caesarea's text, and to Athanasius', found in those editions, in Act. V. of Chalcedon, and noted on the Creed of the 318. by Hahn. It lacks also " God out of God, Liglit out of Light'' and '' or created'' in the Anathema, which we find in Eusebius and in Athanasius, and, like Athanasius, has in the Anathema, ''and Apos- tolic" before " Church:' This implies that it was made from a Greek text of the Definition of Chalcedun, different, so far as the Creed of the 318 is concerned, from that which we now find in Labbe and Cossart, Hardouin and Marsi, in the places of their editions specified above, and, with the exception of the omission of " God out of God, Lio-ht out of Light" and ''or created" it follows the sense of the Nicene Creed in St. Athanasius' Epistle to fovian, and seems to have been translated from a copy of it in that Definition of Chalcedon. Mansi, Tome VH., column 748, gives the Definition with that Creed as in Baluze, as above, that is, without the additions to it which we find in the editions of Labbe and Cossart, Hardv^uiu a::d Mansi, in Act V. c f Chalcedon. He tells us, in column 746, that he gives the Latin translation of the Definition of Chalcedon, which contains that Creed of the 318 from " three old codexes in the Colbertine Library." From what Baluze writes on the old Latin translation of the Acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Council {^Baluze s New Collection of the Councils, Tome I., column 953 and after), and from what Man^i says in his. Councils (Tome VIL, column 727), I have doubted whether the Greek additions to the Creed of the 318, in Act V. of Chalcedon, do not represent a later Greek text of the Definition of Chalcedon than that from which was made the old Latin translation just mentioned, which has not those additions. Whether Rusticus, a Deacon of the Roman Church in the sixth century, or some one else translated them from a defective Latin translation back into Greek, I know not. I can not account for them. Now for the Variations in the Latin Translations of the Greek. Walch, on pages 80-93 of his Bibliotheca Symbol ica I'etus, gives „ no less than eleven of them. 32 ) Chapter VII . Of them all, two or three only belong to the fourth century, and therefore, as being the most ancient, are of most authority. They are: 1 . That of Hilary of Poictiers : 2. That of Lucifer of Cagliari (both of the fourth century): and 3. That of Rufinus of Aquileia. Rufinus' may belong to the opening years of the fifth at the latest. Translated into English, they read, in the main, like one or the other of the two English translations just given above. The differences are noted below. They are slight, and do not affect doctrine. They are mainly merely verbal. Probably most or all of them are mere copyists' errors. Now for the Chief Variations of the Lati)i Versions from Hahn' s E,2isebiiLS Greek text, and from each other. I include the eleven Latin Versions given on pages 80-93 in Walch. The translation of Hilary of Poictiers, made in the fourth cen- tury, has simply ''the Catholic Church'' — that is, of course, ''the Universal Churcliy It is given by Hahn, pages 80 and Si cf his Biblioihek der Symbole, and by Walch on pages 80 and 81 of his Bibliotheca Symbolica Veins. That is the only one of the eleven Latin translations tliat has precisely "the Catholic Church''' ("Catholica Ecclesia") — that is, "the Universal Churcli.^' Of the ten remaining, no less than eight have exacftly " Catholic and Apostolic Church " (" Catholica et Apostolica Ecclesia " '). They are Versions II., III., VI., VII., VIII., IX., X. raid XL Translation IV. is merely a quotation from the Nicene Creed in an Epistle of Pope Leo I. to the Emperor Leo. It is not exact in every part, for after the words " of one substance icith the Father^' it adds, " which the Greeks call oiiouoawv^'' and it omits the whole of tlie Anathema at the end of the Creed. Walch, on page 84, notes that there is considerable variety in the readings, both in the printed edi- tions and in the manuscripts. Version V. has " the Apostolic Church,'' the words " Catholic a7id" being omitted by a copyist's error. I will here notice a little more at length the eight Latin transla- tions which have ''the Catholic and Apostolic Church" (Catholica et Apostolica Ecclesia). Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed 321 The old Latin Version in Lucifer of Cagliari, of the fourth cen- tury (Version IL iuWalch), has ''' Catholic a7id Apostolic Church''' (Catholica et Apostolica Kcclesia, Walch, page 82). Exadlly the same words are found in the Latin translation of Rufinus, who flourished in the same century (page 82 in Walch; Version III. there), and in a Latin Version in the Code of the African Church, which was afterwards recited in the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle, A. D. 789 (Walch, page 86; Version VI. there), and in the Latin Version of Epiphanius Scholasticus (Walch, pages 86 and 87; Version VII. there), and in an old Latin translation of Act II. of the Council of Chalcedon (Walch, pages 87 and 88; Version VIII. there), and of Act V. of the same Synod (Walch, pages 88 and 89; Version IX. there) ; and in a Latin Version in the Ancient Latin translation of the Canons (pages 89 and 90 in Walch; Version X. there), and in an old Latin Version in a manuscript of Verona (page 90 in Walch; Version XI. there). Those are the eight old Latin Versions. Besides, an old Latin translation in Marius Mercator, of centurj^ v., given in Walch, page 85 — Version V. there — has ''the Apostolic Church'' (Apostolica Ecclesia), without the word '' UniversaV (Catholica), but the omission of the latter term is evidently a copyist's error. But that Version is quite faulty. For instead of the true reading at the end, " Or who assert that the Son of God is a Creature, or mutable or convertible [into anything else], the Universal [and Apostolic] Church anathematizes," it has only, ' ' Or who assert that the Son is visible or mutable, the Apostolic Church anthematizes. ' ' That is to say, in those few words the fol- lowing omissions occur: 1. " OfGodr 2. ''A Creatjire.'^ 3. ''Convertible,''' and -t 4. " Universal " [and], besides ^^ 5. " Visible is wrongly added, for there is no Greek to base it on. 322 Chapter VII. Walch, on page 85, remarks on that I^atin Version : "It utterly departs from the Greek manuscripts and from the rest of the Latin Versions. We suspect that the singular expression ' invisible ' is a corruption arising from the fault of copyists, and that it should be changed to ' convertible.' " Walch is right. The trans- lation is evidently carelessly made, and is of no worth in this place. Two Latin translations elsewhere of the Nicene Creed may here be noted. The first is " The Forthsct of the Nicene Faith, from a manu- script of the Colbertine Library. ' ' See the marginal note in Hardouin's Councils, Tome L, column 311. That Latin Version reads as follows at the end : ' ' Catholic and Apostolic Clmrch ' ' (Catholica et Apostolica Ec- clesia). It quotes the Greek term (>!iMui)aim^ and explains it in Latin to mean, " of the same substance with tlie Father.'' So it quotes the Greek word ~i>z-'o,' in the Anathema, and ex- plains it to mean " convertible or mutable.''' In column 312, Tome I., of Hardouin's Concilia — that is in the column direcftly opposite the last quoted form of the Nicene Creed in Latin — is found the following : ' ' Here b^ginneth the Faith composed at Nicaea by the 3 1 8 be- lieving Bishops." Then it gives it. It, like the last above, has ' • born ' ' (natum) instead of our bad rendering ' ' begotten,' ' but instead of ' ' not made ' ' after it, it has ' ' not created. It tries, but imperfedly, to give CiiMobdiw in Latin letters, for it leaves out an " o66i;cw TTicreuQ ''/fJ(^f, "W avenaBev en re ruv dyiuv cnroaroXuv kuI rfjv TTini'p'pifih'ruv uy'ti,w /jftuv Ttarfpuv ruv tv -y 'Nisatuv aweiXey/Lth'uv,, iv Tif Tov Qeuv iKK/j/aia ri) /ur/rpl i/fjuv -o'/.irevof^iv7jQ, kt?.. (476.) A lamentable proof of Gelasius' ignorance of the pronounced and inveterate Ariauism to the last of Eusebius of Caesarea. Had he read Athauasius more he would have ascertained the facls. Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 329 the House of the God of Jacob ; and He will teach 11s of His ways, and we will walk in His paths, for out of Zion shall go forth the Lazv, a7id' the word of the Lord from Jerusalem ' ' (477) . For truly Zion and Jerusalem and a very high Mountain (opo?) of the IvOrd, and a House of the God of Jacob is that Divine crowd of the Orthodox Priests of God, who, with the Holy Ghost (-^eu/jMn il/tu)), examined and defined, by means of the writings of the Prophets,, and the Evangelists, and the Apostles, concerning the Word of Ivife — that is, the Son of God — that He is truly increate in the nature of the Godhead, and that He is not a creature, as the God- Fighter and impious Arius blasphemes against Him, and that He is of the same substance as the Father who brought Him forth before all the worlds, and of the same nature ; and they showed, likewise, most clearly that the Holy Ghost is of the same Divinity and Substance as the Father and the Son. And truly a lofty Mountain (l>p<>'i) of God is this ador- able (47S) and holy rule (<"'/><>i) of the blameless faith, which, as our preceding discourse has shown, was given to us by the I,ord him- self through the Apostles, and now is made clear by means of His Priests by testimonies of Scripture at Nicaea (479). Section 4. — IVe inquire whether any Declarative Creed preceded the Nicene. By Declarative Creed I mean a Creed in Creed form, as distinct from the Baptismal Questions and Answers. Answer. — Yes ; that of Gregory Thaumaturgus did ; but its use- was merely local. And as Q.yx\\ of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures, delivered A. D. 348 or 349, speaks of a giving of a Symbol,, and its return in the Church of Jerusalem (480), and as Rufinus (477.) Isaiah, II., 3. (478.) Here we have a paganized expression, for God alone is to be adored (Matt, IV., 10). (479.) Kat a?ir/d(jg v^ptfAuv bpog Qeov, avuOev iifuv, KaOa TrpotAijTiUGtv 6 Aojof, Trap' ai'Tov Tov Kvpiov 6ta tuv anooToTiuv dodelq, koI vvv 6ia tuv avrov leptuv Kara rijv 'NtKoecjv ypa<^iKaiq fiaprvplalg Tpavudeic, o TrpoaKvrrjTtx; ovror kcu ayiog r//f I't/uojjj'/Tov Tr/cr-fwf vpog, (4S0.) See Cyril Hierosol, Catech. V., Sect. 12, and Catech. XVIII., Sect. 21. Cyril does not, however, use the term Symbol [Ivf/fhAov) in either place, but the context shows that a Declarative Creed is meant, for it is traditioned — that is, delivered — ^and returned, and the Creed traditioned was always Declarative. In the first reference Cyril terms the Creed, -Ictiv iv ij.af>>/an Kal k-ayyilia [" Fait/t^ 330 Chapter VII. refers to a Declarative Creed — the so-called Apostolic — as in use at Rome from the earliest times, it is £air to conclude that such Creeds existed before Nicaea — probably each Church had its own — though, except Gregory's, they do not appear in any ante-Nicene writing, because of the rule of reserve which prevailed on such matters. Section 5. — Does any author of a date anterior to Nicaea, A. D. ^23, give any such Creed ? No ; we know of none. Cyril of Jerusalem, and Rufinus, wrote after that date, though their language and the language of other early writers would lead us to infer that each of those Churches had its own local Creed before Nicaea, and that in fact every Church had its own local Creed ; for such a Creed would be naturally called for, for convenience in instrudling Catechumens and in fortifying the minds of the baptized, and in keeping the chief truths of the Gospel in their minds. They were probably based largel}- on the Scriptural teaching as to the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, into whom the Cate- chumen was to be baptized (Matt., XXVIII., 19) in the Universal Church, into which they were admitted by baptism ; in the one bap- tism for the remission of sins, which he was about to receive ; into the resurrecTiion of the dead, which the emersion of the primitive trine •emersion shadowed forth (Romans, VI., 5; Colossians, II., 12), as understood and explained by the early Fathers (48 1 ) ; and the life of the world to come, which belongs only to the baptized. in the form of a Lesson and a Declaration''), aud in the last reference he terms it distin6lly, '' tJie Declaration of the Fattli.'' For he calls upon the candidates for baptism to return the Faith thus : "And let the Declaration of the Faith, after it has been again recited to you by us, be returned and recited by you from memory, with atl care, word for word'" {Kal ravra fikv elpfjoOu, npbq intjdet^iv riiq Tuv VEKptJV avaaTaaeuc, '/ ««'■ ~K '^'Oreuc 'EiTayye?Ja, -izd'Aiv vjilv v(p' ijjiuv prjOelaa, /xtra a~ov(^q naai/q knlAi^eui; ahriir v(^' vuuv a~ay)c}.'t:n(}u) re Ka'i fiv/z/iovEviadu). {Bo Catech. XI., Sect. I, and Calech. XVII., Sect. 3, and Catech. XVIII., Sect. 28. See Touttee's note " '^ " on the reference to Catech. V., vSect. 12. Yet Cyril uses 'H Iliar/r in these Leisures, in the sense of Creed, again aud again. See, in proof, Catech. IX., Sect. 4; Catech. X., Sect. 4; Catech. XIV., Sect. 24 and 27 ; Catech. XV., Sect. 2, and Catech. XVIII., Sect. 22 and 26. These, so far as we have seen, are the only terms applied by Cyril to the Creed of Jerusalem. (481.) See passages of the Fathers quoted in Chrystal's History of the Modes .0/ Baptism, pages 47-52, 61, 62, 70, 71, 72, 76, 77, eta Nicaea, A. D. 325 : Its Creed. 331 As, after A. D. 325, the Ecumenical Creed of Nicaea seems to have supplanted such merely local Declarative Creeds in the East, they seem to have been gradually laid aside and lost sight of. How- ever, Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lechires, has preserv^ed to us some clauses of the Creed in use there in A. D. 347, 348 or 349 ; and Cassian, as we show elsewhere, has told us of some parts of the •Creed of Antioch, in the latter part of the fourth century or the be- ginning of the fifth. But the Acts of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, show that the common creed, into which the Oriental prelates had been baptized, and into which they baptized, was the Nicene. But the case was different in the West, where the old short Roman baptismal Creed remained as such, and was ampli- fied as the centuries rolled on, till it reached its present form, as Heurlley, in his Harmonia Symbolica, shows, about A. D. 750 (482). Because it remained as the Occidental Baptismal Creed, we know more of its ante-Nicene form than we do of the ante-Nicene forms of the different local Creeds of the Orient. Bingham, in his Antiquities, Book II., Chapter VI., Section 3, argues that in the early times every Bishop was at liberty to frame his own local Cieed in his own words, :S0 long as he kept to the Orthodox faith. The Roman Creed is first found in the Aquileian form in Rufinus, about A. D. 390. There is an early document which may refer to the Occidental Creed, but even that is after Nicaea. I mean Marcellus' Confession. Charles A. Heurtley, D. D., Margaret Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, in his Harmonia Symbolica, a Col/eflion of Creeds belonging to the Ancient Western Church, and to the Mediaeval English Church, * * * Oxford, at the University Press, 1858, page 22, remarks: " For the earliest complete Creed belonging to the Western Church, which has come down to us, we are indebted to an Oriental, and one too of more than doubtful Orthodoxy. It is the confession of faith presented by Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra, in Galatia, to Julius, Bishop of Rome." Dr. Heuitley, on page 24 of his work, gives A. D. 341, sixteen years after the Council of Nicaea and the adoption of the Nicene Creed, as the date of that confession of Marcellus. But that confes- (4S2.) Heurtley 's Harmonia Symbolica, a Colle5lion of Creeds belonging to ike Ancient Western Church, and to the Ancient English Church, pages 70-72. 33J Chapter VII. sioii resembles most that form of the Roman Symbol called the Apostles', which, about fifty years later than 341, Rufinus reports. Nevertheless, it must be remembered that it differs in some respects even from that form of the Roman Symbol of the Apostles mentioned by Rufinus, and still mofe from that Roman Symbol which now we call the Apostles' , and that Marcellus does not give it as the Symbol of the Roman Church, nor does he assert that it is a Symbol, nor that it has been made in Symbol form by the Apostles. He gives it simply as his own (483). He says nothing of a Roman Creed, although in all probability it is true that there was in his day a Roman Symbol, to which Rufinus refers. It is possible also that in making a state- ment of his own faith he followed it. But we must not lay too much (483.) Speakiug of the whole statement of Marcellus, of which this which Heurtley quotes as though it were a Creed forms part, Epiphanius, iu his Pauarion, on Heresy 72, remarks thus : Ei to'ivw 6 lifitlloQ o'vrog naAug ex^h "3' 6ipduevoi avayv(l)T(jaav, Kal ol dvvdutvoi ciKpifSuaai rd kv avru) e'lpTjfieva' koI el fikv kuku^ £;f«, ai'TOt dtaKpLVETUGUv. Ov jdp jiovXafiet^a Tzapd wi', £7TiaTdfi£&a kcu tuv elg i}udc £/\.'&6v- Ttjv Aeysiv. I translate . "If, therefore, that statement [of Marcellus] is sound, let those who can read [it], and let those who can, determine exactly what is said in it. And if it is wicked let them determine it. For we do not wish to speak from what we know and from those things which have come to us." Just below, Epiphanius seems to lean to the opinion that this statement of Marcellus is correct. See as above, in Migne's edition of Epiphanius, Tome II., column 387. But it is noteworthy that when certain disciples of this Marcellus set forth what bears as its heading the title, '11 f:7Ti}pa(pff niarfug -ov MapKe?2ov, " to the most Vener'able and most Holy Bishops of Diocaesarea;' to clear themselves from the charge of error, they refer only to the Nicene Symbol, thus : Oi'te (ppovov/iev, ovte Trecj)pof/'/Kafj.£V ri irors, eKTog t?}c Kara 'NiKaiap 6piaft(ia//g o'lKOPovfisi'iKf/g Kal imiAr/aiacTmr/g- nicTfwg' i'jvnep ofio?Loyovf2ev ()vvd/iiet TavT>jv (ppovslv, dvaOE/iaTii^ovTiig rohg To?i/u6)VTag KTiafia Atytiv TO llvEVfia to" Ayiov Kal Tr/v 'Apeiav^v alpeciv, Kal 'ZafiEl'Xiov , Kal ^uTeivov, Kal Uaii- /jiv Tov I,a^uoaaTtcjg, km Tovg /u?/ AeyovTag Tr/v dyiav Tpidt^a Tp'ia Upoauna a7rtplypa(pei^ K. T. /.. I translate : "We neither hold any opinion at any time, nor have we held any opinion at any time, contrary to the Ecumenical and Ecclesiastical Faith which was defined at Nicaea, as to which we confess that we hold to it with [all our] power, anathematizing those who dare to say that the Holy Ghost is a creature, and the Arian heresy, and that of Sabellius, and that of Photinus, and that of Paul ofSamosata, and those who do not say that the Holy Trinity are three uncircumscribed Persons," etc. Further on in their statement these disciples of Marcellus embody the Creed pfthe First Ecumenical Council, that is, that of Nicaea, A. D. 325. Nicaea^ A. D. j2j: Its Creed. 333 stress on this second point, nor base an argument on it, as it rests merely on conjecture (484). Nevertheless, it is probable that in writ- ing that part of his letter which contains this language so similar to the Roman local Symbol, he does follow that Creed. For he had been at Rome, as he states in this same Epistle to Pope Julius, one year and three whole months. It should be added, however, that this passage is but a part of his confession in this epistle. The reader can examine the whole document in Epiphanius; Heresy, 72. Rufi'uis, who first clearly mentions the Western Creed, wrote on it, as I have said, about A. D. 390. The epistle ascribed to Ambrose, which speaks of the Apostolic Symbol, is of about the date A. D. 390 (485), and these two last are the earliest distinct mentions of the Western Creed. It is verj^ doubtful whether any of the Orientals at Nicaea had ever seen that Roman Creed. We have no documentary proof of this. Indeed, it is not likely that many of them even understood Latin. For we find that when the Emperor Constantine spoke to them in that tongue it had to be translated into Greek in order that they might understand it (486). That was not strange, seeing that the great bulk of the Bishops present were Easterns. So we find at the Fourth Ecumeni- cal Council, held at Chalcedon, A. D. 451, where most of the Bishops were Orientals, that a communication in Latin from the Placeholders of Pope Leo I. had to be translated into Greek before they could con- sider it. Greek, not Latin, was the great language of theology. When one reflects on the utter lack of any documentary proof for the notion that the Symbol of the 318 is based on the Roman, he will find cause for wonder that such an unfounded notion should have gained such credence as it has in the Occident, and the wonder is greater when it is remembered that we have the written claim of Eusebius, the Church historian, that the Nicene Creed is merely a modification of \.\\Q faith of Caesarea in Palestine, which he presented. He does (484.) That is clear from Heurtley himself, in his Hannonia Symbolica, pages 22-25. (485.) Hahn's Bibliothek der Symbol e (Breslau, 1877), page 20, has a Creed from an Explanation of the Creed, which is addressed to those to be initiated, by Ambrose, Bishop of Milan. Walch, page 63, gives almost exadlly the sanne fonn, as from A Homily of Maximus of Turin, of century V., in Explanation of the Creed. (486.) Eusebius' Life of the Emperor Constantine, Book TIT., Chapter XIII. 334 Chapter 17/. not even mention the Roman local Creed. And other writers present at the Council, such as Athanasius, make no mention of the Roman Creed at all in connedlion with it. Section 6. — Is the Symbol of the 318 Holy Fathers of Nicaea an. amplification of the Western Creed, called the Apostles' f No. Not a shred of authority for this is to be found in the Christian antiquity of the East, which furnished the basis of the Nicaean Symbol (487). Indeed, the Western Creed is mentioned dis- tin^ly as a Creed in no ayicient author before Ambrose or Rnfimis, and' consequently not till long after the Nicene. Such a notion has existed, to some extent in the West, but without any sufficient authority.. As we have just shown, the First Ecumenical Council did not take the so-called Apostles' Creed as the basis of the Nicene, and develop the latter from it. On the contrary, the local Creed of St. Peter's see of Rome, " which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed,'' as the Vlllth Article of the Church of England has it, appears first clearly, according to Dr. Heurtley (488), in Rufinus' " Commentary on the Apostolic Creed," called also ''An Explanation of a Creed, '^ about A. D. 390, as has just been shown (489); though, of course, it. had been in existence at Rome — not in the East at all — in some form, (4S7.) Milman, in his History of Latin Christianity, Volume I., page 75, states that, ''the East enabled Creeds, the West discipline." The two Ecu- menical Creeds are certainly of the full Oriental type in the articles which they have. They are certainly not short like those of the so-called Apostles, that is, Roman. But the Ecumenical Canons were all made in the East also, so that. Milman's remark is more rhetorical than exact. It is true, however, that the West by its Reform, and condemnation of creature-invocation and image-worship.; in the sixteenth century, saved Christianity from slavery to the Turkish unbe- liever. It is true also that two Westerns — Hosius, of Cordova, and the Emperor Constantine— were a(5live and influential in procuring the adoption of the expres- sion '' of tlie same substance,^' and that the West was almost unanimous for Orthodoxy throughout the whole Arian controversj-, whereas the East had an . active Arian minority; and nearly all the leaders of the heresy, as, for instance,. Arius himself, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and most of the rest, were Orientals. And the West nobly supported Athanasius in his struggle against the creature- worshipping and Christ's-divinity-denying Arians. (488.) Heurtley 's Harvionia Symbolica, pages 25-26. (489.) Canon Fremantle's article ''Rufinus (3)," in Smith and W.aCB!sK DiElionary of Christian Biography, contains interesting matter. Nicaea, A. D. 323: Its Creed. 335^ an unknown time before. But when found it is quite different from the Nicene Creed, for it is in some respects shorter, and in others longer. How great and marked the difference between them is any one can easily see at once by comparing them, as I do below in another volume of this series. No ancient writer puts forth the absurd asser- tion that one was developed from the other. And when, far down in the middle ages, at the Ferrara- Florence Council of A. D. 1438-39, the uncritical Roman Cardinal Julian made that assertion, we find the Oriental champion, Mark of Ephesus, utterly denying it and add- ing : " We neither have nor have seen a Creed of the Apostles ^ See in this work above, pages 26-32, for a translation of that place. The Greek Church has never used any form of that peculiarly Western Creed which we call, commonly, the Apostles'. Indeed, judging from what Rufinus says in his Comme7itary on the Aquileian form of it, it should be called the Roman Creed, for there it seems to have origin- ated, and thence to have spread over the whole West. Heurtley shows that it is not found in its present full form till about A. D. 75a (490). We see, then, i, that the so-called Apostles' Creed is not even, clearly mentioned till about sixty-five years after the First Ecumeni- cal Council, and, 2. That in its present form it does not appear in any writing till four hundred and twenty-five years after it. I will add, 3, that the internal evidence shows that the Nicene can not be a development and enlargement of the shorter Roman form, for in some respedts it is fuller than the Nicene, and, 4. That no ancient writer mentions the so-called Apostles' Creed in connedlion with Nicaea. It is a late legend merely. Walch, in his Dibliotheca Symbolica Vetus, and Hahn, in his Bibliothek der Symbole, have each given us a collection of Creeds, Eastern and Western, from which we readily see that the Oriental Creeds which have reached us are fuller on the Son ; and that we see at once is the type of the Nicene. Hence we easily learn that its basis seems to have been some Eastern document or documents, unless we sa}' that it was drawn up on the basis of the words or sense of Holy Writ, without any reference to an}' preceding Creed. We (490.) Heurtley 's Harvionia Symbolica, pages 70, 71. S36 Chapter VII. .shall find Eusebius of Caesarea claiming that the Profession of Faith made by him at Nicaea was the basis of the Nicene Creed. We come, now, Section 'j.— To examine the claim of Eusebius of Caesarea in Pales- tine, that in his PROFESSION OF Faith, offered at Nicaea, he furnished the First Ecumeyiical Council the basis of the Nicene Creed, and to consider in this cofi7ieS2ion the opinion of I'alesius that Eusebius'' PROFESSION is the same as an Arian dociimeni .which, Theodoret tcstifes, the Fathers of Nicaea tore tip. "We begin with the following question and answer : Question. — What Bishop proposed the ground-work of the Symbol of the Ji8, and from what ecclesiastical provirice did this groundwork come ? Answer. — Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, the father of Church history, claims that he was the Bishop. The Ecclesiastical province to which he belonged was the First Palestine, of which Caesarea was, at the time of the Synod of Nicaea, the Metropolis, and to which Jerusalem, at this time called Aelia, was subject. If we t)elieve him, it was he who proposed its grojindwork to the Council. But we will examine his claim and try to decide, so far as all the fa(5ls taken together enable us to do so. Happily we have Eusebius' statement, prescribed to us by one ■who was at the Council ; that is by Athanasius, the celebrated cham- pion of Orthodoxy, then, however, only a deacon (491). Eusebius' account is given in a lletter to the People of his Diocese, in which he tries to explain away his subscription to the Creed of Nicaea ; a subscrip- tion which, as events showed, was insincere and deceptive. Atha- nasius comments unfavorably on it in Sedlion 3 of his Defence of the Nicene Defijiition (^a.ges 6 and 7 of the Oxford translation of " .S". Athanasius'' Treatises Against Ariaiiism ") ; and gives the whole epistle at the end of that Defence (pages 59-66 of the Oxford translation just ■specified). It is found also in Socrates' Ecclesiastical History, Book L, Chapter VIII.; in Theodoret' s Ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapter XII.; in Gelasius of Cyzicus' work on the Council of Nicaea, (491.) .Socrates' Eccl. Hist., Book I., Chapter VIII. Nicaca, A. D. 325 : Its Creed. 337 Book II., Chapter XXXIV., and in Nicephoms' Ecclesiastical His- tory, Book VIII., Chapter XXII. A translation of it into English, with notes, will be found in the Treatises of S. Athanasins Against the Arians, Oxford, A. D. 1844, page 59. It is found in vhe original Greek in Migne's Patrologia Graeca, Tome XX., column 1535. We have seen that Eusebius of Caesarea was one of the earliest and strongest friends of Arius and his opinions. At the Council the formula which he presented was evidently designed to leave out the strongest and most decisive Watchwords of Orthodoxy, like the ex- pression, '' of the same siibstance,'" and to dodge the literal sense of other texts which affirm that the Logos has come oitt of the Father, that is, ''out of His substance;' and to take them in an Arian sense, though he admitted them into his fornmla, and besides he is careful to put into his Creed, with Arian intent, those words in Colossians, I., 15, -(mro-o/.o^ -drT7j<} zrfVswi-, rendered ''First born of every crea- ture^' in our Common Version, which the Arian party per\^erted to teach that God the Word is a creature. As that clause is not in the Jerusalem Creed as given by Cyril of Jerusalem, of the province in which Caesarea stood (492), and as it is in no other ancient Ortho- dox Creed, it seems most likely that Eusebius introduced it with Arian intent only. We find it introduced in another new Arian Credal statement given us by St. Athanasius, evidently with the intention to wrest it to an Arian sense (493). I mean the Credal statement of the Arian party at their Council of the Dedication at Antioch in A. D. 341 (494). It has been ascribed by some to Lucian, who died a martyr in A. D. 311 or 312 ; but Tillemont and Constant deny that it is his (495). Lucian has sometimes been deemed the father of Arianism, and was separated from the Church for a time for (492.) The Jerusalem Creed is found in Hahu's Bibliothek der Symbole, page 62, edition of 1S77. (493.) It is translated into English in the Oxford translation of S. Atha- nasius' Treatises Against Ariaiiism, pages 106-10S. The Greek is found in John's Bibliothek der Symbole (Breslau, A, D. 1877), page 184. '494.) Id., page 134. (495.) Id., page 106, note "d." 888 Chapter VII. his views (496). His end was better than his life. Alius, in a letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, the notorious Arian leader, terms him his ^* fellow- Lticianist.'" See page 181 above. In the Macrostich, or long Arian Creed of A. D. 345, the}^ quote the Septuagint of Proverbs, VIII., 22, " The Lord created me a. be- ginnmg of His ways for His works,''' evidently in an Arian sense. Theodoret, like Athanasius, gives the following Epistle of Eu- sebius of Caesarea to his flock as a testimony from an Arian to the soundness of the Nicene Creed. For in his Ecclesiastical History ^ Book I., Chapter XI., Theodoret introduces it as follows: " On account of the disgustingness of the Arians, who not onl)'- despise the common Fathers [of all Christians], but also refuse [to hear] their own Fathers, I wish to insert in this work the Epistle of Eusebius of Caesarea, which he wrote on the Faith, for it contains a clear condemnation of their raving. For though they honor him as of the saine mind with themselves, they nevertheless contradict outright the things written by him. And he wrote the Epistle to some who held the errors of Arius, who, as seems likely, had accused him of treason [to them]. But the things written show best the mind of the writer. ' ' Then he gives the Epistle below. We now come to Eusebius' own statement as to his formula, and as to its being the basis of the Nicene Creed. I shall follow, in the main, though not wholly, the Oxford trans- lation of S. Athanasius' Treatises Against Arianism, page 59 and after. I shall follow the Greek text in Migne's Patrologia Graeca, compared with that in Bright's Socrates, and shall try to correct Newman's translation by it, where he is capable of revision, that I may claim, so far, to have made a new and improved Version. New- man, however, was a Greek scholar, and has done his work so well that it is only here and there that he can be faulted. " The Epistle of Eusebius [the Arian minded (497)] to the people of his Paroecia (498). (496). An account of Lucian may be found under " Lucianus (12)" in. Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Cliristian Biograpliy. (497). The words in brackets are an addition. (49S). That is, his Diocese, as we say now. But in the East in eany times Nicaea, A. D. 323: Its Creed. 339 " The things which have been transadled on the Church's faith at the great Council celebrated at Nicaea 3^ou have probably learned, Beloved, from elsewhere, rumor being wont to precede the accurate account of the things done. But lest in such reports the facfts of the case have been misrepresented to you, we have felt under obligation to transmit to j'ou, first the writing on the faith put forth by us, and then the second statement, which they gave out after they had made additions to our words (499). Our own writing, then, which was read in the presence of our most dear to God Emperor, and declared to be good and approved, ran in the following way : 2. "As we received from the Bishops who preceded us, and in our first Catechisings, and when we received the bath and as we learned from the Divine Scriptures, and as we believed and taught in the Presbyterate, and in the Episcopate itself, so believing also now, we report to you our faith, and it is this (500) : " ' We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all visible and of all invisible things. "'And in one Lord, fesus Christ, the Word of God, God out of God, Light out of Light, Life out of Life, Sole-Born Son, First B ringer Forth of all creation (501), born oiit of the Father before all the Paroecia, from whicli our parish conies, was the ordinary term for a bishop's whole jurisdicliou, for though it contained many congregations, all of them were of the one sole parish of the bishop, and he supplied them all by his pres- byters, deacons, etc. See Bingham, under ''Parish,''' "Parish Bounds,^'' " Par- ish Churches y "Parishes,''' " Parochia,''^ " Parochial Churches.''' (499). Greek, as in column 1537, Tome XX., of Migne's Patrologia Graeca: Htjv v devripav, f/v ralg r/fierepaig TEq 'iK6c(Mjiiaai. (500). 'Mi^n&'s Patrologia Graeca, Tome XX., column 1537 — Eusebius' Epistle to the Caesareans: 'Kaditg 7rap£?Mj3ofiev Tvapa tuv -pb r/nuv ETncKOTrcji', Kal iv -y TTpoiry KaTTJxijCEi, koX 'drc TO ?U)VTpbv £?La/i^dvofJ.EV, Kal (caiJwf airb tuv Be'iuv Tpa Almighty, Maker of all visible and of all invisible things. " 'And i7i one Lord, fesus Christ, the Son of God, born out of the Father, Sole-Born, that is, out of the substarice of the Father, God 07ct of God, Light out of Light, very God out of very God, born, not made, of the same substance as the Father, through zvhom all things zvere made, both those in the heaven and those on the earth, zaho for us 7nen, and for our salvation, came down, and took on flesh, put on a mayi, suffered, and rose tip on the third day, ivent up into the heavens, and Cometh to judge the living and the dead : " 'And [we believe'] in the Holy Ghost. " 'And the Universal [and Apostolic'] Church anathematizes those who say, There was once when the Son of God was not, a?id He was not before He was born, and that He was made out of things not existing, or ic'ho assert that He has come out of another subsistence or substance [than the Father's], or that (504). Id., col. 1540. Greek, 'Ei>dc fiovov irpoaeyypacjitvTog pi/fxaro^ rov d/norwaiov, b Kal avTo jjpafjvevdE Tieyui', on fir/ Kara tuv auudruv TidBrj ?ieyoiTO ofioo'vaiov, out' ovv Kara, diaipetnv ovTE Kara riva dirorouiji' ck tov Ylnrpbq vKoarfjvar htj6e yap c^vvaaHni t?)v av'Aov Kal voEpdv Kal aaufiarov (puaiv auunriKov n rcdtioi; ixpioraaOai. It is the Kmperor Con- stantine who has those ideas, as to the non-separation of the substance of the Logos from the Father's substance — not the Ecumenical Council. Their sub- stance is parted, but their unity of thought and acflion remains as strong as ever. Eusebius of Caesarea had evidently learned such so-called philosophic notions from the Pagan philosophers. (505 ] . Or, ' ' under the plea.'' ' (506). Literally, ''made.'''' (507). Ibid., 01 Je TTpo(pda£i TTjg rov ofioovmov irpoa&r/KrjC, rrjvde ttjv }'pa(j)?/v irsnoiTj. KaCLV. (508). Ibid., 'H h 7?7 (yvv6>^u v-ayopev&tiarr. ttIctiq. 342 Chapter VII. THE Son of God is a creature, or changeable or convert- ible [into some thing else].' "5. On their didlating that writing, we did not let it pass with- out inquiry in what sense they used the expression ' out of the sub- stance of the Father,' and the expression, ' of the same substa^ice as the Father (509). Accordingly questions and answers took place, and the meaning of the words underwent the scrutinj- of reason. And so it was confessed by them that the phrase ' out of the substajice ' is indicative of the Son's having come out of the Father indeed, not, however, that He is a part of the Father. And with this under- standing we thought good to assent to the sense of such religious doctrine, teaching as it did that the Son has come out of the Father; not, however, that he is a part of His substance. On this account we also assented to the sense ourselves, and do not refuse even the expression, "of the same substance' {rr^v (piwA^.) nvj ofj.ooixTtou'), peace being the object which we set before our eyes, and that we should not fall away from the right sense. " 6. In the same way we also admitted the ' born, not made, ' since they [the Council] alleged that ' made ' is an appellative common to the other creatures (510), which came to be through the Son, to (509). Col. 1540 Tome XX.., of Migne's Patrotogic7 Gracca: Kai (Vij rav-iir Tt/Q ypafjq iin' avrijv vnayopev&daiiq, urrur upi/rai avron; to in r/jr ohaiaq rob Xlarpof, Kal to T(J Unr/)/, d/jnoi'Oiov, nva avE^hnnTov nvToiQ KaTe/ufXirdpofiev * * * Kdi (5;) to " sk Tijq vvainr^' uuo'/.oyfiTo rrpbc nvTuv, i)>j?.(jtikui> elvat tov £k /x£V Toi< UaTpbg Fivat, oh u//v ug pepoq vnapx^iv TOV llar/jor. Tai'-;/ (Sf koc ijfuv edoKec Ka'Aug ix^'-^ avyKaTaTi'dEa&ai 7?) diavoia r?/f evaejSo'vg duUiiKa/iiar v-ayopevoi'a/ji; ek tov HaTpog elvac tov T'lbv, ov firp jxepog avTov TTjg ov(yiag Tvyxov^tv d/o-ip tij tj.o()0(Tci)v Tu) llaTf)]) suggests that the Son of God bears no resemblance to the made creatures, but that He has been made like, in all respedls, to the Father alone who generated Him, and that He is not out of any other subsistence and substance, but has come out of the Father (515). And to that expression, explained in that manner, it seemed stumbling manner bj' the prononnced Origeuist, Socrates, in his Ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapters XXIII., XIV.; (compare the chapters after for the plottings of the Ariau party to which Eusebius of Caesarea belonged, against other Orthodox leaders). See also Socrates' abuse of Eustathius, in the same work, Book VI., Chapter XIII., because he condemned justly his favorite, the heretic Origen, who was afterwards condemned in Anathema XI. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. The events are more justly narrated by Theodoret in his Ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapters XIX., XX., and especially XXI. and XXII. (511). Newman's text has '■'■ say they'''' after "where/ore.'" (512). Greek, in to'v JlarpoQ yfyevvi/a-dai. I have rendered those words as they literally mean, but Eusebius of Caesarea, judging from his whole course, seems to have understood them in the forced and unnatural sense of " made by t/ie Father ' ' as the other Arians did. (513). Here Eusebius uses "generated" {yevi/nj in Socrates here) in the sense of "made," that is "created." (514). Greek, tjjv ayiwrj-ov (^vaiv tov Ilarpdf, in Socrates here in Bright's text. (515). Greek, Ik. tov Uarpog. I have translated those words literally, "out of the Father " zs the Orthodox understood them; but I suppose Eusebius of Caesarea, as an Arian, would in his heart reje<5l that sense, and take them in the forced and unnatural sense of "by the Father" to get rid of the idea that the Son had acflually come out of the Father. For throughout this whole document 344 Chapter VII. to be well to assent, for we knew that among the ancients also some learned and illustrious Bishops and writers have used the expression, ' of the same substance ' (516) in their theological teaching concerning the Father and the Son (517). ' ' 8. L,et these things, therefore, be said concerning the faith (518) which was set forth, for which all of us gave our voices to- gether, not without inquiry, but according to the senses specified when they were examined before the most religious Emperor himself, and confessed for the reasons aforesaid (519). And as to the An- he uses some Orthodox expressions in Arian senses, as the sharp and cunning men of his party were wont to do, that they might gull the Emperor and the less learned of the Orthodox, and hold their sees. Yet, as above mentioned, he implies plainly, in the very document above, that the Son is to be classed among creatures, in accordance, probably, with the Arian perversion of the sense of Proverbs VIII., 22, in the Septuagint translation. (516.) Greek, rob ouoovaiov. (517). Id., col. 1541. The Epistle of Eusebius of Caesarea to his Paroec- ians : Ka-a to, avra 6k kuI to "ysvvrjdevTa" kciI '• ov -rroir/Hepra" KaTade^d/xeOa, knsid// TO TTOirjBiv KOLvbv £(pa(jKEV slvai npoaprj/Lia tuv 7.0fjuv KTicrfidruv tuv J/d tov Tlov yevo/HEVuv^ uv ovdiv b/ioiov exEiv tov Ytoy 6(.i) t)^ firj elvai avTov Troir]fia toIq 6l' a'vTov yevofievotg Efi(pe- peg, KpeiTTOvog fJe y Kara ndv Trolrj/ia TvyxdvEiv ovainc, f/v in tov Yia'phq yeyEvvijadaL to. Bem diddaiiEi ?.6yia, tov Tp6~ov T?}g yEvv?'/aEug avEKdpdaTov not dvETTU.oyiarov irdoy yEVVTjTy vCEi TvyxdvovTog. 7. OiiTo) ds Kal TO " ofioovaiov " eIvuc tov TLaTpbg tov Tibv k^ETal^S/xEvog 6 Xoyog avvia- T7jati', oh KaTO. tov tov aufidTuv Tpo-rrov, ov6e To'ig Ovi/Tolg C,u)0ig napaTvAjjciug' ovte yap KaTa Siaipsaiv TJjg ovGiag, octe KaTa diroTour/v, dl.V ov6e Kara tl nddog 7/ rpoTv/jv 7/ dJJkoiuatv Tfjg TOV YiaTpbg ovciag te Kal dwdfisug' to'utuv yap ■^dvTuu d?.?MTpiap tlvai tijv dykvt]Tov tov Ilarpbg (pvaiv TrapaaraTiKbv 6e Elvai to " ofiOOvaiov rtj- Ylarpl " 76 urjdEniav tficptpEiav Tvpbg TO. yEVTjTa KTidfiaTa Tbv Tibv tov Oeov (j)EpEiv, /lovcj de tCi flarpt tcj yEyEvvr/KOTi KaTO, ndvra Tponov d tov bpoovaiov av} xpr/fjauifovg ovopari. (518). Here we have an instance of the use of -ia-Eug in the sense of " creed.'''' (519). This account we must remember is by an Arian, and is, to some extent, deceptive and unjust. St. Athanasius, in Secftion 3 of his Epistle in Defence of the Nicene Definition, referring to the above Epistle of Eusebius of Caesarea, (pages 6 and 7 the Oxford translation of St. Athanasius' Treatises Against Arianistn) truthfully writes of that Eusebius, "He was ashamed at that time to adopt ' ' the ' 'phrases of the siibsta?ice, " " Of the same substance, ' ' and " The Son of God is neither creature nor work, nor in the number of things Nicaea, A. D. 32J : lis Creed. 345 athematism set forth b}'- them at the end of the Faith (520), we deemed it to be a thing which should not pain us (521), for it forbids to use expressions not in Scripture, from which ahnost all the confusion and disorder of the Churches have come (522). Because, therefore, no generated, but * * * the Word is an offspritig from the substance of the Father;'''' and that therefore, iu the above Epistle to his flock, he "-excused himself, to the church in his own way.'''' That waj^ was surely au Ariau oue, aud his own words show that he was anxious to excuse his own signature to an Or- thodox Creed b}- giving the false impression that the Orthodox understood that Creed, as an Arian would. He signed it, as we see from the testimonies given above and from that of Theodoret in Chapter VIII. of Book II., of his Ecclesi- astical History, onl}- disseniblingly and insincerely, and because he feared ex- communication. The venom and persistency of Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Eusebius of Caesarea, the Arian partisans, who signed the Creed at Nicaea, was wonderful, for they did not give up the fight then, but commenced to plot and scheme at once aud kept it up till they died, in secret where they could not be open, and openly where they could. (520.) Here is another instance where ryv iilaTiv that is, ^^ the Faith,'" is used for " the Creed" of Nicaea. (521). "Straws,'" says the old proverb, " sho~a -which zvay the wind blows." So expressions like the above show the Arian trend of Eusebius' heart. The Anathema pronounced by the Universal Apostolate with the aid of the same blessed aud savingly warning Spirit which taught the Apostle Paul to anathe- matize antecedently in Galatians I., S, 9, all forms of Arian and other Anti-Gos- pel heresy, pains no Orthodox Christian man any more than Paul's Anathema there pains them, for they know that it is God's saving and needed warning to guard men against eternal death, which is the Christ-appointed reward of unbe- lieving Arianism (Mark XVI., 16; Rev. XXI., 8, and Matt. XVIII., 17, 18; and that that warning is given by the order of the ministry who are deputized by Christ in His Word to the task of teaching the whole church (Matt. XVIII., 17, 18: XXVIII., 19, 20, and the Harmonies of the Gospels, where those passages are found, where we see that they were addressed to the Apostles alone, as are such passages also as John XIV., 16, 17; John XVI., 13). (522). Both the Orthodox and the Ariaus used terms not in Scripture to express their views; but the differences were : 1. The Orthodox used fewer of such terms than their opponents did. See notes on that matter above. 2. The Orthodox terms, which were not in the words of Scripture, were always iu accordance with its sense; whereas the Arian terms contradicted both its words and its sense. 3. The Orthodox terms were put forth by the Court of Highest Resort, ap- pointed by Christ in His Word to settle all Church questions with the promised aid of the Holy Ghost, that is by the Universal Apostolate, and are therefore mediately through them authorized by Christ Himself — whereas the Arian 346 Ch-ptcr VI L divinely -inspired Scripture has used the phrases ' 02d of nothing ' and 'once He zvas noV (523), and the rest of them [in that Anathema- tism], it seemed not reasonable to assert and to teach them, and to that [conclusion] also, as it seemed fair, we assented, since, moreover, we had not been accustomed to use those expressions in the time be- fore this. " 9. Moreover, to anathematize ' Before He was brought forth He was not ' was not deemed out of place, because among all it is con- fessed that He was the Son of God before His birth in flesh. "And our most dear to God Emperor had already proved, in his Oration, that He had existence by His divine birth which was before all the worlds, since also before He was actually born He was poten- 'tially in the Father unbornly, the Father being always Father, as King also always, and Saviour always, being potential as to all things, and being always in the same respedls and in the same way (524). terms were the outcome of the perverse thoughts of mere individual Bishops aud others, who opposed the aucieiit faith of the Church and the decision of the Universal Apostolate iu Ecumenical Synod assembled, and are therefore to be accounted by Christ's Law "as the heathen man and the publican,'' (^Matt. XVIII., 17, iS). Anti-Trinitarians generally forget these facSts, and misrepresent matters endlessly. Even Eusebius of Caesarea, in the section above, admits that Arian terms specified by him as anathematized in the Creed of Nicaea are not in Scripture. (523). Migne's Patrologia Graeca,^om& XX. , col. 1544, Eusebius of Caesarea's Epistle to his Paroecians : Mi/i^f/.adg yovv OeoKvtva'ov Tpacp/)^ rtj "^.f^ok otrwi^," wai Tw "i/v -KOTE ore orn ?/i', " nal roiq s^ijq errtleyo/uevui^ 'Cf,Y/J';/'fi'';C, «. ". ^^ (524.) Page 47 of the English translation 9f Theodoret's Ecclesiastical His- tory, on thai states of it that its " authenticity * * * IS doubted,'' and adds in proof, " Valesius' remarks upon its omission by Socrates and Epiphanius." I here translate the place of Valesius to which reference is made. It is a remark on Section 9 of Eusebius of Caesarea's epistle to his flock. That remark is found in column 1536 of Tome LXXXII. of Migne's Patrologia Graeca, and is as fol- lows: It is on the words above, ''before he zvas aRually generated He was poten- tially ivith the Father ingenerately. ' ' Valesius remarks: ' ' In those words of Constantine or of Eusebius there is a manifest error. For the Word was not potentially iu the Father before He was adtually brought forth out of the Father. For, firstly, aH. and power are not distinguishable in God. Secondly, from that assertion it would follow that the Word was not from eter- nity. For the rest of the creatures also were potentially in God before they were adlually created. But they are not called eternal because of that fa(5t. "Moreover, it is to be observed that this whole se6lion is not to be found in Nicaea, A. D. 323: Its Creed. 347 " 10. These things we have been forced to transmit to you, Beloved, to make clear to you the deliberation of our examination and assent, and how reasonably we resisted even to the last minute, Socrates, nor iu Epipliauius Scholasticus. Socrates certainly seems to me to have omitted it purposely, aud that because it contains a heretical sense." Socrates, pronounced Origenist as he was, might naturally do that ; for in Chapter XXI., Book IL, of his Ecclesiastical History, and in Chapter XIII. of Book VI., he makes a labored attempt to prove that Eusebius of Caesarea was Orthodox, notwithstanding the strong testimony of St. Athanasius and of St. Eustathius that he was an Arianizer. Indeed, Socrates, in Chapter XXIII., Book I., of his Ecclesiastical History, expressly states that "Eustathius, the Bishop of Antioch tears to pieces Eusebius Pamphili, on the ground that he put forth a counterfeit of the faith of Nicaea." Eusebius does put forth a counterfeit of it in the above letter; for the Nicene Faith which he accepts in it is not that in sense which the God-inspired Fathers set forth, but one which he, an Arian, fathered unjustly on them. In his bitter hatred of its Creed, he, in conjunction with the notorious Arian leader, his name- sake, Eusebius of Nicomedia, plotted against Eustathius of Antioch, slandered him as if he were a Sabellian, and an enemy of Constantine the Emperor, and got him unjustly and iniquitously deposed and sent into exile. The fadls are told by Sozomen in Chapters XVIII. and XIX. of Book I. of his Ecclesiastical History; and Theodoret in Chapters XX., XXI. and XXII. of Book I. of his Eccle- siastical History, gives the details of the meanness aud wickedness of the Arians, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea, and their fellow- Arians, in their persecution of St. Eustathius. The fa6ls told by Socrates in Book I. of his Ecclesiastical History. Chapter II. and in Book VI., Chapter XIII., witness to the good character of Eustathius and to his Orthodoxy. To the same effect wit- nesses Theodoret in two places iu Chapter VII. of Book I. of his Ecclesiastical History. The accounts of both taken together testify that he was deposed from his see on the persistent and unsupported accusation of a hired unchaste woman that he was the father of her child; and that she afterwards confessed that she had slandered him ; and that not the Bishop Eustathius, but Eustathius the coppersmith was its father. They tell how his people sympathized with him in his sore and undeserved trials. The Arian partisan, Philostorgius, refers to the deposition of Eustathius in Chapter VII., Book II. , of his Ecclesiastical History, and admits that the city where the Arian leader, Eusebius, was Bishop, " Nico- media, was the wortcship zvhere they [the Arians] contrived all their evil deeds:'' I quote Bohn's translation. I ought to add that the Index to Bohn's translation of Socrates, under "Eustathius,'' confounds the Orthodox Eustathius with the heretic Eustathius of Sebaste; the latter is meant on pages 130, 259 and 260 of that translation, as is expressly said by Socrates himself in the context of those places. I would add further that vSocrates, in his partisanship for Origen, uses abusive language or Saint Methodius, Bishop of Olympus iu Lycia; of Saint Eustathius, Bishop of 348 Chapter VIL as long as we were offended at written statements which differed from our own, but received without contention what no longer pained us, as soon as, on a candid examination of the sense of the words, they Antioch; and of Saint Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria; because they opposed Origen's errors. But the Fifth Ecumenical Council vindicated those blessed men when, in its Anathema XI., it anathematized Origen and ''any man ivho docs not anathematize'' him and his ''impious zvri tings,'' and classes him among the "heretics," with Arius, Macedonius, Apolinarius, Nestorius, and Eutyches, and anathematizes "those who held or hold opinions like those of the aforesaid heretics, and continue in their own impiety to the end. ' ' How far Soc- rates the Origenist, (perhaps also the Novatian), held to Origen's opinions is a question which I have no time to investigate here. If he held them to the last he is undoubtedly anathematized in the above Curse pronounced by the Fifth Synod of the whole Church. Now as to the statement in the note above mentioned in Bohn that Epipha- nius has omitted Section 9 in Eusebius of Caesarea's Epistle above to his Flock, I would remark : 1. Valesius refers not to St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Constantia, in Cyprus, in Century IV. and V., but, as he shows in the note above translated from him, to Epiphanius Scholasticus, of the beginning of the sixth century. He translated the Ecclesiastical Histories of Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret into Latin. 2. He merely followed therefore the text on Eusebius of Caesarea's Epistle to his Flock which he found in Socrates, and hence omitted Section 9 above. 3. The article on that "Epiphanius Scholasticus," page 159, volume 2, of Smith and Wace's Diclionary of Christian Biography, tells us as to his transla- tions that: " Cassiodorus himself revised the work, corredled its faults of style, abridged it, and arranged it into one continuous history of the Church. He then published it for the use of the clergy. * * * It was known as the Tripar- tite History." In the form therefore in which Cassiodorus of Century VI. gives it, it is no wonder that Se6lion 9 of Eusebius' letter is omitted. For it was not in vSocrates whom he was translating into Latin. Socrates' designed omission of a passage in his Origenist favorite, Eusebius of Caesarea, to hide his Arianism here, would make us more ready to suspedl that he has omitted a part of the Synodal Epistle of the First Ecumenical Council because it claims that the Council was guided by the Holy Ghost, and so was infallible in its condemnation, in its Eighth Canon, of the sect of the Cathari, that is the Novatians, to which it is thought Socrates belonged. See what I have said on that matter above, where I give Socrates' and Theodoret's forms of the Synodal Epistle of Nicaea. Before dismissing the note of Valesius above quoted, I would remark that his inference from Eusebius' words above quoted that he was an Ariau, because he believed in the non-eternity of God the Word, is true. For God the Word was not va(tre\y potentially hni really and actually \vl God the Father from all eternity. iV/'caea, A. D. J2j : Its Creed. 349 appeared to us to coincide with what we ourselves have professed in the Faith above set forth (525)." Nevertheless the ancieuts, like St. Justin, the Martyr, Tatian in his Orthodox time, St. Theophilus of Antioch, Tertullian, and Novatian even, and St. Zeuo of Verona, held to the do6trine that God the Word was eternally in the Father from all eternity, but was not born out of Him till just before the worlds were made. Valesius contradi<5ts himself when he says that ad and power are not dis- tinguishable iu God, for direcflly after he shows in effe<5l that God the Father had from all eternity the power to create all things, but did not do so, till about six thousand years ago he made the worlds. Theodoret did not agree with Socrates' notion that Eusebius of Caesarea was a Trinitarian, but held with St. Athanasius, who knew him best, that he was an Arian. Indeed, Theodoret, in Chapter XI., Book I., of his Ecclesiastical His- tory, introduced the above Epistle of Eusebius of Caesarea as a sort of argu- ineJituin ad homineui to the Arians, because, that is, it is testimony to the Nicene Creed from one whom they regarded as of the same mind with themselves. I have translated that place of Theodoret above. (525). I have translated from the Greek, and have largely agreed with the Oxford translation, but sometimes, for greater clearness and accuracy, have de- parted from it. In this place I may be allowed to take occasion to warn the young reader to be on his guard against the warped and partisan tendency of a few of the notes in some of the Oxford translations of the Fathers, especially in Dr. John Henry Newman's translation of S. Athanasius' Treatises against Arianism, page 417, especially note "^." He went over to Rome not long after that. The virus of the creature-worship of the Roman Communion can be easily discovered by the attentive observ'er. It is a pity that with much learning iu some branches, almost all the Oxford school, including Pusey, Newman and Keble, were so deplorably ignorant of the relative superiority of the decisions of the Universal Church in the Six Ecumenical Syno(1s to the mere opifiioas (as distinguished from the historical witness^ of individual Fathers, and to the mere local decisions of the Occident. The men of that school wdth most knowledge on the Ecumenical data were Perceval and Palmer, of Worcester College. Even they, however, are defedtive in places iu regard for some of the decisions of those Six Synods. Perceval, in particular, argues for the right of the local Church of England to set aside some excellent canons approved at Chalcedon, which are in harmony with Scripture, and with the observance of the Church since early and pure times. The notes referred to above have a tendency, indiredtl}-, to excuse creature- worship. Probably at the time they were written Newman had a tendency towards it. Compare the remarks of Bishop Kaye, of Lincoln, in his Account iif the Council of Nicaea, Preface, page VI. In reading Newman's writings I have been struck with the fact that from the very first he seems to have been Ignorant or forgetful of the plain fact which every catechist of children even ought to know, and that is that the Roman Communion is idolatrous, because it 350 Chapter VII. From glancing at this letter of Eusebius of Caesarea the reader will at once see, I . That neither Eusebius nor the Council propose to enlarge the Creed of the Roman Church, such as when, after this time, it first clearly appears in history, it is found to be. 2. Thatif by Faith, TTtV-cv^inthesecondsedlion of this letter, Eusebius means a Creed, it must be that of Caesarea, of which he was Metro- politan, and to which Jerusalem, being an Episcopate in the province worships images painted, and images graven, crosses, altars, relics and other things, on the plea, like the heathen, oi Relative Service, the very plea used by the heresiarch Nestorius for his relative bowing to Christ's humanity, and quoted against him in his own words in Act I. of the Third Ecumenical Synod, and made one of the grounds for deposing him; and that the invocation of the Virgin Mary, saints and angels is impliedly anathematized in Anathema VIII. of St. Cyril of Alexandria's XII., approved at Ephesus, and in Anathema IX. of the Fifth Ecumenical Council against the Nestorian worship of the humanity of Christ. For surely if I may not give any separate worship, after the Nestorian fashion to the humanity of Christ, much less may I to any creature less than that perfect humanity, be it the Virgin Mary, or any saint, or any angel, or any archangel, or any other creature animate or inanimate, or to any mere thing, such as a picflure, statue, bust, relics, the bread and wine of the Eucharist, or any other mere thing. He seemed from the early times of the Oxford move- ment to have forgotten the fact taught him by the Homily of his own Church Against Peril of Idolatry, that as God cursed the Ten Tribes and Judah also, with division, with disaster, defeat, and captivity for such sins by the Assyrian and the Babylonian, so he cursed the Christian Israel with the same calamities for the same sins, by the Persian, the Arab, the Tartar and the Turk. In his blind desire for a union with idolatrous Rome he forgot the plainest lessons which God has taught all men; and finally landed in paganism and died the death of the idolater which Holy Writ teaches us is without hope. Even Palmer, who wrote on the Churcli, if I recolledl aright differed from his own Church in not deeming Rome idolatrous. Nearly the whole of the lead- ers of the party to which Newman and Keble and Pusey belonged failed to wit- ness for God and the Six Ecumenical Councils on those vital points. Indeed while many of them had some Patristic learning I know of none of them who could be called well versed in the Ecumenical Decisions in those Holy-Ghost-led councils of Universal Christendom. Able as were some of them, as a school they were a woful failure because they built not on the rock of the Ecumenical Decisions, but on their private fancies and private interpretations as to Scripture or the Fathers. Their heresies are antecedently anathematized by the Six Synods, and the Anglican Bishops should anathematize their creature worship and other heresies, and those guilty of them, or be deposed. Nicaca, A. D. 32^: Its Creed. 351 of which Caesarea was metropolis, was at that time subject. But he does not use the word Creed, but only Faith, here. 3. That this Faith (-tVr^-) presented by Kusebius forms, accord- ing to his claim above, the ground-work of the Nicene Symbol, that is, of the Creed of the 318. Indeed, much of the Nicene Creed, outside of its Anathema, may be found, word for word, in that presented by Eusebius of Caesarea. That is apparent from a glance at the Greek and the English of both. I have italicized the parts whicli are the same in both, and have put in capitals those clauses which the Ecumenical Council added to guard the Consubstantial Faith; for the Arian, Eusebius, had pur- posely omitted any statement of that tenet. Of those added clauses I will speak further on. Eusebius' statement, part of which may have been (I do not say was) akin, in some parts, to the Creed of Caesarea and its comprovincial see, Jerusalem, the mother of all Churches, is as follows. For the sake of convenience and comparison and future reference we append, in parallel columns, three other early forms, but only the articles in them which treat of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, because the Nicene has only those three articles and the Anatliema, which is peculiar to itself. Th2 Faith (-^ llinzi-;') 0/ Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, exhibited at Nicaea, A. D. j2^. IhirreoofiEv e:^ ?>« Oeo-^^ Uaripa Tzavro'/.pdzopa^ rw rwv uTzavziov oparujv T£ xai dopdrcDv Ttocrjzrjv. Kai eii ?va huinirj ^Irjaouv XfiKjr <')•.> ^ Tuv TOO Beou Ao'j'oVj 8tw ix ffeou (fW'S ix ifcoro^^ t^tu-TjV ix Z(uti<;, Yluv Movoyv^r^^ ■KpwroToxov ~d(Trj'i zrtVew?, Tpo Tid'^rwv Tvjv al(h,iut\> ix to^j flaTpd'^ ysytwr^iipLi- vov, cJc' 00 xat iyi'/STo rd Tzdvza, tuv dtd rrjv rj/xezipav trwrr^piav aapxiufkivra xat tv d'^(lpu}-oi<; -ohrzoadixtvtrj, xa\ 7ra?9w>r«, x« hnpiov^ Irj(T()T>v Xpicr- zm, zw } !l)v/ too tlcou^ yv^\ir^Otjza ix TOO Uazpui Mo-zoytvYj, zouziffzcv ix r^? ou(Tiaza iyivezo^ zd z£ iv zuj iivpa-zo) xai zd i-] rj^^" yrj?' zuv oi' rj/idf zou^} d>Opu>-()U?, xa) Scd ZTjV ijiiezipav auizrjpiav xazeXOo'jza^ xa\ 352 Chapter VII. vexpoo?. xai dvaffzdvTa rrj Tpirr^ rjfiipa^ xa\ dyeX- 66vra el's rohg oupavoh'S, ip)(6fx£vov xplvat l^cUvra? xai vexpoo'^- IIi image, after our likeness.' " Afterwards it seemed good to the assembled Fathers to insert the dodlrine of the Consub- stantiality into their Definition or Symbol. See Gelasius of Cyzicus' Am of the Nicene Council, Book II., Chapter XXIV. It is after the answers of Hosius and others on different points that the philospher theless presbyters of his were present and filled his place," [avTi^v re Irvdvuv 6 TTCLVV jSoufiEvog fif 7/v Tolg noTiTiolg d/na avvEdpevuV ttiq 6e ye (iaailEvovcrjq ■K61euQ 6 fiev •n-poeoTug varepei 6ia yrjpag, npsajivTepoq 6e avrov irapovrec ryv avTov rd^iv E7r?a/povv. I quote the Greek from column io6i, Tome XX., of Migne's Patrologia Graeca). Here the way in which Hosius is mentioned and presbyters of Rome, seems to imply that Hosius did not represent Rome but Spain, and that the only repre- sentatives of ''the prelate of the imperial city;' Rome, were those spoken of as ''presbyters of his.'' A note here in column io6i. Tome XX., of Migne's Patrologia Graeca, on the words "the prelate of the imperial city," tells us that Gelasius of Cyzicus believed that they meant the Bishop of Constantinople, and that Nicetas, in his Treasure-HoJise of the Orthodox Faith, Book V., Chapter VI., followed him; and Nicetas adds that Metrophanes was Bishop of Constantinople at that time ; and that Epiphanius Scholasticus, in Book II. of his Tripartite History, says the same. But the annotator, in Migue, well remarks; "But that explanation can not be endured. For Constantinople had not yet been dedicated, nor had it been decorated with the title ' imperial city ' when the Council congregated in the city of Nicaea. And so those words of Eusebius must necessarily be understood of the Bishop of the city of Rome; which Sozo- men confirms in Book I., Chapter XVI., where the name of Julius has wrongly crept into the text for Sylvester; and Theodoret confirms it in Book I., Chapter VII." Nicaca, A. D. j2j : I/s Creed. 385 here mentioned declares his belief in the dodlrine of the Trinity, and after that again that the Council by a S5^nodical Act puts forth the docflrine ''of the same S2ibstancey See Gelasius of CyzicUs' AHs of the Niceyie Council, Book II., Chapters XXII., XXIII and XXIV. But scholars do not give much credit to such things in Gelasius as rel}- on his authority alone. And so I therefore dismiss his witness with the remark that the proof above given for the belief that Hosius was ver>^ ac1:ive for the adoption at Nicaea of the expression ''of the same sub- stance'' is ample without Gelasius, and that that fact was so well known- even in Gelasius' day that he voices it in the above tale, whether it be ficlion or truth, or both mingled together. Before closing on Hosius, I would add that the Christ-hating pagan historian Zosimus, in his Six Books of New History, written in the fifth century, likes to have his fling at prominent Christians; and among other things tells a yarn about Constantine, the Kmperor, having been troubled about his having put to death his son Crispus for illicit intercourse with his stepmother, Fausta, and of his putting her to death afterwards, because his own mother, Helena, who, I should add, was a Christian, was grieved at her grandson's death. According to the Historic Comme7itary of Reitemeier on that matter, Zosimus has blundered as to times and events, (Reitemeieri Com^nen- tariiis Historicus, pages 354, 355, of the edition of Zosimus, Bonnae, 1837.) But anent Hosius, it may be well to notice what Zosimus says of an Egyptian, who had been supposed, by some, to be Hosius. Zosi- mus writes, in his Book II., Chapter XXIX., that while Constantine was troubled for his execution of his son and wife, ' ' A certain Egyptian having come out of Spain into Rome, and having become well acquainted with the women in the palace, and having met with Constantine, out and out affirmed that the dodlrine of the Christians can expiate every sin, and has this promise, namely that if the impious share it they at once become free from every sin: and Constantine having most readily received that dodlrine, and hav- ing renounced his hereditary [pagan] opinions, and having become a sharer of those which the Egyptian communicated to him, he made a beginning of ' his new regard for Christianity by holding the [pagan] diviners art in suspicion' (Bekker's Zosimus, page 95). 386 Chapter VIL Reitemeier as above, and Sozomen in his Ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapter III., and Kvagrius in his Ecclesiastical History, Book III., Chapters XL,, and Xlyl., as well as Gibbon, have censured the unfairness and mistaken assertions of Zosimus. Reitemeier, as above, refers to the fact that years before Constan- tine had seen the vision in the sky which converted him, and that the heathen Zosimus takes no notice of his strong regard for Chris- tianity till he began to enact laws against divination and openly to deride paganism and to think of founding another Rome in the East, as he tells us he did after the Egyptian came to Rome. Zosimus' story would imply that Constantine then first opposed paganism, and so became hated by the Roman Senate and people. So we see, Zosimus blunders in not knowing that Constantine was a pronounced favorer of Christianity long years before the execution of Crispus and Fausta. Yet may there not be some* truth in his lies ? May not the Egyptian who came from Spain, by whose influence he frowned pub- licly on pagan soothsayers, and openly derided pagan rites, be Hosius of Cordova, and may he not have seen the Emperor's Christian mother in the palace, and so been introduced to her son and moved him to good ? I think so. He may have been an Egyptian by birth or descent, who early went to Spain and became one in heart and tongue with the I^atin-speaking Christians of that land. Zosimus evidently blunders as to what was said to Constantine by the "■ Egyptia7i fr-om Spain'' of whom he writes; for the Chris- tians of the fourth century, like their predecessors, held that baptism is ''for the remission of sins'' (Acts II., 38, and XXII., 16); and their Bishops were willing to die for that tenet as a part of the faith, but not for the heretical notion that to believe in the Christian reli- gion without being baptized can save a man. And as Constantine was not baptized till just before his death in A. D. 337 (605), we may be sure that if the ' ' Egyptian from Spain ' ' was Hosius, he would not have deceived Constantine by telling him that he was a Christian without baptism. But one who did not know the facfls as to Con- stantine' s baptism would naturally get the idea from Zosimus' words (605). Eusebius of Caesarea, in Chapters LXI., LXII., LXIII. and LXIV., of BooklV., of his Life 0/ Constantifie sh.ov{S, thathe was first made a catechumen in his last sickness at Helenopolis, and that after that he received baptism at Nicomedia and died there. Nicaea, A. D. 325: Its Creed. 387 that he was baptized into the Christian Church before he left Rome to found a new capital on the Bosphorus. Indeed, that may have been Zosimus' idea. But on that matter, as on others, where Chris- tianity is concerned, he knew so little of fadls, and was so full of bitter pagan prejudice that he constantly went astray (606). Constantine had openly favored the Church as early as A. D. 311 and 312, where we find his name in edidts which tolerate them, and blunt the teeth of persecution. We find the Donatists appealing to him to decide between them and the Catholics, and in response, in A. D. 314, he gathers Bishops of his jurisdi(5lion at Aries in Gaul, where Spain was represented. For it was then in Constantine' s jurisdi(5lion. And it is certainly a possible thing that, when in that land, he visited Cor- dova, which was then one of its most important cities, and with his sympathies for Christianity, became well acquainted with its zealous and able Bishop, Hosius, so that he probably knew him years before the time when he visited Rome, and is spoken of by Zosimus, I think, as the ' ' Egyptian from Spain ' ' who visited the women in the palace at Rome (607, 608). Why may he not have met Helena, the Bm- (606). Professor Milligan has a good article on ''Zosimus''' in the last volume of Smith and Wace's DiElionary of Christian Biography. (607). See page 638, Vol. I., of Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christion Biograpliy for the dates of those events. (608). Argles, in his article on Helena, page 882, Volume II., of Smith and Wace's DiFtionary of Christion Biograpliy, expresses the view that Helena be- came a Christion through her son Constantine. But, 1. That inference is opposed to the common view of the ancients: 2. The passage to which Argles refers as proof for that statement that Con- stantine converted her to the Christian Faith (Chapter XLVII., Book III., of Eusebius' Life of Constantine), does not say that, but only that he rendered her a more devout worshipper of God. She was, I think, a Christian before, but became a more devout Christian by his influence. I give a literal translation of the passage below. In the chapters before, Eusebius has just spoken of her munificence in building churches, etc., which probably, an they required large means, she had not sufficient money to do, and hence .rew from her imperial son, and then he mentions her death as follows: "The mother of the Emperor was therefore perfeAed, having become worthy of unforgetable remembrance, both on account of her dear to God a6ls and of the eminent and admirable son who was born of her; who deserves to be blessed in addition to all his other good traits for his dutifulness towards his mother: for he made her so God-fearing when she was not before, that it seemed that she had been instru(5led by the common Saviour from the first." The Greek, as in 388 Chapter VII. peror's mother, then, and before in Spain, when he was ruler there? The precise and definite details on these matters indeed are not well known, but the fadls, which we do know, look that way. And of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, the Synodal Epistle states that ''He was both a master and a sharer in the things which have been done. ' ' And the same is true of that distinguished prelate of Antioch of whom Christian antiquity speaks as ''the great Eustathius'' (609), whose zeal for the Consubstantiality of the Son with the Father, and against the Arian creature-service is clear from his address to the Emperor Constantine at the very beginning of the first formal session of the Council (610), Facundus, Bishop of Ermiana or Hermiana, in the province of Byzacena in Africa in the sixth century, in his Defence of the Three Chapters, which is addressed to the Emperor Justinian, Book VIII., Chapter IV., speaks of him as "the blessed Eustachius'" [an error for " Eustathiiis'''\ "Bishop of the city of A7itioch, who was for the right faith zVz the Nicene Council''' (611). And, in the same work. Book XI., Chapter I., Facundus terms him. ' ' The blessed Eustachius ' ' [that is, Eustathius] ' ' Bishop of Antioch who was first in the Nicene Council " (612). Column 1 108, of Tome XX., of Migne's Patrologia Graeca, of part of the above is as follows: bv npbg rolg dwaai, kuI TTJq dg Tfjv yei.vafiivrjv oclag /uampll^Eiv a^LOv, ovtu fikv al'Tijv tieoaEJS^ KaracTr/aavra, ovk ovaav npoTEpov, wf avro) [but the common readmg is not avT(J but avrb, a note in Migne here tells us, and I prefer it] doKsiv ek irpurtig tQ Koivu) JjUT^pi fj.enadrjTEvadai. (609). Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History, Book I., Chapter VI. See the quotation on page 273 above from it. (610.) See it translated on pages 276, 277 above. (611). Facundi episc. Hermianensis Pro Defensione Trium Capitul, lib, VIII., cap. IV. (col. 719, Tome LXVII., of Migne's Patrologia Latina); et dies nos deficiet percurrentes beatum Eustachium Antiochiae civitatis episcopum, qui fuit pro redta fide in Nicaeno Concilio, etc. (612). Facundus, Id., lib. XI., cap. i. (column 795, Tome LXVIL, of Migne's Patrologia Latitia); Nam beatus Eustachius Antiochenus episcopus, qui primus in Nicaeno concilio fuit, sexto adversus Arianos libro, de eo quod ait Do- minus; Nemo scit diem ilium (Matt, XXIV., 36); Dicamus, inquit, etc. A note in the same column of Migne tells us that ''Eustachium,'" in this note, should be *' Eustathium.'" Nicaea, A. D. 323 : Its Creed. 389 I am aware that the honor of speaking for the First Kcumenical Council to the Emperor Constantine has been ascribed by a few, be- ginning with Theodore of Mopsuestia, to Alexander Bishop of Alex- andria. I^et us see how that matter stands: Nicetas Choniata, of the thirteenth century, was Bishop of Mar- onea, and afterwards became Bishop of Thessalonica. He has left us a work entitled " Thesauncs'' [or " Treasicry'"'] ''of the Orthodox Faith. ' ' Book V. , Chapter VII. , of it refers to the First Kcumenical Council; and states that "Eusebius [of Caesarea] in the Third Book of his Lt/e of Constantine, testifies that he himself first spoke in the Synod," This is an error. Sozomen in the following century, as shown above, makes that assertion. Eusebius of Caesarea does not specify the name of the first speaker. Next Nicetas refers to Theo- doret's statement, quoted above, that the Bishop who replied to the opening address of the Emperor Constantine was Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch. Then he adds: • ' But as Theodore of Mopsuestia writes, that honor ' ' [of speaking first in that Council] ' ' has been ascribed to Alexander the Pontiff of Alexandria besides, on the ground that he was the leader and cause of the assembling of the Synod. He adds that that prelate narrated in the session of the Council all things in order as they had occurred, and that after many speeches besides had been delivered on this side and on that, the Bishops came to an agreement among themselves, and pronounced the Son to be 6iJ.ooush- dmv OTzo^rrmsc^^), which expression is not in Scripture, nor is their sense of it there., that is that, " There are Three imlike sub- stances r iSTor are an} of the Arian expressions, which are con- 402 Chapter VII. demned in the Anathema at the end of the Nicene Creed, in Scripture either in words or in sense. I mean the expressions, 1 . " There was once when the Son of God was not;'' ' 2. ""He was 7iot before He was born;'' 3. "■He was made out of non-existi7ig things'' [that is out of nothing] ; 4. ''He is of atiother subsistence or substance ' ' [than the Father] ; 5. ''He is a creature-^' 6. " He is mutable;'^ 7. " He is alterable. ' ' The fact is that the appeal for the use of Scripture terms alone, in the mouths of the Arians, was the veriest inconsistency, as it always is in the mouths of all other Anti-Trinitarian heretics now, for they constantly use terms not in Scripture to state their heresies and their differences from the Orthodox; and the very necessities of their heretical position compel them so to do. This is true of all heretics, both of those who worship creatures and idolatrize by in- voking the Virgin Mary, Saints, and angels, or who bow to or kiss images, painted or graven, or relics, or worship the Eucharist before its consecration or after its consecration; and of those who, on the other hand, infidelize by denying the Trinity, the Divinity of the Logos, the dodlrine of the Atonement by Christ's saving blood, the docftrine of one baptism for the remission of sins, the due authority of the One, Holy, Universal and Apostolic Church, and of its Christ- commissioned ministry, and of everlasting punishment, and other Scripture truths. Therefore, St. Athanasius ably retorts upon them their use of non-Scriptural, aye Anti-Scriptural terms to set forth their heresies, and then adds of the Arian leaders, Acacius and others, as follows: ' ' And when Acacius and Eudoxius and Patrophilus say such things [that is pretend to use scripture terms alone], why are they not worthy of all condemnation ? For, whereas, they themselves use in their writings terms not in Scripture, and have often admitted as good the expression ' of the siibstayicc' (r?;? owi'a?), and [that] especially because of the Epistle of Eusebius, they now fault those before them- selves for using such expressions. And, moreover, while they them- selves have said that " The Son is God out of God {(-h>'r^ ix deou) and Nicaea, A. D. 323: Its Creed. 403 ^Living Word,' and ' imvaryhig Image of the substance (t?;? uhaia^") of the Father; they now fault those who said at Nicaea [the Son has come], " ' Out of the substance' {Ix ttj? ouffca?) [of the Father]; * 'And, 'He who was brought forth is of the same substance {6[xoouffinv) as He who brotight Him forth: But what wonder is it if they fight against those before themselves, and against their own Fathers, when they themselves oppose each other and conflict with each other's ex- pressions?" The Greek is on pages 287, 288 of Bright's St. Athan- asius' Historical Writings. No consistent Arian could sign the Nicene Creed as Eusebius of Caesarea had done; and he did so only to save his position and honors. Yet there were Semi-Arians, who, as Athanasius shows in Sec- tion 41, of his work on the Council of Arimi?ium in Italy and that of Seleucia iri Isauria, objedled to the expression ' ' of the same stibstatice, ' ' but nevertheless held to the dodlrine embodied in it. Athanasius mentions Basil of Ancyra as one of that kind. See there on page 138 of the Oxford translation. 404 Chapter VIII. NIC^A, A. D. 325: THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL. Its Genuine Remains. CHAPTER VIII. ITS CANONS. Only four of the Six Ecumenical Councils have made any Can- ons. They are : I. NiCAEA, A. D. 325, which made 20 Canons. II. I. CoNSTANTiNOPivE, A. D. 38 1, which made 7 Canons. III. Ephesus, a. D. 431, which made 8 Canons; atid IV. Chalcedon, a. D. 451, which made 30 Canons. Neither the Fifth Ecumenical Council nor the Sixth made any Canons. The Canons of the first four Ecumenical Synods are vastly im- portant, for they contain precious and necessary Doctrine and Rite; and nearly all of Ecumenical Discipline is enshrined in them. That Discipline guards and enforces the saving Dodlrines of the whole Church, and without it, they can not be maintained as they should be; nor can there be any settled and sure Ecumenical law and order. If the Ecumenical Canons are trampled under foot, more or less an- archy comes in as the result, and different local churches, in their sense of the need of order, have substituted mere local and contra- Nicaea, A. D. 325 : Its Ca7ions. 405 didlory laws for them, which lack Ecumenical Authority, and lead to endless bickerings, and sometimes to schisms and heresies. All ex- perience shows that. But we show that more fully in a special Essay On the Authority of the Cano7is of the First Four Ecumenical Coimcils in another volume. In another volume on Nicaea we purpose, if God will, to annotate its Canons more at length. The size of this volume and the amount of our notes, forbid it to be done here. The Greek of the Nicene Canons here given is from Tome II. of Ralle and Potle's Syntagma, Athens, A. D. 1852. The English translation mainly accords with that, though we have compared Bruns' and I,ambert's Greek texts. Bruns' Canones were published at Berlin, A. D. 1839, and Lambert's Codex Canonum Ecclesiae Universae in London; I judge from his Preface, in 1868. The date is not on his title page. I will speak of different readings, of any importance, when in another volvune I come to annotate these Canons. 406 Chapter VIII. OF THE HOLY FIRST KCUMENICAL SYNOD, WHICH WAS HELD AT NICAEA IN BITHYNIA, IN THE YEAR OF OUR LORD, 325. CANON I. PERSONS CASTRATED OP THEIR OWN FREE WILL NOT TO BE CLERICS. El Ti%ri^ y] b-o [iapSdpiuv i^srfXTJ&r]^ ouro<; fisviru) iv rm xkyjpui. El 8i tj? vyiaivujv tauru'^ £^irs/j.s^ zourov xal iv zui xXyjpw i^szal^upLSwuv, TTSTrautTf^ai T:poTia r^ peydXrj ffuv- 68(1) f^pa(Tuv6n£vuv iv xXyjpw^ i^elvac auvsiffaxrov e;jf££v, T:XyjV el pi) apa pfjTipa^ ^ a.8£Xv Iv xXi^pu)^ eTre ru>v iv kaixui zdyfiaTi^ UTTO rdJv xaO^ ixdffzrjv i-apyiav incaxu-cov^ xpareiru) ij y^win^^ xard zuv xavova tov dmyopeuovra^ roug ixp ixipiov dTzuGXr^f>-hrav iT^iffxoTttuv r^g inapyta^ im to auTo ffuvayopivwv^ rd zoiaura ^rjrrjfiaTa i^sTa^rjzat^ xai ourcu^ ul oiioXoyoup.ivu)^ TrpoffxsxpooxoTsg Tu) iTzirjxuTzuj^ xard Xoyuv dxarxo'^rjzoi Tzapd Tzdcsiv elvac 8u^u)(n niypci} uv rw xdivuj rcov iTtttrxoTTcov Sucrj rr^v (fikavf^pwTzoripav UTzep abrihv ix- diadat 7/(fov. A I 8e auvodoi yiviud'Ujaav^ [xia p.sv Tzpd r^? Teaaapaxnarrj';^ Iva 7tdffr)^yo^ CANON VII. THE RANK OF TH:^ BISHOP OF JERUSALEM UNDER HIS METROPOI«- ITAN IN HIS PROVINCES. ^Enetdrj (Tuvyj^9£ca xexpaTTjxe^ xai Trapadofffi d.p-^aia^ wffze tov iv AlXta ini- ffxoTzov Tifidff'&ac, i^iTo} ttjv dixoXouf^iav t^? TCfxr^?' rj [irjTpoTzoXsi aca^ofiivou to& oixtiou dicaifj.aTO'S, CANON VIII. HOW THE NOVATIANS, THAT IS THE CATHARISTS, ARE TO BE RlS" CEIVED. IJep) Twv ovofia^ovTwv pkv iaoToh? Kad^apou9oXix^ xai drroffToXix^ kxxkrjaia^ edo^e t^ '^y^'j'' ^oCi [leydXiQ auvodu)^ wots X^^P^' OeTOUfiivou? auToh<}, /liveiv ooTiog iv rtD xX-^puj. Upo ndvTiov Sstouto 6ixoXoyrj avT^ erj^ij/zarf. Ei 8h tou T^9 xaf^oXixrjq ixxXfjUiag inoffxonou^ ^ npeaSuTipou ovTog^ Tipooip^ovTai Tive9 6 fiev iTrtffxono? t^9 ixxXrjffta? £^et to d^iw/ia too inttrxonow 6 de dvofial^6fj.£vo^ napd to?? Xeyofiiv'ot^ Kaifapo'i^ iTrtVxoTro?, ttjv too TzpsaCoTipoo Nicaea, A. D. 323: Its Canons. 413 provinces, the privileges are to be preserved to the churches. But it is universally clear, beforehand, that if any one should become a Bishop, without the consent of the Metropolitan, the Great Synod has decreed that such a one ought not to be a Bishop. If, however, two or three, through their own quarrelsomeness, speak against the common vote of all the Bishops it being reasonable and in accord- ance with ecclesiastical rule, let the vote of the majority prevail. CANON VII. THE RANK OF THE BISHOP OF JERUSAI^EM UNDER HIS METROPOI,- ITAN IN HIS PROVINCE. Forasmuch as a custom and an ancient tradition have prevailed of honoring the Bishop of Aelia, let him have the second place of honor, the proper dignity being preserved to the metropoHs. CANONS VIII. HOW THE NOVATIANS, THAT IS THE CATHARISTS, ARE TO BE RE- CEIVED. In regard to those once calling themselves Pure Ones, but [now] coming to the Universal and Apostolic Church, it has seemed good to the Holy and Great Synod that they receive a laying on of hands, and so remain in the Clericate. But before all things, it is becoming that they agree in writing that they will adhere to and will follow the decrees of the Universal and Apostolic Church; that is to say, that they will commune both with digamists and wuth those who have fallen away in the persecution regarding whom a time has been ap- pointed and a period has been decreed; and that they will follow in all things the decrees of the Universal Church. Wherever, therefore, whether in villages or in cities, all who are found ordained are of themselves alone, those found in the Clericate shall be in the same positions. But if some of them come \to the Faith'] where there is a Bishop or a presbyter of the Universal Church, it is clearly under- stood beforehand that the Bishop of the Church shall have the dig- nity of the Bishop, but he who is named Bishop among those termed Pure Ones shall have the honor of the presbyter, unless, indeed, it may seem good to the Bishop that he (637) share the honor of the (637). That is, the Novatian Bishop. 414 Chapter VIII. Ttiirjv clsj- ttXtjv el jxtj apa 8oxut7j rai incffxaTzoj, riy? rt/z^? rod ovofxaros abrov fieziysw. Ei dk rouro aoTU) fxij dpitrxot^ intvoyjffei totzov tj ympenKTXonou, r/ TtpenSoripoo^ onep too iv tcD xXijpoj oXu}TJffou<7C rw Xad rmv Tzpoffeu^wv. CANON XII. HOW THOSE CHRISTIANS WHO APOSTATIZED TO IDOLATRY AND ENTERED THE MILITARY SERVICE OF LICINIUS THE PAGAN ENEMY OF CHRIST AND OF CHRIS- TIANS, ARE TO BE RECEIVED. 01 de TTpo(TxXrj-&ivT£is fJ-sv otto t^9 ^dpczog^ xai Trjv vpwriqv opixrjv ivdec^dfie- voi^ xai dno^ipevot rag ^wvag, perd 8k raura km tov oUeJov epezov dvadpapov- Te?, wv adroh^ dxpocj/xivows /jlovov^ fierd zaora eu^sff'^ai fierd Twv xarTj^ooixivuiv, CANON XV. TRANSLATIONS OP BISHOPS, PRESBYTERS, AND DEACONS FOR- BIDDEN. Aid Tov TzoXhv rdpa^ov^ xa\ Td<; ffTd68uu opov, TotouTcp Tivl iTzc^stpyjffeuv tj iniduiYj kaoTov Tzpay/xaTi rotouroj^ dxupoji9ij- ffsrai ic anavTog to xaraaxeuafffia, xai d.T:oxara(jza{^rj, xai dav£{!^ovT£?, kxaroffTag dTzaiTeoaiv iduaiio(T£v ij dyia xa\ p.£ydXr) abvodo's, w? er' re? £op£t9£{rj fj.£Td tov opov tootov Toxoug XafiSdvuiVj Nicaea, A. D. j2^: Its Canons. 421 away, which, contrary to the rule, has been found in certain places, so that neither Bishop nor Presbyter, nor Deacon, may remove from city to city. But if any one, after the decree of the Holy and Great Synod, shall attempt any such thing, or shall lend himself to such a thing, what has been eflFe(5led shall be utterly invalid, and he shall be put back into the Church in which he was ordained Bishop or Pres- byter. CANON XVI. NO PRESBYTER OR DEACON TO REMOVE FROM HIS OWN DIOCESE; PENALTY FOR SO DOING — NO BISHOP TO ORDAIN A LAY- MAN WHO BELONGS TO ANOTHER BISHOP'S DIO- CESE; SUCH ORDINATIONS ARE INVALID. Whatever Presbyters, or Deacons, or whoever at all who are found in the list of the Clergy, shall, audaciously, neither having the fear of God before their eyes, nor knowing the ecclesiastical rule, with- draw from their own Church, those ought, by no means, to be re- ceived in another Church, but every necessity must be laid upon them to return to their own paroecias; or, if they remain, it is fitting that they be without communion. And, moreover, if any one should dare, underhandedly, to take any one who belongs to another, and to ordain him in his own Church without the assent of the proper Bishop from whom he has withdrawn, who is in the [regular] list of the clergy, let the ordination be invalid. CANON XVII. THE CLERICS NOT TO FOLLOW USURY AND BASE GAIN, UNDER PAIN OF LOSING THEIR CLERICATE — THE SAME PENALTY VISITED ON THEM FOR CONTRIVING ANY THING ELSE FOR THE SAKE OF BASE GAIN. Inasmuch as many who are found in the list of the Clergy, in their pursuit of covetousness and base gain, have forgotten the godly writing which says : ''He hath not given his money tipon usury ' ' (641); and in lending demand usury at the rate of one per cent, a (641). Psalm XV., 5; XIV., 5, Sept. 422 Chapter VIII. ix !itra'^eipio peTadcdovTo? aurol?, ^ TOO TzpsffSoTipou. 'ADA pr^Hh xaf}r/v IlaoXiavtadvTiov ^ elra Tzpoatpoyovza)'^ t^ Aa&oXtx^ ^ ExxXfjffia^ opog ixTi&ecTat dvaSaTzrc^efff^ai aoroh^ i^aTzavro'}. Ei Si rive's iv tcD jzapskrjXui^oTi ypovu}^ iv Tui xlrjpoi i^rjzdffi^/rjffav^ ei fikv a/ie/nzTot xai dveniXrjnroi ^aveUv dva- SaTtTtff^UvTE'S, /etpoTovsiff&cDffav und rod T^? /ia>?oA£z^9 ^ExxXr]ffcaiAa." Page 229, read " Nicaea, A. D. 325: Arius and his Heresies,'* instead of "Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils." Page 230, line 26, insert quotation marks after "created." Page 232, line 2, read " Man," not " Men." Page 233, line 26, put "or" in Roman. Page 233, line 5, put "shipper" in Italics. Page 234, line 17, read "bowed," not "bound." Page 237, line 8, read "contrary," not " contary." Page 237, note 344, line i, omit last "i" in " Alexandriai's." Page 240, lines 26 and 27, put in small capitals " Therefore " to * ' bowed to ' ' inclusive. Page 241, line 27, insert "in" before "speaking;" and "they mentioned" after "speaking," and omit "remembered" in line 28. Page 243, line 9, put quotation marks after " Holy Ghost." Page 245, line 11, read "creature," not "creation." Page 247, heading, read "Nicaea, A. D. 325: Arius and his Heresies," instead of "Account of the Six Ecumenical Councils." Page 247, line 6, read "Eunomians," not "Eunomiaus." Page 247, line 25, omit the last " a " in "Cagliaria," so that it shall read " Cagliari." Page 250, remove comma before "impiam." Page 255, line 26, put comma after "itself." Page 255, line 28, read "forbid," not "forbids. Page 256, line 14, insert after " that," "in Adts XV." Page 259, line 26, read '^ dr.avraxodsv^'^ not " draiTa/ovev.' Page 264, line 7, read "Roman," not "Romam." Page 264, line 23, remove the comma after " Hefele " and put it after "Creed." Page 269, line 10, read "free," not "freed." Page 279, note 441, read "chapter," not " chaper." Page 281 to 304, read "Its Synodal Epistle," instead of "Its Genuine Utterances." Page 281, line 20, read "IX.," not "9." Errata and Emendatio)is and Additions. 429 Page 283, line 30, insert comma after " Ariomaniacs." Page 285, after "Church" in line 285, add "As the number of communicants increases there should be several Dioceses, that is Patriarchates, and several Patriarchs, but one should be chief, and each Patriarchate should have its Patriarchal Council; but there should be a National Council of all the Patriarchates in which the chief Patriarch, that is the Patriarch of the first see, be it the capital, Washington, or New York, the largest city, should preside, and that National Council would be the Court of Final Appeal, except to the Orthodox Episcopate of the Universal Church, East and West, gathered in their local Councils; or, failing agreement there, in an Ecumenical Council, as of yore." Page 287, line 20, read "Cruse," not "Cruse." Page 287, line 21, read "perusal," not "persusal." Page 288, line 27, remove punctuation mark after " Alexan- dria's." Page 289, last line of text, read "Britain," not "Britian." Page 292, first line of note 458, change "above" to "below." Page 297, line 4, change "him" into "Roman," Page 299, line 22, read "Graeca," not "Gracea." Page 300, line 35, put the Greek in parentheses. Page 310, line i, read "Definition," not "def." Page 312, line 33, read "editions," not "additions." Page 313, line 27, put parenthesis after "man." Page 316, note, line 37, read "that," not "of." Page 316, note, line 38, after the parentheses insert "says." Page 317, lines 8 and 9 of note 472, put brackets where the par- entheses are. Page 320, line 5, put colon after " Cagliari." Page 329, line 19, put quotation marks after " Nicaea." Page 340, note 503, line 2, read "Book," not "Books." Page 349, note 525, line 15, insert comma after " Perceval," and remove comma after ' ' Palmer. ' ' Page 369, line 15 of note 574, change last letter of " Instruaiou " to "n." Page 372, line 31, read " Sophocles," not "Sophosles." Page 378, line 10, omit quotation marks. Page 380, line 28, insert comma after "him." 430 Errata ayid Emoidatioyis and Additiojis. Page 385, line 25, read "has," not "had." Page 385, last line, put apostrophe after "diviner" before "s,'* and quotation marks after "suspicion." Page 391, line 2, put " Sedlion " before "9." Page 400, line 5, put double quotation marks before "More- over." Page 400, line 6, put single quotation mark before "to." Page 400, line 7, put single quotation mark after " Diocese." Page 400, lines 10 and 11, put single quotation mark before "The," and one after "voice." Page 400, line 13, put double quotation marks after "head." Page 400, line 23, put " Se(5lion " before " 12." Page 401, line 7, omit "a," and after "note" insert "521, on page 345." Page 401, line 8, omit " under head 7." Page 401, lines 12 and 13, put "letter to his flock" in Roman. Page 412, line 7, omit "s" in "Provinces." Page 413, line 14, omit "s" in "canons." Page 417, line 9, omit " Christians." Page 417, line 14, omit " of a Christian," and the brackets. Page 417, lines 17 and 18, omit "during which they have been hearers, ' ' and read instead ' ' of the hearing. ' ' Page 417, line 22, read, "hearing," not "Hearers." On page 181, line 15, " Berea" in Bohn's translation, is his trans- lator's mistake for ''Berytus,''^ iniDE^X I. G-enera.! Index. Abd Yeshua, 48. Abeia, 72. Abortion, 126. Absolution, judicial, 4, 6. Abyssinians, the, their present do^ ; Rome shuns Scripture words and sense in stating her idolatr>^, and creature in- vocation, 402. Rome, Bishop of; his rights in his own provmce in Italy, 411; her attempt to obtain Appellate Jurisdidtion in Latin Africa in the fifth century, and re- sistance of Carthage and the Africans thereto, Preface ii. Rood Screen, 71. 464 Index I. — General Index. Roum Kale, Couucil of, A. D. 1179; 57- Rufinus, 146, 326; his Latin Version of the Niceue Creed, 319-324. Russian Church. See " Greek Church,'' and 35. Sabellius, and his heresy; 136, 175, 185, 190, 191. Sacrament, no definition of the Universal Church as to what a sacrament is, nor as to how many there are; the Greeks use not that Latin word, 127, 128. Sacrifices to idols; forbidden in Adls XV. ; page 29. Sacrifice, an act of religious worship and prerogative to God, 234. Sacrifice of the Mass, 4, 6. See ''Eucharist,'" and ''Adoration of the Host, '^ '' Leavened Bread,'' and ''Wafers." Sahag, 58, note. Saints, invocation of See "Invocation of Saints." Samosatenes, 130, 136; 231, test and note. See "Paul of Samosata." Sancroft, Archbishop, iii. Saravia, 136, text and note. Sarmatas, 170, 171, i74, i88- Schaff, P., 25; 32, text and note; 33, 87, 128. Scotch Confession, the, 151-154. Scriptures. See "Bible." Second Ectcmenical Synod. See under "/. Constantinople.''^ Secret Societies, 121. Seleucia, Council of, 215. Secundus, Bishop of Pentapolis, 173, 188, 2S2. Semi-Aria7i. See " Basil of Ancyra." Sendomir, Agreement of, 139. Seventh Ecumenical Council, a, needed, 90-95; will be a glorious gathering, 260, Severus, the heresiarch, 71, 79, 94. Sguropulus. See " Syropulus. ' ' Sheldon, Archbishop, iii. Shimoon, Mar, 45. Simeon the Stylite, 72. Six Bishops, the, sent by James II. to the Tower, all monks, iii. Six Ecumenical Synods, X'a.Q. See under "Greeks," "Latins," "Anglicans," "Lutherans," "Reformed," and " Councils; " in the Latin Communion, SB; they could not err on fadls, 88, 89. Sixth Ecumenical Synod, i, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 104, no; 144, 159. Smith, Thos., 24, 32, 33. Smith and Wace's DiBionary, 85. Smith and Cheetham's DiHionary, 85, 87. Smyrna, 69. Sobeiski and his Poles saved Vienna in 16S3, 260. Socinians, 139. Socrates, the Church Historian, 37, 164, 165, 174, 326. See "Bohn's Socrates;'' for Origen and the view that God has no body, 193-200; an Origenist in part at least, 194-200; is supposed to have omitted something of the Arian, Eusebius of Caesarea, to save his Orthodoxy, page 346, note 524; abused Index I. — General Index. 465 St. Eustathius to favor the Ariau Eusebius of Caesarea, ibid. ; aud so he abuses St. Methodius, St. Eustathius, aud St. Theophilus, because they opposed the errors of his favorite, Origeu, who was afterwards anathema- tized by the Fifth Synod, ibid.; may have omitted a part of the Synodal Epistle of Nicaea because it coudemus Novatiauism, ibid.; is deemed a Novatian, ibid.; may be anathematized by the Fifth Synod, ibid.; on Hosius, on ovala and vnuoTuati, 378-383. Son of God, the. See "Logos;'' we receive all our bleesings through him, 223. Sosates. See " Sotades." Sotades, 200, note 228, and page 202, note 229. Soulish Sifi, what, note 634, page 409. Southgate, Bishop, 71, 72; on the Monophysitism of the Syrians, 73-80; 81 text and note; 82. Sozomen, the Church historian, 164, 165, 214, 215. See " Bohn's;'' aud 326; an Origenist in part, 194-200; his error as to Eustathius, 272, 273. Standiug, when we must stand in prayer, 425. Stanley, Dean, 108; his impiety, 108; his faults, 163. Stigand, 124. Strangled things, 29. Subsistence {vnoaraoLq). See under "Nicaea;'' and "tnorsTaaiq in l3ie Greek Index, and 401, 402, 403. Substance {oiaia). See under "Nicaea;" and Ovaia in the Greek Index; and 4or, 402, 403. Sufferings, the, of Christ. See "Economic Appropriation." Suicer, on Creature-Worship, 232, 233. Supererogation, works of See " Works." Swainson, 85, 87. Swedish Church, 130. Sylvester, Pope, 326; 383, note 604. Synisact zi'omen. See " Co-in-led," 408, 409. Synod at Alexandria, 171. Synod of the Apostles, 28, 29, 30. Syrian Monophysites, that is Jacobites; authorities on, 71 ; what Councils they receive, and what Creeds they use, 71-85; their present dodlrinal position, 71-85; Syrian Monophysite Patriarch, 80, 82, S3. See '' facobites." Syrian Orthodox Bishops; persecuted by Arians, 214. Syrian Romanists, 75. Syrianus, Duke of Eg}'pt, 214. Syrians, not Monophysites; their fault before Nestorius, 107. Syropulus, 27, 29. Table, the Holy; wrongly abolished, 106, 115; not worshippable, 115; its proper position, 125. Tall Brothers, the, 194. Tatian, no. Ten Commandments, 137. Tertullian on Baptism, 15, 123; on clerical digamy, 99; on Eternal Birth, no. 466 hidex I. — General hidex. 191; on the birth of thelvOgos out of theFather's mouth, 189; on " Issue, '^ 190; held that God has a body, 195, 196, 200. Tessaracost. See ''Lent.'" Tetrapolitan Confession, the, 154. Teutonic race ; saved Christendom in Century VIII., 260. Thalia of Arius, poetry, 177, 200-205; 222; remarks on, 205.209; see "Arius;'^ extradts from, 220. Theodo7-e of Mopsuestia, 9, 45; 58, note; 159; results of the sin of letting him die in the Church, 107; a Manuscript History of the Nicene Council said to be his, 267, 268; his notion as to who addressed Constantine, in the Nicene Council, 389, 390. Theodoret of Cyrus, the Nestorian, 44, note; his error on the Eucharist, 105; on Baptism, 123; his abuse of St. Cyril of Alexandria, 163; a Man-server, 169; but opposed to Arius, and to his worship of God the word as a creature. See ''Bohn's'' Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History; on Eustathius, 273, 274; Gelasius of Cyzicus compiles from him, 326. Theodosiiis, Bishop of Laodicea; an Arian, 180, 181. Theodosius I., the Great, Emperor, 155. Theodosius II., Emperor, 58, note. Theodotus, Bishop of Laodicea, an Arian, (wrongly spelled Theodosius in Bohn's translation of Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History,) 181; note 574, page 369. Theonas, Bishop of Marmarica, an Arian, 188, 281, 282. Theophilus, St., of Antioch, against the doclrine of Eternal Birth, 84, no; 180, note 197; 191. Theophilus, St., of Alexandria, his belief as to the question whether God has a body or not, and his diiferences on that matter from some of his monks, from Epiphanius, and from John Chrysostom, and his final agreement on it with St. Epiphanius, 193-200; gathers Synods to condemn Origen, 198; abused by the Origenist Socrates, note 524. Theophylact, on Romans II., 6; page 232. Theorian, on Latin customs and on those of the Greeks, 70. Theotimus, defends Origen, 198, 199. Theotokos, 47. Third Ecumenical Synod, 11, 13, 104, 130, 140, 144; 227, note 300. Thorn, Declaration of, 141, 143, 145. Throne, pagan sin of worshipping a, 105. Timothy, 71. Tittmann, 128. Tolstoy, Count Dmitrj'; on the causes of the fall of Protestantism in Poland, 161. Tradition, the universal historic, 88; the Six Synods decided in accordance with it, 89, 159; all should restore it, 90, 91, 92, 248, 249; what it teaches, 90, 91, 92; 24S, 249; the heretical Councils decided contrary to it, 159; the Ariaus disregarded it, 167, 248, 249. Transubstantiation, 4, 6, 49, 107. See under "Eucharist.''^ TreaVs Catholic Faith, 94, 95. Index I. — Geiieral Index. 467 Trent form of Comtantinopolitan Creed, 144, 157; Trent rejedled by the Scotch Reformed, 153. Tribune, N. V., matter from on the VI. Synods, 3. Trine immersion, 36, 90, 91, 92, 122; 409, note 632. See ''Baptism." See " Binghatn.^' Trinity. See under '' Couticils,'' "Creeds,'' and 5, 8, 134, 136, i37, I54. i55, 225, 226; the Father, Sou, and Holy Spirit, not three Gods, but three Parts of One God, 249. Trisagion, Armenian form of, 57-60; the Greeks on, 59. Tii.rk, the; God's curse, 40. Trullo, Council of; an expression in Canon I. of, 31; on long hair on men, 39; commands the Eucharistic bread and wine to be given separately; its adop- tion of the adlion of Carthage against Rome should be made universal, 93. Tyler, Rev. J. E., his works against different sorts of creature-worship com- mended, 41; 113, note 83; 213. Union of East and West, 10, 12, 36, 40, 41. Universal Church, 2, 12. Universalists, Preface ii. Unleavened bread, 36, 57. See under "Leavened Bread,'' "Eucharist,'^ and " Wafers." See also under a,"ii/ia in the Greek Index. Valens, the Ariau Emperor; he persecuted, 213, 214. Valentinian I., Emperor, 214. Valentinus, 185, 188, 190, 191. Valesius, page 349, note 524; page 374. Vatican Council, A. D. 1870; 88, 92. Veil, the, 40; its use in the Oriental Church derived from the temple service of the Israelites, 69; why never used in the West, 69, 70; the later Creeks have abolished it for the Iconostasis, 69; should be used among them, 92. Venables, 326, 327. Vestments, clerical. See "Colobion," and " Hemiphoriunt." Vifioria, Queen, 105. ViBorinus of Petau, or Pettau, no, 189. Vigilius, Pope, censured by the Fifth Council for not doing his duty against heretics, 263. Vincent of Lerius, no, 215, and Preface vi. Virgin Mary, worship of rejedled, 4, 6, 104. Vladislaus /v., 1A5, ^^2. Voigt, 181. Voltaire, 149- Wafers, in the Eucharist. See ''Eucharist," and pagrs 57, 105 and 107. Waldenses, 139. Waterland, 32, note; 87, note. Western Empire, the, 11. Western Church, 12; customs of, 70; persecuted by Arians, 214-217. Western Communions, 23. Whittingham, Bishop; disobeyed by some of his clerics on Confession, 126. 468 Index I. — General Index. Whoredom^ fleshly, 109. Whoredout, spiritual, 109. William of Hesse, 142. Wilson, 50, 71, 72. Wiseman, Cardinal, authorizes the " Raccolta,^^ 224. Wladislas, 31. Wolff, Dr., 55. Women. Ste " Co-in-led.'" Word, God the. See "Logos," which in Greek means " Word." Works 0/ Supererogation, 36. Worship, adls of mentioned in Scripture, 227, note 302; worship of the Sacred Heart of Jesus; condemned by the Third Synod, 89; to worship Christ as a creature, and by necessary implication any other creature is to turn one's back on God, 222, 228; worship of Saints; see "Invocation 0/ Saints," "Bowing," and " Creature- Worship," 236. Xenajas, 80. Yezdedjerd, ii; 58, note. Young, Bishop of Florida, 44; note 105. Zeno, Bishop of Verona, no. Zosimus, Pope, 5. Zosimus, the pagan historian; his account of Constantine's Conversion, 385-388. Ztiinglian Creed, the, 150. 4i ( Index. iisrr)EX II. INDEX TO TEXTS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE. REMARKS. The Creed of Nicaea is almost wholly in the exafi words of Scrip- ture and wholly in its se7ise. That will be shown at length in another volume of this set on Nicaea, where a comparison is made between the two. Both the Ecumenical Creeds, that of the First Council, and that of the Second, are preeminently Scriptural; and so are of supreme authority as being couched in inspired language, as well as being the utterances of that Universal Christ-commissioned Apostolate to whom He has promised His Holy Spirit to guide them into all truth (i) and which is to abide with them in teaching (and in defining and in ruling which are parts of teaching), to the end of the world (2). The Holy Spirit guided them into the truth in their two meetings or Councils at Jerusalem of which we read in A(5ls XI. and XV. , and in the Six Ecumenical Councils thereafter; and by His aid they drew up the two Ecumenical Creeds, all their Definitions on them and on the Faith, and all such of their Canons as were received and approved by the whole Apostolate, East and West. And because the Decisions of the Six Councils of the whole Christian world were put forth with the promised help and guidance of the Holy Ghost, therefore he who contravenes and rejedls them is to be counted by us *'as a heathen man and a publican " (Matt. XVIII., 17), For, led by the Spirit of God, the Christian Church is '' the pillar and ground of the truth'' (I. Tim. III., 15); and whatsoever its Apostolate binds on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever they loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. XVIII., 18). (i). John XIV., 16, 17; John XV., 26; John XVI., 13. (2). Matt. XXVIII., 19, 20. ,470 Index. The Synodal Epistle of Nicaea imitates Scripture language, more or less, as do the Canons also, but the direct quotations of texts are found only in Canon II., where I. Timothy III., 6, is cited, and in Canon XVII., where Psalm XV., 5 (Psalm XIV., 5, Septuagint), is quoted. Yet the expression in Canon XII. about dogs reticrnmg to their own vomit, is a plain imitation of the language of Proverbs XXVI., II, and II. Peter II., 22; and the expression Eucharist (3), that is Thanksgivi?ig, applied to the Lord's Supper in Canons XIII. and XVIII., is plainly derived from the statement that the Lord gave thanks for the leavened bread (4) {apTuq), and the wine in that sacred rite (5). The texts most relied on by the Orthodox for the Divinity of the Logos and for his consubstantiality and coeternity with the Father were John VIII., 42, '' I came out of God.' ^ John XVI., 28, '' I came out of the Father,'" and Hebrews I., 3, " Character of His Substance.'" Hence we find them so often quoted below and elsewhere. It is to be very much regretted that all of them are sadly mis- translated in our common King James' Version. I hope to revise that Version soon, if means be given me to pub- lish it. St. Athanasius in his Treatises Against Arianism treats of several texts and refutes the Arian perversion of them; but I ought to add that Newman's translation does not always clearly bring out St. Athanasius' meaning, because he unwisely follows our inaccurate English Common Version of some of them. See under them all below also, and the Scripture Indexes to Athanasius' works, those to Epiphanius, and those to the other Orthodox champions. The texts oftenest perverted by the Arians, and most relied on by them were the Septuagint of Proverbs VIII., 22, and Colossians I., 15. Others will be found mentioned in Athanasius' Treatises, where he refutes their perversions of them. (3). Greek, EhxapLdTia. (4). Greek, cvxapiarijcaQ, Matt. XXVI., 27; Mark XIV., 23; Luke XXII., 19; and I. Cor. XI., 24. (5). See the texts referred to in the note last above. Index. 471 OLD TESTAMENT. GENESIS. I., 26 384 XII., I 231, note 309 XV., 7 231, note 309 XVII., 1-4 231, note 309 XIX., 24 231, note 310 XXXII., 30 231, note 309 XLVIIL, 15, 16-223; 231, note 309 EXODUS. XX., 1-7 228, note 303 XX., 4, 5 —243; 245, note 375 XX., 4, 5, 6 40, 106 XXXII., 5 109 DEUTERONOMY. IV., 12 134 v., 7-11 248 VI., 4 240 XVII., 2,3,5,6,7 248 XXXII., 18; 367, text, and note 568 JUDGES. XIII., 16 234, note 325 II. SAMUEL. XIV., 14 245 I. KINGS. XII., 28, etc 109 II. KINGS. XXII., 1-20 12 II. CHRONICLES. XXXIV., 1-33 12 NEHEMIAH. IX., 7 231, note 309 IX., 18 109 JOB. XVIII., 5 221 XXXVIII., 28, Sept. ; 367, text, and note 570. PSALMS. IL, 7 233, note 318 XV., 5, (XIV., 5, Septua- gint); 421. XXXIII., 6 189, 245, 246 XLIV., I, vSept., (Ps. XLV., I, King James Ver- sion), 180, note 195; 189. XLV., 6 231, note 312 LXXVIII., 58 106 LXXXI., 6,Sept.(LXXXII.,6, English Version); 219, notes 272, 273. LXXXVIII., 6, Sept.; 242 CIX., 3, Sept. (Psalm CX., 3, King James Ver- sion), 187, note 220; 189, 193; 368, note 571- ex., I 231, note 311 CXLV., 13 231, note 313 PROVERBS. VIIL, 22, 23, 25, Sept. ; note 200 on page 180; page 191, 277, 338; 472 Index. 343, note 515; page 365, text, aud notes 554, 558; page 366, text, and note 560; page 367, note 563, IX., 18 221 ISAIAH. I., 2, Sept.; 367, text, and note 566. II., 3 328, 329 XlylL, 8 228, note 303 XLV., 14, Sept 235, twice. XIvV., pages 14, 15, 16, as in Faustin's Latin translation of the Septuagint Greek Version, 251, 252. JEREMIAH. III., 23, Sept 241 L., 38 70 LAMENTATIONS. IIL, 40 40 EZEKIEL. IIL, 18, 20 248 VIII., 3 to 18 inclusive 106 XXXIIL, 6 248 DANIEL. IIL, 1-30; 242, text, and note 361. VIL, 9 200 HOSEA. XIII., I, 2, 3 109, 253 XIV., 3, etc 244 APOCHRYPHA. ECCLESIASTICUS. XXIV., 3 189, thrice BARUCH. III., 35 242 NEW TESTAMENT. MATTHEW. IIL, 6 16, twice IIL, 17; 222; 233, note 319, and page 253. IV., 10; pages 107, 108, 115, 183, 192; 113; 219, note 271; page ,225, (John IV., 20, is there a mistake for Matt. IV., 10); page 228, note 302, twice, and note 2Pl\ page 329, note 478; page 240, 243 249, 255; page 316, note 472; page 325; note 553 on page 365; 373, note 591. IV., II 234, note 320 v., 15 221, note 287 v., 29 169 XVII., 5 233, note 319 XVIIL, 15-21 263 XVIII. , 17, 18; pages 2, 10, II, 86, 98; 345, note 521, twice; page Index. 473 346, uote522; page 36S, note 571; page 373, note 592. XVIII., 15-21 263 XIX., 12 116 XXVIII., 16-20 263 XXVIII., 17 240, note 355 XXVIII., 19 330, 340 XXVIII., 19, 20; pages 2, 15, 90, 134; page 345, note 521. MARK. I., II 233, note 319 I., 13 234, note 320 IV., 21 221, note 287 IX., 7 233, note 319 XII., 29 240 XII., 29, 30 104, 115 XVI., 16 345, note 521 IvUKE. II., 32 219, note 275 III., 22 233, note 319 IV., 8; page 228, note 302, and page 243. See Matt. IV., 10. IX., 35 - — -233, note 319 XI., 33 221, note 287 XVIII., 2 note 594, page 377 JOHN. I., i; 134, 212; 231, note 315; page 373, note 592. I-. 3; 235, note 338; page 237, note 342, and page 245, note 379. I., 9, 10 219, note 275 I., 14; 212, 238; 373, note 592 III., 16 250, note 397 IV., 21, 22, 24; page 228, note 302. VIH.,42; page 179, note 192; page 187, notes 219, 221; page 193; 218, note 271; page 364, note 55 1 ; page 365, notes 554, 558; page 36S, note 571. IX., 38 240, note 355 X., 30 250, 384 X., 33 357 XIII., 13 235 XIV., 6 225, 242 XIV., 9; 219, note 278; page 235, note 337. XIV., 16, 17, 18 and 26 2 XIV., 16, 17 345, note 521 XV., 16 235, note 330 XV., 26 2, 45, 82 and 245 XVI., 7-17 2 XVI., 13 345, note 521 XVI., 15 235 XVI., 23, 24, 26-. 235, note 330 XVI., 28; page 179, note 192; page i87,notes 219, 221; page 193; 364, note 551; page 365, notes 554, 555 and 558; page 568, note 571. XVII., 3 241, 246 XVII., 5, 10 134 XVII., II, 21, 22, 23 93 XVII., 15 194 XVIIL, 28 125 XX., 21-24 263 XX., 28; 212, 235; 373, note 592 ACTS. II., 36; page 231, note 316; page 236. II., 38; page 109; 318 note474; page 330. IV., 12 235, note 339 VI., 7 69 VII., 1-4 231, note 309 VII., 42 22S, note 302 X., 26 234 X., 34 245, note 377 XIII., II 233, note 318 474 Index. XV., 1-36; pages 28, 29, 94, 263; 269 twice. XV., 29 287, note45o>^ XVIII., 22— 400 ROMANS. I., 22, 25 243, 245 L, 25; page 228, note 302; pages 229,245, 237- I., 25 and after 250, 251 XL, 5 99 II., 6 232 VI., 5 330; 409, note 632 IX., 5 221 XVI., 25 185, note 211 I. CORINTHIANS. I., 24; page 208, note 258; page 219, note 276. v., 2 106 v., 3-6 106 v., II 248 v., 10,11 120 VI., 9, 10 228, note 302 VII., 38 113 VIII., 6; page 237, note 342; page 246, test and note 386. X., 4, 9 231, note 309 XL, 14 - 39 II. CORINTHIANS. IV., 4; page 219, note 276; page 231, note 314. v., 8 36 GALATIANS. I., I 169, note 152 I., 8, 9--193; 345, note 521 II., II 287, note, 450>^ v., 19-22; page 228, note 302; page 249. EPHESIANS. IV., 5; 318, note 474, page 330 v., 27 -39 VI., 13, 17 368, note 571 PHILIPPIANS. II., 6 200 II., 10 235, note 330 COLOSSIANS. I., 15; page 219, note 276; page 231, note 314; page 337; 339, note 50X. I., 18 239 II., 12 330 I. THESSALONIANS. III., II 223 v., 9 235, note 339 II. THESSALONIANS. III., 6 249 I. TIMOTHY. I., 20 106 III., 2, 12 99 III., 6 409 IIL, 15 — 2 IV., I— 152 IV,, I, 2 218, note 269 II. TIMOTHY. I., 9; page 185, notes 207 and 211; 1S6, note 211. I., 15 19 IV., 3 - 19 TITUS. I-. 6 99 I., 14 218 IIL, 5 409, note 632 HEBREWS. L, 2 — 235, note 338 !•, 3; P^gs i79,note 192; page 203, note 233; page 218, text, and note 271; page2ig, Index 475 text aud uote 274, page364, note 551; 365, notes 554, 555 aud 558; page 366, note 558. I., 5 233, note 318 I., 6; page 186, note 212; page 228, note 302; page 234, text, and notes 321,326; page 240, text, and notes 356, 357; page 252; page 365, note 553. v., 5 233, uote 318 v., 9, etc 235, uote 339 VII., 25 225 IX., 10 69 IX., 14 212 XII., 28 228, note 302 JAMES. I., 17 219, note 275 v., 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18-- 127 I. PETER. II., 5,9 124 II. PETER. I., 17; page 233, text, and note 319. I. JOHN. I., 5 219, note 275 II., 1,2 - 225 II., 20 124 v., 7 134 v., 20, 212; 373, note 592 JUDE. I., 8 186, uote 212 REVELATIONS. I., 6 4, 6, 124 IV., 2 200 X., 6 185, note 211 XIV., 4 173, note 166 XIV., 9, II 228, note 302 XIV., 13 36 XVI., 2 228, note 302 XIX., 10; page 228, note 302; page 234. XXI., 8; page 109; page 228, note 302; page 249; page 345, uote 521. XXII., 8, 9; page 22S, note 302 ; page 234, texts, and note 324. 476 hidex III. — Index to Greek Words a7id Greek Expressions. INIDKX IIL INDEX TO GREEK WORDS AND GREEK EXPRESSIONS. For the chief distin(5lively Orthodox terms, see in the General hidex under " Orthodox test- terms.''' A part of them are specified below. The rest are found as above. See, for the terms and expressions used by the Arians to state their heresies, under " Arian test-terms." ayevTjToyevij^, bom without being made; page 179, note 191. ayEvvrjToyevij^, bom without being created; page 179, note 191. ayefjjTog, unmade; page 229, note 306. ayevvTjToq^ tmcreated; page 202, note 231; page 343, note 514; page 366, note 561. ddfwf, without fear; page 302, note 471. aeiyevT/g, always born; page 179, note 191. al^v/ia, unleavened wafers, unleavened things; pages 31, 36, 57, 125. hQeoTTiroq^ Atheism, being without God; page 226, note 297; the term is applied by Athanasius to the Arians, ibid. adeovc, Atheists, that is, being zvithout God; note 502 on page 373. dipeciv, heresy, applied to Arian creature-worship; page 218, note 268. aiuviuv, page 184, note 207. See there for its meaning. aX}.0LUT6v, convertible; page 306. dvaOe/iari^ei y KadaliKy 'EKKh/aia, the Universal Church anathematizes, that is curses; page 306. avaTJioiuTo^, not convertible into anything else; page 180. avOpuKoTiarpEia, giving service, that is worship, to a Man; St. Athanasius con- demns it as creature-zvorship and contrary to Scripture; page 233, top. hidexJII. — Index to Greek Words and Greek Expressions. 477 av8puKo?.aTpeu, to serve, that is to worship a Man; page 233. av6puTro?.aTf)7}i, Matt-Service, that is, Man-worship, that is, worshipping a Man; page 233. dvdpuTTOipayia, eating a Man, that is, Man-eating, that is cannibatism, charged by St. Cyril of Alexandria on Nestorius as the necessary result of his error of the adlual eating of Christ's human body in the Eucharist; page 50. an£iKdC,ovTE(:, likening; page 242, note 362. dvt)p(jTT(jv alperiKuv aaaraxiiTuv^ uncatechizcd heretical men; page 180, note 194. ano,from, how it differs from «, out of; page 193. (XTTo Tov Ytoi), from the Son; page 33. 'Apeiofiavlrai, Ariomaniacs , that is, Arian maniacs; page 226, note 297. dpTOf, leavened bread; pages 31, 57, 125. hpxn avToi', He began Him, or He rules Him; page 187, note 218. dpxn^ origin, originator, fiiav apxvv, one originator; page 226, note 293; rpElc dpxdq, three originators; page 226, note 292: Arian senses. dpxh avTov, His Originator; page 187, note 217: Arian sense. apxifv-f beginning; page 277. The Orthodox taught that the Father is the source {tt/v dpxvv) of the Logos and the Holy Ghost, but not that He made them. They had always been in Him before they came out of Him. dpxitniaKOTTOQ, Archbishop, or Chief Bishop; page 173, note 168. dpxupm, High Priest; page 168, text, and note 148; 273, text, and note 42S. dpxupuavv?/, High Priesthood, that is, the episcopate; page 168, text, and note 148. dct^iovciv, they are impious; page 227, note 297, where St. Athanasius charges the Arians with impiety for asserting that God the Word is a creature, and so with falling into the sins of polytheism and creature-worship. See the text of pages 226, 227, 228 and 229 on that, d^' ov yeyovEv, from when He was made; page 208, note 257. yEVTfd^ai, made; page 309. y£v;?r6f , made, cannot be said of God; page 243. V>:vvr]T6i, born, may be used of the birth of God the Word, ibid. Eusebius of Caesarea, the Arian, uses yevrirk in the sense of created; page 343. note 513. Vevvrdq used in the sense of made, and created, on page 229, note 306, and on page 358, note 534- ytwdo, to brittg forth; passive, to be born; page 179, note 191; pages 181, 182, 306, 309, 322; 343, note 512; 344, note 517; page 367, notes 563, 564, 567. See also TTpfv, etc., below. yevvT,T6^, generated, born; page 202, note 231; page 243, note 369; page 366, note 562, and page 367, note 563. ypd^u, page 397; to write {to subscribe?), page 397. 478 Index III. — Index to Greek Words and Greek Expressions. 6i' avTov, through Him; page 237, note 342. dofaf, dignities, glories; page 186, note 212. <5oi)?iO(, servatits, slaves; note 329, page 235. <5vdf, Duad; page 204, note 239. Iv fidof Qtbfqror^^ one kind of Divinity; note 297, page 226. cI(5wAo' blasphemy against themselves; that is to their own harm. e'lKova, likeness, used for Nebuchadnezzar's graven image; page 242, note 362, In the passages of Scripture following which speak of the lyOgos as born out of {iyC) the Father the Orthodox took h. in that first and radical sense, and so insisted, in accordance with Hebrews I., 3, Char- a^er of his Substance, that as born out of Him He was ''ofthe same substance as the Father ' ' {op-oobaio^ T a'cwvui', "who ivas born out of the Father before all the worlds;" page 83. £K TOV Yioii, " out of the Son," page 33. 'tv T(3 bvdiiaTi 'Irjaov, "in the name offcsus;" page 235, note 330. £f ano'ppoiaq Tf/g ovaiac, " outflow from His substance;" page 365, note 557, i^avTov, "out of Him;" page 1S7, note 219; page 246, note 387; page 365, note 555; compare '^'' ov, page 246, note 389. t^ hepaq vTroaTiiaeuc v ovalug, "out of another subsistence or substance;" page 382. k^ ovK. dvTuv, " out of things not existing," that is, " out of nothing;" page 207, notes 249, 250; page 346, note 523; page 392, note 619. cf vir-oKEi/xsvov Tivog, ovSe, " nor out of any previously existing thing; " page 181, note 201. eniKaAov/xeda, " we invoke;" page 239, note 350. mi^avia, " Christmas," and "Epiphany," that is, "showing; " page 60 cTTuiavwg, " manifest," "shown; " page 60. hepoeiSig, "difference of kind;" page 226, note 297. H jjyijaaTo^ "led," " was a leader;" page 262. ijui^dpiov, "a half pharos; " page 166, note 140. yuioopwv, "a half pharos;" page 166, note 140. ^v TTOTE ore ovK f/i>, "there was once when He was not; " page 207, note 251; page 346, note 523; page 392, note 620. e Qtov EK eeor, " God out of God; " pages 306, 307, 402. Ofof, irliipTjq jiovoytviig^ "full God, sole generated ;" note 198, page 180. QtoT^Koq, " B ringer forth of God;" pages 47, 156. Qeoodvui, "The God showing," " Theophany," i\i&\. is, "Epiphany," and also ' ' Christinas; ' ' page 60. 480 Index III. — Index to Greek Words and Greek Expressions. 'lepa KuTTixwtC, ■' Sacred Insiru^ion;^' 59. lepd Iii'voijuc, " Sacred Synopsis " or "Sacred Conipendimn; " page 32. K Ka0oAiK7jv Kul cnrnaTo?.tKT/v tKK/.r/aiav, " Universal and Apostolic Church, ■'' pages 52, ^6, 307, 313, 314, 315, 319; compare for Latin translations pages ^20, 321, and 324. Karopdufiaai, " rightings; '' page 299, note 468. Koivy ■4'f/v, " by a common vote; " page 303. KOivwvdf, '^^ sharer; " page 278, text, and note 439. kq\o^'ujv and ko/mISiov, "an undergarment with short sleeves; " page 166, note 141. KTiC,u, "I build, I create;'" pages 277 and 191; page 365, note 558; and in the Index to Texts of Scripture. See under Proverbs VIII., 22. /cr/(7i(j, page 185, uote 210. CVV060V (HKovfiEviKi/v, Ecumenical Council, that is a Council of the ivholc Christian World; page 259. ^vvofig 'Upd, Sacred Compendium, Sacred Synopsis; page 32. ovvv-KocTijc^avToq, page 1 86, note 212. See also vTvoct-iit^avra below. For the mean- ing see note 212. TEKVO ■:zon/anc, for the meaning see note 232; page 203, note 232. ■psTTTov, mutable; pages 306, 322. vrraynpEvaav-tg, suggested, diBated, recited; notes 576, 581, on page 370. v-n-oaraaii, subsistence, substance; page 186, note 214; page 203, note 233; page 218, note 271; page 344, note 517; pages 378, 379, 380. Ipnq vTvoardGeic, 379, 380, 381, 382, 401. vTroarrjaavra, page 185, note. See also nvvv-jx-narljaavroq above. For the meaning see note 20S on page 185. 1) ipvpaiQ, mixture; page 242, note 360. ^vGig, nature; page 242, note 360; page 343, note 514. xnpaKTijp tt'iq vnoardasug nvToh, Character of His Substance; Hebrews I., 3; page 203, note 233; page 218, uote 271; page 365 and 366, note 558. xdpiq, favor, grace; page 238, notes 347, 348. XpiororoKoc, Bringer Forth of the Anointed One; 156. Xp6vog: Ti po xpdvuv lifii nph aluvuv KTiaHtvra, created before times and before worlds, page 185, note 211. T^po xpovuv aluviuv, before world-times, page 186, note 211. FOR A GRATEFUI. AND ETERNAL REMEMBRANCE OF A MIRACLE OF GOD'S MERCY IN SAVING THE BULK OF THE PAGES OF THIS VOLUME OF THE FIRST ECUMENICAL COUNCIL FROM UTTER DESTRUCTION. As far back as 1861, I could see the importance of the Six Sole Synods of the Undivided Church on matters of Church Authority. For in my ''History of the Modes of Christian Baptism,'" published in that year, I find that I have mentioned them as authoritative. About A. D. 1864, I had seen so much idolatrous and creature-wor- shipping Romanizing on the one hand, and of infidelizing on the other among some of the clergy and especially among some of those of the Anglican Communion, (not one of twenty of whom thoroughly understood them), and the consequent ruin of their souls and the souls of such as they idolatrized or infidelized, that I determined to do the good work of translating them for the general good. I hoped by so doing to do away with the misrepresentations put forth by errorists regarding them, and to show that their decisions are all good and that the observance of them would be a blessing. So I toiled in season, out of season, early and late, in cold and heat, on my chosen task through long years, till I had broken myself down by my labors in nervous prostration. I had translated all the Decis- ions of the whole Six, and everything of the first Three, but could not publish for lack of funds. But in my sickness and its deep mis- ery, I found friends in Bishop Potter, of New York; Rev. Dr. Morgan Dix, of Trinity Church, New York; and Rev. Dr. J. H. Hopkins, and those whose names appear on the list in this volume of sub- scribers to the Fund to Publish the Six Ecumenical Councils, for they furnished me means to begin to print. From June, 1890, to March, 1S91, I had proceeded with the work of printing, correcting proof, etc. , had expended for the work part of my own very small means, and all that had been given me up to a certain date; and felt joyful at the success of my work for Christ, and His Church and People, and so at last the 425 pages of the main body of my Volume I. of Nicaea had all been finished and set up, and electrotyped, and Doan & Pilson, of Jersey City, N. J., my printers, had sent the plates, with about $68 dollars' worth of paper to print them on, to the Argus Newspaper and Job office, 44 Montgomery St., in that city. I had paid about $350 on the plates, one-half of their total cost, and the $68 for the paper. And now, after my long years of toil in translating and writing, I hoped that I should soon see the first volume on Nicaea in print, and that it might interest scholars and lead them to publish other vol- umes of this set, which have been ready for the press for a long time and waiting for a publisher. The plates had been sent to the Arg7is office in the week ending Saturday, March 21, 1891, and on that Saturday, about 10.30 at night I was in Hobokeu, and then started to walk to my home in Jersey City, corner of Grove and York Streets. On the way, about II P. M., I noticed a fire eastward, down toward the Hudson River, lighting up the sky under the low-lying, raining clouds. About the corner of Fourth or Fifth Street, on Grove, I asked a groceryman whom I saw putting in his stuff preparatory to closing, where the fire was. He told me that it was said to be the A?'gus office. I thought of my plates, and anxiously asked two others, whom I met further on, one or both of whom had been near the fire, and one of them told me that it was the Argus, and he expressed his sympathy for me at what he deemed the certain loss of my plates. But I still believed that God would not suffer them to be destroyed, went home, knelt down, and prayed God the Father for Christ's sake to save them and added the words ' 'djy viiracle if necessary, " for I knew that nothing but a miracle could save them in that great flame. My prayer was short and in substance, or in exact words as follows: ' ' Heavenly Father thou seest that I have been working for Thee and the good of thy Church these many years in translating the Utter- ances of thy Church in the Six Ecumenical Councils; and the peril in which my work now is, plates and paper, from fire. I pray thee to save them, by miracle, if necessary, for Christ's sake. Amen." The plates were in seven wooden boxes, 64 in each of the first six boxes, and 41 in the last. They were on the fourth floor, one of the most flame-swept and most utterly destroyed in the whole building. I did not know when I uttered my prayer that part of them had already been destroyed by the flames. The first box full, 64, had been put on the press, 500 copies of each had been printed, and the 64 had been returned and put into their own box. The second box had been opened, and 500 copies of the first 16 pages, that is pages 65 to 80 inclusive, had been printed, and they had been returned, and pages 81 to 96 inclusive had been put on the press in their place, and pages 97 to 128 inclusive were out of the box on the marble impos- ing stone to be used on the press, when the 16 pages, St to 96 inclu- sive, on the press were returned. The flames on the fourth floor had burnt up the opened box which had contained plates 65 to 128 inclu- sive, and the 48 pages of that 64, which were on the marble slab. It was about 40 by 36 inches, and about 3 inches thick. The only- ones saved out of that box were the 16 which were on the press, which was on the second floor, where the fire had raged around them and above them and had injured the press itself, but happily had not destroyed them. And God had answered my prayer regarding all the rest of the 425 plates, though I did not know it until Monday, March 23, 1891, after things had got cool; then I learned how God had answered my prayer -and wrought a miracle. Mr. Doan had before gone up the burnt stairs running from the third floor to the fourth, and looked and saw the fire smoldering and did not see the boxes, but deemed it un- safe to go on the fragment of the fourth floor which was all that was left of it. On Monday morning about 10 o'clock, Mr. Compton, who had charge of the fourth floor, and of the work on it and who therefore knew where my plates were, with Mr. Delavan, the book- keeper for ih^Argics, and Mr. Pilson, went up on what remained of it, though none of them had expected to find the plates safe. For every- thing about was a scene of ruin. The roof and the fifth floor had fallen and so had the bulk of the fourth. And on the fourth, and about where my plates had been, everything was burnt down; but on the fragment of the fourth which yet remained and which was yet covered with the burnt stuff which had fallen on it when the roof and the fifth floor came down, and with thestufi'burnt on the fourth itself, they saw on the floor the large marble slab or table which is termed the imposing stone, which was covered with the remains of burnt wood, etc. On its being lifted, it broke into pieces, for it had been cracked and destroyed by the fierce flame which had raged over, under, and around it; but under it the searchers found the 6 boxes which contained 361 of my plates. The 6 boxes had all been on fire and were all more or less burned on the tops and sides; some of them, indeed all of them so much so that there was not a perfect one among them. Therefore the finders took the plates out of them at once. The 6 were charred wood, and in places the fire had burned through some or all of them to the edge of the plates, one of which had been slightly touched by it. But it had a bad mistake on it and should have been corredled; and it has been. The others, 360, came out unscathed by the raging flame, as the three Hebrew children came ovit of the fiery furnace (Daniel III. , 1-30). How were they preserved? I answer that after the whole six boxes were on fire on their tops and sides, the woodei\ legs of the heavy marble slab, which were on fire, gave way and it fell over them all completely covering them and quench- ing the flames which it struck, and when the firemen threw water on the flames it extinguished the rest. Had the legs given away differently the slab would have been pitched in another direction and the boxes and their contents would have all been destroyed. The 48 plates and the open box from which they had been taken were utterly ruined. No trace of that box could be found. It, with the 48 plates taken out of it, had been on top of the imposing stone, not under it. And so fierce and hot had been the flames that the leaden amalgam backing to the 48 destroyed copper faced plates had run into one or two masses together, and even some of the copper had been burnt away, and drops of the melted glass from the skylight had fallen upon the copper of one of the two lumps of burnt plates when they were hot and remained imbedded in them. I have preserved one of them as a proof of the power of the heat where all my plates but 16 were and of the miracle of God's mercy in preserving the 361 in boxes right near the burnt 48. Underneath the marble slab and the 6 boxes the fire on the floor below had burned holes through the fourth floor, and here and there right near the plates; and about two or three feet beyond them the whole floor had been burnt and had fallen. Noth- ing right near my plates had been saved. There were ten or fifteen thousand dollars' worth of plates in the building, but nearly all were utterly destroyed. Only a few odd plates could be found. Of my paper over two-thirds were saved and usable, though part of the other third had been injured, some of it by fire, the rest by water. And though I had no insurance on the matter lost, kind friends have told me that they would give me something and the printers have offered to bear another part of the loss, so that all the damage will be fully repaired. Surely God, who inspired the Bishops at Nicaea to draw up its Creed, has, by miracle, saved its reprodudlion in my hands. Surely Christ, the Great Head of the Universal Church, who helped Athan- asius and his other Orthodox servants in their long and hard struggle against the rage of the powerful Arian Emperors, Constantius and Valens, and the whole unbelieving and creature-serving Arian party, and gave vi(5lory tahis work in their hands, will if we are faithful, help us against the unbelieving and the creature-serving of our day, and give final vidlory to His holy and saving work for the Christian faith in our hands. Seeing this miracle, we may all, with the best of reason, thank God and take courage. To All Chbistiah Scholars. NOTE WELL THE MOST IMPORTANT AND MOST AUTHORITATIVE CHRISTIAN DOCUMENTS NEXT TO THE SCRIPTURES NOW TRANSLATED IN FULL FOR THE FIRST TIME. A TRANSLATION INTO ENQLISH OF the; Six Ecumenical Councils, THE SOLE UTTERANCES OF THE WHOLE CHURCH BEFORE ITS DIVISION INTO EAST AND WEST IN THE NINTH CENTURY. TRANSLATED BY JAMES CHRYSTAL, M. A., AND OTHERS. The Terms are, Three Dollars a Volume to Subscribers to the Set; Four Dollars to all others. Books sent Prepaid on receipt of price. All orders and subscriptions should be forwarded by Money Order, Cheque, or Registered Letter, to JAMES CHRYSTAL, 255 Grove Street, Jersey City, New Jersey, U. S. A. The following fa(5ls should be remembered : 1. These documents, being the utterances of the undivided Church, stand next in authorit}- to the Bible itself. 2. The great bulk of the Christian world. Reformed and Unre- formed, professes to respect their docftrines; indeed they are embodied, to a greater or less extent, in the iormularies of all who profess to be Trinitarians. 3. There can be no union among the separated parts of Chris- tendom, unless on the basis of their docftrine, discipline and rite. 4. Their decisions are perfecflly sound, for they teach scriptural truth without idolatry and without infidelity. 5. The need of a translation of them all into English has long been felt by scholars, but the great extent of the work has deterred men from undertaking it. Not one-tenth of the matter in them has been rendered into English. 6. This is the only translation of all their Decisions and Minutes ever attempted into English or any other modern language. If God prospers the work, and causes the subscriptions to it, and the gifts to the Publication Fund to come in in sufficient quantity, it is purposed to put out about one volume a year on the average, which at three dollars puts it within the power of the poorest cleric to get it, for it is less than a cent a day. Besides the original and the translation of the decisions it will contain matter historical, biographical, and theo- logical; and explanatory notes, with quotations from St. Athanasius, St. Epiphanius, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and from other acflors in the scenes of the past, with much of the original Greek and Latin of ancient writers, and somewhat of German and French in the notes. No clergyman who would be well informed on the great funda- mentals of Christian faith can afford to lack one volume of the set- Each volume will make a most desirable Christmas or Easter or birthday present for a Clergyman, a Lord's Day School Superintend- ent, or for any intelligent man. And great good for Orthodoxy can be done by its circulation. Kvery one's aid is therefore earnestly solicited, for the greater the number of workers the greater the strengthening of the faith which saves. Copious General Indexes, with Indexes of Holy Scripture and of Greek words and Greek Expressions will accompany the volumes, each in its proper place. The first volume of Nicaea is now ready. It contains all the undoubted remains of the Synod in Greek and English; that is its Creed, its Synodal Epistle and its XX. Canons. Besides it gives a translation of Arius' own statements, those of his partisan, Evisebius of Nicomedia, and others of his heresy; and, on the other hand, four- teen passages from St. Athanasius and six from St. Epiphanius against his errors, and other quotations from other Orthodox writers. The work is divided into eight Chapters; the first two of which show how the Six Ecumenical Councils are regarded in the East, that is, in the Greek Church, and among the Nestorians, and among the Monophy sites; and in the West, that is, in the Latin Communion, and among the larger Divisions of the Reformed, that is among the Anglicans, the Lutherans, and the Presbyterians or Reformed, as they are also termed. The Third Chapter contains a full account of the Heresies of Arius; the Fourth treats of the Council itself; the Fifth of Documents before the Council, but bearing on it; the Sixth on the Synodal Epistle; the Seventh on the Creed, and the Eighth on the Canons. The volume is made more convenient and useful and valuable by a full Table of Contents in front, and three Indexes at the end, namely: i. A General Index; 2. An Index to Scripture Texts referred to ; and 3. An Index to Greek Words and Greek Expressions found in it. The volume is printed on good stout paper, which, differently from much of the poor stuff sometimes put in books, allows of ink being used for the scholars' notes in the margin. The pages are wider than the English edition of the Oxford Library of the Fathers, and than those of the Ante-Nicene Christian Library. The text is in good readable Long Primer type, and the notes are in Brevier. The aim has been to make it a work for the scholar, one that he may peruse with pleasure and profit, and such as may prove a lasting- benefit to the Church everywhere, and especially among the English- speaking nations, who so much need it at this crisis in their history, on which hangs their future fate, when so many of their clergy, who know them not, are idolatrizing or infidelizing. It will have a tendency to keep them in the path of sound faith and to save them from bringing a curse on themselves and their people. This volume on Nicaea, with the forematter, makes about 500 pages. The next volumes to be issued will, if God will, be the two or three of the Third Ecumenical Council, held at Ephesus, A. D. 431. They contain the first and only translation of the entire Minutes and Decisions ever made into English. The first volume will be issued as soon as the means are furnished. Subscriptions at $3 a volume are desired. Send in name and full address. Pay on delivery of the volume. LIST OF WOEKS OF THIS SET AND THEIR PEESENT STATE. COUNCIL. VOLUME. SUBJECT MATTER. ITS STATE. Nicaea, A. D. 325 ■ Vol. I. The Undisputed Reniaius of Nicaea Published. Nicaea, A. D. 325- Vol. II. The Disputed Remains, and the Spurious. Notes on the Genuine Canons; and an Ac- count of the Defence by Carthage in centu- ries V. and VI. of its Rights, by the Canons of Nicaea, against the attempt of Rome to get Appellate Jurisdidtiou there. All of it can be made ready in a year. Part of it is now ready. Nicaea, A. D. 325- Vol. III. A Dissertation on the words in the Anathe- ma at the end of the Nicene Creed, " The Uni- versal Church anathematizes those who say thai * * * * t/if. Son uf God * * * ^as not before He was born.'' It contains all the testimonies of Ante- Nicene Christian Writers yet extant, except some of Origen, on the question whether the consiibstanlial and co- eternal Logos of the Father luas born out of Him eternally or only just before the Worlds were made, with the difference between the Nearly ready, or ready for the press. COUNCIL. VOLUME. SUBJECT MATTER. ITS STATIC. Nicaea, A. D. 325- Val. III. Ah'.raiidiian School and the rest of the Church oil it. Enough of Origen will be mentioned to show his miud on that matter. On Ter- tuUiau's testimony, and perhaps on one or two others, it i.s hoped that this volume will be fuller than even Bishop Bull's great De- fence of the Nicfiic Faith. Nearly ready, or ready for the pre.ss. Nicaea. A. D. 325. Vol. IV., and per- haps V. v., per- hap.s. I I., II. and perhaps III A Dissertation on the Question Whether God the Father has a Body or not, containing pa.ssages from ancient Christian Writers ou that theme, which show how they differed. This, or another volume on Nicaea, will con- tain a Dissertion on the question Whether the Apostles really made the Creed which is noiv commonly called the Apostle's, with a Review of a writing of Natalis Alexander on that point; with extradls from Fathers, etc. Partly ready. Nearly ready Nicaea, A. D. 325- This, or another volume, will contain a work on the Aute-Niceue Local Creeds, Ques- tions in the Ante-Baptismal Offices, and Doc- trinal Statements. About ready. I. Coustauti- iiople, A. D.3S1. All the Remains of the Second Ecumenical Synod in Greek and English; with an account of the use of its Creed in Boptisnial and Eucharistic Offices, etc. Nearly ready. Ephesus, A . C. 431- All the Minutes, Decision:-., Canons, etc., of the Third Ecumenical Council; the Decisions and Canons in Greek and p;nglish; the only English translation of all of Ephesus ever made. Ready for the press. Ephesus, A. D. 431- IV. A Dissertation on the Difference between St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Orthodo.v on the one hand, and the TIeresiarch Nestorius and his partisans on the other, ou the Eucharist as it affecfts the question of the real or adtual presence of Christ's Divinity and Humanity on the Holy Table, and the adlual eauug of His flesh there. Important passages of St. Cyril, as well as of Nestorius, are there given, with one of the Nestorian Theodoret relied on by the ill-read and idolatrous Keble to prove his heresy of J^ucli.-iristic Adoration This work is mo.st important at this time as showing the dodtrine of St. Cyril of Alexan- dria and the Third Ecumenical Council on the Lord's Supper as against Nestorian and Roman error, after so much has been written by the heresiarchs Keble and I'uscy against it. Most of it now ready. Ephesus, A. D. 431 ■ VOLUMB. IV., haps. per- Ephesus, A. IJ. 431- IV. haps. per- Ephesus, A. D. 431- v., haps. per- Chalcedou. II. Constanti- uople, A.D. 553. III. Coustan- tinople, A. D. 680. The VI. Ecu- menical Coun- cils in theGreek Original. I., II., III. and per- haps IV. I. and II. I., II., III. and per- haps IV. There will probabl y be about 8 or 10 vol- umes. SUBJECT MATTER. A Dissertation on the dodtrine of St. Cyril of Alexandria on Economic Appropriation which was approved by the Third Synod. A Dissertation on the dodlriue of the Third Council and the Fifth as to the worship of Christ's Humanity specifically, and the views of their teachers Athanasius and Cyril of Alex- andria on it; with quotations from them and another on that theme. A Dissertation as to the real author of the alleged .Y Books of Cyril of Alexandria Against Julian the Apostate, which is pagan- izing in its present form in places. A Dissertation on the diflferences between St. Theophilus of Alexandria and St. Cyril, his successor, on the one side, and John, after- wards called Chrysostom,on the other. Other matter on Cyril will be added. The entire A<5ts of the Fourth Ecumenical Council translated into English ; with the Defi- nition, Normal Epistles read in it, and the Canons, in Greek. One of these volumes of Chalcedou will contain also a Di.ssertation on the Authoritj' of the Canons of the first four Ecumenical Synods; and as to what Canons were approved in Canon I. of Chalcedou. All the A(5ts of the Fifth Ecumenical Coun- cil, including its famous Definition and all its other Remains. The Definition will be given in Greek and English. All the Adls of the Sixth Ecumenical Conn cil, including its Definition and the Epistle of Pope Agatho, a Report mentioned in the De- finition and all its other Remains. The Defi- nition will be given in Greek and in English. The groundwork and nearly all the transla- tion of Pope Agatho's Epistle is the work of the learned Greek scholar, now deceased. Rev. Marcus F. Hyde, Professor of Greek in Bur- lington College, New Jersey, which he under- took, years ago, at the request of the editor. A critical edition of the vSix Ecumenical Councils in the Greek original where it is ex- taut, with the various ledtions where the texts differ; with the old Latin translations where they exist, with Prolegomena and Notes. ITS STATE. Partly ready. About ready for the press. Partly ready. The Minutes are begun, and the Definition, Normal Epistles and Canons are finished. The Definition translated ; the Adts begun. The Definition, Epistle of Agatho and the Report are finished; the Minutes are begun. This will be be- gun as soon as the money ne- cessary to pay the expense of secur- ing and compar- ing texts, and publishing, are given to us. SCRIPTURE AND CHURCH AUTHORITY FOR THE SIX COUNCILS OF THE WHOLE CHURCH. SCRIPTURE AUTHORITY FOR THEM. Matt. XVIII., 17; "If he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican." I Tim. III., 15, "The Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth." CHURCH AUTHORITY. How they are respe5led atnong the mass 0/ those who claim la be Christians. I. AMONG THE REFORMED COMMUNIONS. 1. The Voice oftYm Anglican Communion for them, "Those Six Councils which were allowed and received of all MEN," (The Second Part of the Church of England Hotnily Against Peril 0/ Idolatry which is in that Booli of Homilies of which the Thirty-Fifth Article teaches that it ''doth contain a godly and wholesome doBrine, and necessary for these times.'") 2. The American Presbyterians on the Six Ecmnoiical Councils. Pius the Ninth, Bishop of Rome, in an Encyclical Letter dated Sept. 13, 1868, invited "all Protestants" to join the Roman Communion at the Vatican Council to be held A. D. 1869. "The two General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church in tlie United States of America " by their Moderators, M. W. Jacobus and Ph. H. Fowler, replied in 1869, and among other things said, with reference to their refusal to participate in that Council of the Vatican, which began soon after, on Dec. 8, 1869, as follows: " It is not because we reject any article of the Catholic l''aith. We are not heretics * -^ * * . We regard as consistent with Scripture the doctrinal decisions of the first Six Ecumenical Councils; and because of that consistency we receive those decisions as expressing our own faith. We believe the doctrines of the Trinity and Person of Christ, as those docftrines are set forth by the Council of Nice, A. D. 325; by that of Chalcedon, A. D. 451; and by that of Con- stantinople, A. D. 680." Then follows an excellent summing up on the Trinity and on the Incarnation and Christ's sole Mediatorship, which agrees with the »Six Synods, and is found on page 5 below. Then they speak well of the Third Ecumenical Council. Below they condemn heresies condennied by necessary implication by the Six Councils; that is, Transu Instantiation, the Roman do(5lrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Adoration of the Host, the Wor- ship of the Virgin Mary, the Invocation of Saints, and the Worship of Images; and, towards the end, well say, "Loyalty fo Christ, obedience to the Holy Scriptures, consistent respect for the early councils of the Church, and the firm belief that pure religion is the foundation of all human society, compel us to withdraw from fellowship with, the Church of Rome. " 77^,? utterances of the Continentai, Reformed, that is, Continentai. Presbyterians, as well as of the Lutherans. The Declaration of Thorn approves the two Ecumenical Creeds, and the Confessions of the Six Ecumenical Councils. See pages 156, 157 below. 3. As to the views of the Lutherans on the Do5lrines of the Six Ecu- menical Councils, see further, below, pages 128 to 131. AMONG THE UNREFORMED COMMUNIONS. I. How the Greek Church commemorates them. '■Be mindful, O, Lord * * ^ * of the Holy, Great, Ecumenical Six Synods, the First of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Holy Fathers in Nicaea; the Second of the One Hundred and Fifty in Constantiu-rple; the Third of the Two Hitndred in Ephesus; the Fourth of the Six Hundred and Thirty in Chal- cedon," etc., (Diptychs in the Messina Manuscript, of A. D. 984, of the Greek Liturgy of St. James of Jeriisalem, in Assemani's Codex Liturgicus Ecclesiae Universac.) II. How the Bishops op Rome formerly received them. In the Indiculum Pontificis or Profession of Faith of a Roman Pontiff after A. D. 6S0, the date of the Cixth Ecumenical Council, and during Century VHL, those Bishops swore as follows. "IWIEE KEEP UNMUTILATED, TO A SINGI^E IvONG MARK OVER A VOWEL, the holy Universal Councils also the NicEean, the Constantinopolitan, the first Ephesian, the Chalcedonian, and the second Constantinopolitan, which was cel- ebrated in the times of Justinian, a prince of pious memory. And together with them, and with equal honor and veneration, I promise to keep, TO The VERY MARROW AND FUEEY, the holy Sixth Council which lately assembled in the time of Constantiue, a prince of pious memory, and of Agatho, my apostolic prede- cessor, and I promise in very truth to proclaim what they have proclaimed, and with mouth and heart to condemn what they have condemned. But if anything shall arise against Canonical Discipline, I promise to amend it, and to guard THE SACRED Canons, and the constitutions of our Pontiffs, as Divine and Celestial mandates." The Second Profession of Faith of a Bishop of Rome in the end of Century VII. and in Century VIII. , as given in the Daily Book of the Roman Pontiffs, after a full and excellent confession of doc?trine, reads thus: "Wherefore, whomsoever or whatsoever the holy Six Universal Councils have cast off, we also smite with a like condemnation of anathema. But whom- !>oever or whatsoever the same Six Holy Councils received, we, as sharers of the right faith, receive, and, with the same reverence, venerate with mouth and heart. ' ' This language is general and absolute. It excepts nothing. AN APPEAI, TO SCHOLARS AND TO ALL LOVERS OF CHRISTIAN LEARNING, FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FUND TO PUBLISH THE SIX ECUMENICAL COUNCILS, THAT IS I. Nicaea, A. D. 325. II. I. Constantinople, A. D. 381. III. Epliesus, A. D. 431. IV. Chalcedon, A. D. 451. V. II. Constantinople, A. D. 553. VI. III. Constantinople, A. D. 680. A FEW FACTS AS TO THE GREAT IMPORTANCE AND VALUE OF THESE COUNCILS. (A). They are the only Synods of the whole Church East and West before its division in the ninth century. (B). As such Christ commands us to hear them on pain of being regarded '' as a heathen man and a publicajt.'" He binds in heaven every heretic bound by them on earth, and he looses in heaven every one loosed by them on earth (Matt. XVIIL, 17, iS). Their utterances are the sole Decisions of that Universal " Church of the livhig God''' which an inspired Apostle terms ''the pillar and ground of the truth'' (I. Tim. III., 15). And Ecclesiastical History shows that by those utterances it has been such against the creature-servnng deniers of the Divnnity of the Logos, and of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, against the Man- worshipper {di'f)puKo?MTpr/g) Nestorius, against Eutyches the denier of Christ's humanity, who in fact worshipped it as God, against the Monothelite heretic, Honorius, Bishop of Rome, and against other One-Will ites who denied that the Son possesses a whole humanity. (C). Orthodox Christendom, East and West, was once united on the basis of those Six Synods, and no union among the sundered parts of Christendom is at all feasible which rejects any one of them. To this very hour the formularies of different parts of professing Christen- dom profess respect for them. The Greeks profess to receive them in their entirety. The Latins profess to receive them with the exception of a few of their Canons. The Anglican communion in the Second Part of its Homily against Peril of Idolatry s^&aks, of them as "those Six Councils which were allowed and received of all men. ' ' Of the Presbyterian utterances, the Declara- tion of Thorn approves their Confessions, and the American Presbyterians in their reply to Pius the Ninth, Bishop of Rome, in A. D. 1869, profess to receive their dodlrinal decisions, as follows: "•We regard as consistent with Scripture the doRrinal decisions of the first Six Ecumenical Councils ; and because of that consistency we receive those decisions as expressing our own faith." And Lutheran theologians were among those who approved the Declaration of Thorn. And the formularies of all the Reformed Communions follow them, to a great extent, on such themes as the Trinity, the Atonement by Christ's saving blood, the fallibility of the Bishop of Rome, and the sin of worshipping any- thing but God. (D). A translation of them is necessary as a guide to Church and State, as to the course to be pursued by both in the zvay of duty to God and man, and as to the relations which ought to exist in a Christian state between God's ministers in spiritual things, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, and His ministers in mere worldly no7i-religious things, the civil and military powers (Rom. XIII., i-S), For during their time, A. D. 325-680 Christianit)' was supreme, and as being the spiritual, and therefore the higher power, guided the secular, and hence the lower power, and brought to pass in Christendom a foretype and foretaste of that blessed state on earth for which every truly Christian soul yearns, when the secular power shall be absorbed into the spiritual, in the one Person of Christ, the Head and Source of both, when ^' the Kingdoms of this world'" shall have '' become the Kingdoms 0/ otcr Lord and of his Christ'' (Rev. XI., 15), ''zvhen He shall have put doiun all rule and all authority and pozver," when He shall have '^ put all enemies U7ider His feet" (I. Cor. XV., 24, 25), including our cur- rapt low politicians, grog-shop aldermen, such for instance as now rule New York City, and help Satan against Christ by leaving open, gambling hells, hundreds of whore houses, and thousands of grog shops to tempt and ruin our youth, to waste their substance, and to send them to early graves and to hell; all creature-worshipping rulers, all Mohammedan rulers; and all unbelieving Jewish legislators, who are now, alas, by an accursed and Christ- forbidden false liber- alism allowed in a Christian land to judge Christians who are to judge the world, and even angels (I. Cor. VI., 1-8), and that right against the plain prohibition of Holy Writ (I. Cor. VI., 1-8). For a coune6lion of Church and state close, blessed, and undivided is coming when, as we read in Revelations XX., 1-8, Christ shall do away the power of Satan for a thousand 3'ears, and shall reign during that long period on this earth with His Apostles, the heads of His Uni- versal Episcopate, and the sound Bishops who have taught His faith, and the martyrs who witnessed for him with their blood against unbelieving Judaism and against creature-invoking and image-worshipping Paganism, and with other saints of His (Rev. XX., i-S ; Matt. XIX., 28). The nearest approach to the reign of Christ on earth in ancient times was during those times in the periods A. D. 325-680, when the Church was allowed by the imperial powers to govern herself by her own laws, the Canons, when her Bishops exercised without hindrance their canonical and New Testament power over both spiritualities and her own temporalities, and faithful monarchs, like Constantine the Great, Theodosius the Great, and Marcian, aided and served her; who in protecting and fostering true religion and in crushing error, followed in the steps of the good Kings, David, Hezekiah and Josiah, and so far made Christ's faith to reign on earth ; and so Church and State were blessed and pros- pered. The nearest to that state of things in England was when Edward VI., and Elizabeth reigned there ; when the Orthodox who obeyed the law to serve God alone were given all power in Church and State, and images, formerly worshipped, were destroyed, and creature-worship was forbidden and crushed, and Orthodox Bishops ruled their clergy and people according to Christ's Gospel, and in the main, accord ing to the faith of ' ' those Six Councils 'cvhich were allowed and received of all men,'''' as the Second Pai-t of their Homily Against Peril of Idolatry terms them. Therefore was England blessed, the Invincible Annada of idolatrous Spain against her scattered and largely destroyed by God ; and the little one has become a thousand, and the small one a strong nation, for the Lord has hastened it in his time (Isaiah L,X., 22); so that a realmi which at Bloody Mary's death had only about 4,000,000 of subjects and only about 100,000 square miles, has now more than 300,000,000 subjects, and about 9,000,000 square miles of land, that is about one-fifth or one-sixth of the earth's population and about one-sixth of its surface. So that true religion exalteth a nation now as it did in David's and in Hezekiah's day. So richl}^ blessed in their results are the Scriptural do' of different creeds on both sides of the water, that they may- know of it and may have an opportunity to subscribe and to be influenced for good by these volumes. We need money to pay translators and workers. We need money to print and bind and to send out books with, and to pay office hire with. We need money to pay men to travel over Europe and the East to search for the different readings and best texts, that we may publish a critical edition of the original Greek of the VI. Councils, and the oldest Latin translations. The income from the sales has thus far paid only about one-third of the total cost of publishing alone, counting not a cent for the translator. So we need at least |;4,ooo a year. We expect to get out one or two volumes every twelve months. Each volume of the translations will be delivered to the sub- scribers for $3, to others at $4. If educated men do not make this a special object of their charities and help us, the volumes can not appear; for only they can appreciate its absolute necessity and vast profit for Chtirch and State. LIST or WORKS or THIS SET AND THEIH PEESENT STATE. COUNCIL. VOLUME. SUBJECT MATTER. ITS STATE. Nicaea, A. D. 325- Vol. I. The Uudi.sputed Reniaius of Nicaea Published. Nicaea, A. D. 325- Vol. II. Vol. III. The Disputed Remains, and the Spurious. Notes on the Genuine Canons; and an Ac- count of the Defence by Carthage in centu- ries v. and VI. of its Rights, by the Canons of Nicaea, against the attempt of Rome to get Appellate- Jurisdidlion there. All of it can be made ready in a j'ear. Part of it is now ready. Nicaea, A. D. 325- A Dissertation on the words in the Anathe- ma at the end of the Nicene Creed, " The Uni- i/er-sal Church anathematizes those who say thai * * * * the Son of God * * * 7(tas not before He was born." It contains all the testimonies of Ante- Nicene Christian Writers yet extant, except some of Origen, on the question whether the consubstantial and co- eternal Logos of the Father zuas born out of Him eternally or only just before the Worlds were made, with- -the difference between the Nearly ready, or readj' for the press. COUKCIL. VOLUME. SUBJKCT MATTKR. ITS STATE. Xicnea, A. I). 325- Vol. in. Alcxamiiian School and Ihe rest of the Church on it. Enough of Origen will be mentioned to show his mind on that matter. On Ter- tullian's testimony, and perhaps on one or iwo others, it is hoped that this volume will be fuller than even Bishop Bull's great De- fence of the Nicene Faith. Nearly ready, or ready for the press. Nicaea. A. D. .•?25> Vol. IV., and p e r - haps V- A Dissertation on the Question Whether God the Father has a Body or not, containing passages from ancient Christian Writers on that theme, which show how they differed. This, or another volume on Nicaea, will con- tain a Dissertion on the question Whether the Apostles really made the Creed which is now commonly called the Apostle's, with a Review of a writing of Natalis Alexander on that point; with extraifls from Fathers, etc. Partly ready. Nearly ready Nicaea, A. D. 325- v., per- haps. I. I., II. and perhaps III This, or another volume, will contain a work on the Ante-Nicene Local Creeds, Ques- tions in the Ante-Baptismal Offices, and Doc- trinal Statements. About ready. I. Constanti- nople, A. D.3> BOUND MAR 16 1961