S. Athanasius refers the Nicene Creed to Tradition. 405

rule is surely expressed, with sufficient plainness, and on unexceptionable testimony, in the three following passages of St. Athanasius. First, of the instinctive and inevitable comparison which the new doctrines underwent with those before received, he writes: "Who", on hearing the word Son, does not conceive in his mind the thought of identity of substance with the Father? Who, when he learned in his first Catechism, that God had a Son, and made all things by His own Word, did not so receive it in his mind as we now understand it? Who, at the first origin of the impure heresy of the Arians, was not presently astounded at the mere hearing of their words, as at persons uttering strange things, and sowing a new seed, contrary to the Word sown in the beginning?" Secondly, he presents the Creed to the emperor Jovian, not merely as the judgment of the present Church on the meaning of the Scriptures, but rather as her testimony to the fact, that "this faith had all along been known to all in the Church, being learned and read out of the divine Scriptures. For in this the saints, being perfected, endured martyrdom, and now are at rest in the Lord. And this faith would have continued throughout unimpaired, but for the wickedness of certain heretics, who have dared to pervert it

although our Fathers lost no time in assembling at Nicæa, and pronouncing the anathema on them. But the faith of the Catholic Church they professed in writing; so that by the proclaiming thereof every where, the heresy might be quenched which the perverse disputers had kindled "." Lastly, in respect of those portions of the Creed which appeared in some sense new, he is careful to shew that for these also they had authority from antiquity, as well as proof from holy Scripture, (thus acting on the very principle laid down in the English Canon of 1571, to which

m Orat. ii. contr. Arian. i. 502. B.

n I. 780.

reference has before been made): "The Fathers," says he, "inserted the clause of the Son's consubstantiality with the Father, and anathematised those who affirmed a diversity of substance, not in terms which they had framed for themselves, but which they too had learned from the Fathers before them which being so, the

Creed of Nicæa is sufficient, agreeing as it does also with the ancient Bishops "." This shews in what light the framers of the Creed wished it to be viewed; and that the Church did so receive it, the words of Epiphanius (among others) may serve to testify: "They professed the faith of the Fathers, orthodox and unswerving, and delivered down to us from the Apostles and Prophets."

Now if St. Athanasius and the Nicene Fathers were thus earnest and constant in resorting to Tradition, in order to decide among conflicting interpretations of Scripture, and settle the fundamentals of our most holy faith; that circumstance alone is a sufficient answer to the suspicion, that reliance on Primitive Tradition leads of course to disparagement of Scripture. For certainly, if there be one among divines, ancient and modern, who commits his cause to the witness of Scripture more unreservedly than the rest, and expresses a deeper reverence in listening to its voice, and a more entire preparation of heart to follow whithersoever it shall lead him, that one is the great St. Athanasius. But the more unfeignedly he revered the Bible, and felt the necessity of obeying it in all things, the more thankfully did he avail himself of the greatest of providential helps to the right understanding of the Bible, the record of faith which the New Testament itself assumes to have been taught to those for whose immediate use it was written. That record helps to explain the Scriptures, somewhat in the same way, and with the same kind of • Ad Afros, §. 9. t. i. 898. C. P Epiph. in Hær. Arian.

Instances of Tradition practically infallible. 407

evidence, as the grammar of a language, once rightly taught, explains the sentences of that language. If truth and sound philological knowledge would be advanced by throwing aside the grammar rules which we have learned, and analysing sentences till we have constructed each a new grammar for ourselves, then, and not else, the proposition, that each man must make out his own Gospel from Scripture, discarding all confidence in traditional Creeds, may be tenable in common sense, whatever Piety may think of it. Why is the assurance of faith any more undermined by accepting a constant and practically infallible Tradition, to the effect that what is to us the obvious meaning of the Bible, was always accounted its true meaning, than by accepting in like manner the similar traditions, that these books, and no other, are the Bible; that these words in English answer to the corresponding words in the sacred languages, out of which they profess to be translated? Indeed, were it not for Romish corruptions, it would not be at all easy to enter into the mind of those who feel concerning Primitive Tradition otherwise than as if it were a great and real help from above. See what it comes to in this case of the Nicene Creed. Had the interpretation and anathema. therein contained been merely the deliberate judgment of the three hundred Bishops, undoubtedly this would have been a very material fact: more material, perhaps, considering all things, than the like assent at any other time: still the whole would have been matter, not of testimony, but of opinion, and could not have proved, in any sense, an end of controversy. It might still be said, as unthinking people now say, "Why should I submit my judgment to the judgment of three hundred persons assembled at Nicæa fifteen hundred years ago?" However, as the matter stands, we have the full benefit of their judgment, (for the remains of St. Athanasius alone are sufficient to shew, that they

fully and critically examined the Scriptures on all the disputed points): and we have moreover this greater-this unspeakable benefit; that by them has been preserved the irrefragable testimony of the Church to the fact, that the Apostles interpreted the Bible in this way, and held their interpretation to be fundamental.

Christians disagree

The argument may be thus stated. among themselves which are the essential, fundamental truths of their religion. Now if we could know in what doctrine Theophilus, (e. g.) to whom St. Luke wrote, had been catechised, we should know these fundamental truths: those truths which the eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word did most emphatically deliver to their converts. Now of course the fundamentals taught to Theophilus were the same as those taught to other converts: they were, in short, the baptismal Creed. However that Creed might vary in terms, as it was occasionally delivered by the Apostles and their successors, it must have been the same in substance all over the world; being not so much the Creed of the several Apostles, as of that Holy Spirit, by Whom they were all alike guided. Can we any how ascertain the substance of that Creed? The Council of Nicæa enables us to do so, practically and effectuallynay, infallibly. For the fact to which the three hundred prelates bore witness, was one in which they could neither be deceived themselves, nor be able to deceive others. They must have known each one of them the baptismal Creed of his own Church, and the interpretation of it there commonly received, and professed by himself in his letters communicatory when he first entered on his episcopate. They could not, therefore, be deceived themselves. Neither could they deceive others: for, (not to dwell on the evidence of sincerity which many of them had given, and some afterwards gave again, by enduring

pain and privations for the Gospel's sake,) every Christian must have known his baptismal Creed, and every Bishop must have known what letters communicatory he had received from his newly-ordained brethren. Moreover, their testimony ranges far beyond those who were actually present in the Council. They were in the nature of a representative body; and it may be remarked by the way, that the Church councils are perhaps the first decided instance in the world's history of the adoption of that mode of government. The three hundred and eighteen were but so many out of the eighteen hundred prelates of the Roman world, whom circumstances permitted to be present at the Council; and their decisions were scrupulously communicated to their absent brethren, and formally approved by them, with very trifling exceptions."Know, O prince beloved of Heaven," writes St. Athanasius to the emperor Jovian", "that these things have been preached from the beginning, and this Creed the Fathers who assembled at Nicæa confessed; and to these have been awarded the suffrages of all the Churches every where in their respective places: both in Spain, and Britain, and Gaul, and all Italy and Dalmatia, Dacia and Mysia, Macedonia and all Greece; and in all Africa, and Sardinia, and Cyprus, and Crete, Pamphylia and Lycia, and Isauria, and those in Egypt and the divisions of Libya, and Pontus and Cappadocia, and those near us, and the Churches in the east, all besides a few persons who take part with Arius. For as to all the aforesaid, we know by their conduct what their judgment is; and moreover, we have their letters. And thou knowest that should there be some few who speak in opposition to this faith, they cannot create any prejudice against it, the

I. 781. Even the Arian Philostorgius bore witness to their unanimity. Ad cale. Theodoret. E. H. 469. B. Ed. Vales.