صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

presiding in it. In the east and in Egypt, however, the greatest opposition was made to its decrees, so that whatever unanimity there might be in the council, there was none out of it. The fifth œcumenical council, or the second of Constantinople, distinguished itself and that of Chalcedon by directly contradicting, denying, and repealing certain decrees of the latter in favour of "the three chapters," one œcumenical or infallible council condemning what another œcumenical or infallible council had determined, for which reason some traditionists do not come down below the fourth general council. Neither were the bishops unanimous with respect to this council, for although the eastern prelates approved it, those of the west did not, justly enough contending, upon their own principles, mistaken as they were, that what one general council had determined another could not set aside. Need we go further in the enquiry? The sixth council had no more pretensions to general acceptance than the preceding; nor has there ever yet been a time when the visible Church has been unanimous, since the age of the apostles, who, though themselves inspired, and sowing only the good seed, could not prevent the tares from growing up with the wheat. The rule, then, of all men, of all churches, or even of all bishops, is a perfect vanity. It never has existed in FACT. And if truth were dependent upon such a proof as this, it could never be established as truth, for this evidence of it would be wanting. The whole error is in making truth dependent upon the reception of man. That is properly truth which God reveals as such, whether man receive it or not; as Christ was the truth of God, though he came unto his own and his own received him not. "For what if some did not believe (says the apostle, striking at the very root of the ab omnibus principle), shall their unbelief make the promises of God of none effect?" Yea, let God be true but every man a liar." And upon this authority so say we still, Yea, let God be true, speaking as he does "by the law and the testimony;" and let every council, Catholic, oecumenical, truly general, or of whatever other character, be counted false and unprofitable, except in so far as it agrees with Scripture, the sole rule of faith to man.

[ocr errors]

We turn, then, from the consideration of the claims of these councils, and their decrees, to authority, on the ground of their having been general councils,-to an examination of the documents themselves which Mr. Hammond, their editor, has given to the public, on the plea that, " at a time like the present, when a regard for Church principles is happily reviving amongst us, and leading many of the laity, as well as the clergy, to interest themselves in the study of Christian antiquities, it seems desirable to

present to English readers the most important documents of the ancient Church in their own language.' We say in one sense, that Mr. Hammond has thus done good service to the Church, but the sense in which we say this is anything but that which our editor himself would desire. We think he has done good, by exposing to the plain, common sense of Christian men, the weakness and imbecility of tradition, as we will proceed to prove. In doing this we will consider, first, the definitions of faith,-secondly, the canons of discipline, of these councils.

The definition of faith delivered by the council of Nicæa is as follows.

"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things both visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, the only begotten, that is of the substance of the Father, God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made, both those in heaven and those in earth who for us men, and for our salvation, came down, and was incarnate, made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. But those who say that there was once a time when he was not, and that he was not before he was begotten, and that he was made out of things which did not exist, or who say that he is of another substance or essence, or that the Son of God is created, capable of change, or alteration, the Catholic Church anathematizes."

Now this definition is to be viewed in one of two ways. It was either the deliberate judgment of the council against the Arian heresy, and nothing more; or it was the creed of the bishops assembled at the council, and represents their view of the things which a Christian man ought to believe. We regard it as the former, and as being merely the deliberate judgment of the council respecting the heresy then under review, and not as intended to teach and set forth the whole counsel of God, which it was not the immediate object of the council to do, and which consequently was beside its purpose and jurisdiction. The traditionists, on the contrary, regard it as the exposition of the whole faith by the voice of the Catholic Church, and not merely the exposition, but the very transmission of the whole truth by a channel altogether different from and independent of Scripture; for Mr. Keble affirms, "It may be truly said to have its origin, not from Scripture, but from tradition." This is no slight distinction. As a judgment against the Arian heresy, it is very complete and full; as a creed of the Church it is incomplete, as will appear upon

perusing the comparison which we are about to institute immediately between this formulary, and that which we have in common use in our Church at present.

The reader cannot fail to be struck with the extreme difference between this creed, and that in the English Book of Common Prayer, commonly called the Nicene Creed. Our formulary might more properly be called the Constantinopolitan Creed, though even that is deficient in acknowledging the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son as well as from the Father. However, on a comparison of the genuine Nicene Creed with that so-called in the Prayer-Book, the following deficiencies, marked by being printed in italics, will be observable in the former :

1. "Maker of heaven and earth."

2." And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary," thus omitting the miraculous overshadowing of the Holy Ghost, by which the Virgin Mary conceived that holy thing which should be called the Son of God.

3. "And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate," omitting thereby all mention of our Lord's crucifixion, of which the Apostles made so much in their preaching, and which is the measure both of human guilt and divine love.

4. "And was buried," an essential point to be included in a creed, as testifying alike to Christ's death and resurrection.

5. He rose again, "according to the Scriptures," an important point, as shewing that the framers of the creed had respect chiefly to the things contained in Scripture.

6. "And sitteth on the right hand of the Father," thus forgetting so important a truth as that of our Lord's present exaltation to the right hand of God, where, as the Head of the Church, whether militant or triumphant, he sits expecting until his enemies be made his footstool.

7. "He shall come again with glory," as Jesus himself declared to the High Priest he should do, saying, "Hereafter thou shalt see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven."

8. "Whose kingdom shall have no end," the eternal reign of Christ being thus entirely omitted.

9. "The Holy Ghost, the Lord and giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son," the quickening energy of the Spirit, and his procession from the Father and the Son being altogether omitted.

And, in fact, all the rest of the creed is entirely omitted, so that were we to sum up the separate articles, we should number in the original Nicene Creed, as compared with that which we now call by that name, as many as fifteen omissions.

Before we proceed one step farther in this enquiry, let us observe, that we intend not the slightest reflection upon the members of the Nicene Council for having omitted these things, because we believe it to have been altogether beside the purpose of that assembly to draw up a perfect creed, as the traditionists, to serve their own turn, have vainly described them as doing. So far from this, we believe that the council faithfully discharged their duty by delivering a decree on the Arian heresy, the chief point submitted to their decision. They never intended to frame a creed, or a formulary of any kind. This, as we shall shew, was the work of the Constantinopolitan Council, that of the Nicene was simply to examine into and determine upon the errors of Arius. But the Traditionists attribute the formation of a creed to the Nicene council, and in order to carry out their own notions of a traditionary teaching in the Church, they tell us that the method pursued at this council was, that every Bishop was called upon to deliver in the baptismal creed of his Church; that these were all blended together, and that out of them was framed the Nicene Creed, of which Mr. Keble affirms, "It may be truly said to have had its origin, not from Scripture, but from Tradition." (Postscript to Sermon on Primitive Tradition, recognized in Holy Scripture, p. 120.) To what does this pretension amount? To no less than this: That at the Council of Nicea, when all the baptismal creeds in use in the Church from primitive times, and preserved by tradition, were brought together, the best and fullest that could be compiled is found deficient in fifteen points, some of which are of very essential consequence! Thus defective was tradition in its very earliest attempt to teach the whole counsel of God, according to what is pretended of it. In fact, so forcibly is this felt, that an excuse is made for it, and a very Jesuitical expression is adopted, as if there had in fact been no omission in the creed. Thus we are told that "the Church was compelled to enlarge her creeds, and to render her definitions more full and precise." (Preface, p. 3.) Now, however it may be pleaded of some of the omissions pointed out above, that they are comprehended in the things affirmed,-as that the crucifixion was implied in the suffering; this could not be the case with many other things, which were not enlargements, but actual additions to the creed, as will be seen at once by comparing that of Constantinople with the Nicene. But here comes the rub.

If it was the intention of the Nicene Council to form a creed for the Church at large, out of the many baptismal creeds said to have been rehearsed at the council,-how does it happen that the Nicene definition of faith is so defective? Must not these baptismal creeds themselves have been defective in these things, for else the JUNE, 1843.

3 G

council would have included them in its creed? If tradition, therefore, failed to convey these things to the Council of Nicea, how did it recover and transmit them to that of Constantinople? Again, of those things which were included at Constantinople, but omitted at Nicea, and in the baptismal creeds rehearsed there, how can it be said, that they were everywhere, always, and of all believed? They want every one of the conditions necessary to establish them as Catholic truth. In this dilemma, we may be content to leave the traditionists; though, for the sake of others, it is our duty not only to point out error, but to teach truth.

What then is the true theory of the omissions in the one council, and the additions in the other? In the Nicene Council the chief object was to consider and determine upon the Arian heresy. To this alone did the council bend its powers, and against this only did it issue its decrees. And how, even according to Mr. Keble's own shewing, who thus contradicts himself?"The burthen of proof was thrown upon the heresiarch, (Arius,) and he was required to make good his theory by allegations from Scripture; which being overthrown by large arguments from Scripture itself, the orthodox creed was considered as sufficiently established." Thus, in fact, the decree of the council, (not the creed, as Mr. Keble calls it,) was gathered out of Scripture, and not from tradition. This too was the source whence the Council of Constantinople derived the additions that it made to the Nicene decree. That decree had been found serviceable, in the way that the admirable scriptural Articles of our Church are, as a compendious expression of revealed truth, setting forth the proper doctrine of the Trinity. In this respect, its use as a formulary was tested and proved in the interval between the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople, so that when the latter met, the bishops assembled there addressed themselves, not so much to the refutation of the Arian and Macedonian heresies, as to the more useful and profitable labour of setting forth, so far as they had as yet discovered it from Scripture, the whole system of the Christian faith. Even they, however, failed in one particular, omitting the procession of the Holy Ghost from God the Son. Whence did they derive their knowledge of the things they now included in the creed? Certainly not from the baptismal creeds before assumed as existing in the Churches, but only from that source whence, to this day, we still derive the doctrines which we believe, as asserted by our eighth Article, "The Nicene Creed ought thoroughly to be received and believed, for it may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture."

We must here notice one most unpardonable statement of Mr. Hammond, which partakes too strongly of the tone of "No. XC,”

« السابقةمتابعة »