164 UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO STUDIES 



premise, its conclusion, not even its logical correctness, will be ad- 

 mitted by a historically trained unbeliever. 



The minor premise he instantly denies. The history of the Nicene 

 Creed is too weU known. The steps in the process of its formulation 

 can be followed in considerable detail. They form a logical chain. 

 Nowhere is the historian obliged to posit a divine interference with the 

 human thought-process to account for the result. There is nothing 

 to show that the creed is not as truly a product of human minds (and 

 hearts) as any other document which has come down to us from the 

 ancient world. 



The conclusion of the syllogism appears equally unable to stand 

 examination. It seems quite clear that as a matter of fact the Nicene 

 Creed does contain errors. It asserts for example that Jesus the third 

 day after the crucifixion "rose again according to the Scriptures and 

 ascended into the heavens and sitteth on the right hand of the Father." 

 Honestly interpreted — interpreted, that is, according to their original 

 meaning — these articles of the creed assert that on the third day 

 Jesus' soul rose from a repository of dead souls beneath the surface of 

 the earth (see the Apostles' Creed) and rejoined his body in the grave. 

 His reunited person then (after an interval of forty days) ascended 

 through the (seven) concentric heavenly hemispheres which overarch 

 this (flat) earth to where, at the zenith, God the Father sits enthroned. 

 These assertions of the creed are clearly erroneous. No one any longer 

 believes that the souls of the dead are assembled in a cavern within 

 the earth; and no one any longer beHeves in the seven heavenly hemi- 

 spheres or that God is enthroned at the zenith. ("Which zenith?" 

 the modern man pertinently asks.) Jesus simply cannot have done 

 what the creed says he did. Copernicus has made its assertions for- 

 ever incredible. To the church's contention that the creed cannot 

 possibly contain errors, the historian answers that the fact is that 

 it does! 



Passing over for the moment the major premise (we shall see later 

 on that it is at best only a half-truth, fortunately for the church and 

 for us all), let us proceed to examine the logic of the argument. What 

 does the churchman mean by his minor premise ? If the creed be not 



