In the same connection, giving by implication his view of the "Church," and protesting against the unjustifiable restrictions upon its history, so largely obtaining, he makes another admission, full of significance, thus:-"If the very word, which of old represented the chosen 'people' (Laos) is now to be found in the laity;' if the Biblical usage of the phrase ' ecclesia' literally justifies Tertullian's definition, Ubi tres sunt laici, ibi est ecclesia; then the range of the history of the Church is as wide as the range of the world which it was designed to penetrate, as the whole body which its name includes." 10 This view, however, would scarcely be acceptable to any denomination not acknowledged "Liberal," even at this period of the world's enlightenment, though it might be welcomed by individuals in all sects. The New Testament often, interchangably, uses the words "world" and "Church," the "body of Christ." The above, therefore, would, for most Theologians, embrace too much, signify too much, and promise too much. It is the picture of a Church universal. What then would be the logical sequence?

That Dr. Stanley is not above the lot of mortals, of whatever rank or gifts, to whom to err seems almost a necessity, is realized in his opinions upon this progress of the Church in faith and sentiment. There has been development here, and corruption. Somewhere, then, error must be. But with consummate casuistry, he writes, "The error which is held by great, ancient, and national communities, often loses its mischief, and entirely changes its meaning, when it becomes a part of the general established belief. The truth which is held by a narrow sect often becomes error, from the mere fact of the isolation and want of proportion in which it is held." 11 Can the learned author seriously consider those statements, so wholly destitute of warrant by any law of moral rectitude, an excuse for the existing errors in the Church? Can error ever be other than error, under any circumstances, or truth other than truth by whomsoever held?

Not less strange are his thoughts upon persecution, as when

he says, "The strange folly of Christians persecuting Christians was first introduced on a large scale, not by the orthodox but by the heretics, of the fourth and fifth centuries." 12 This can only be true, if he means that the heretics were the party attached to the dominant charch, and its interests, and that the orthodox were the party represented by such men as Origen and his adherents, or Arius and his followers, not otherwise. As it stands, however, even with the appearance of a reference to millenarians, the assertion is only capable, we will not say designedly, to mislead and prejudice the reader. Especially is this true, in the light of the further remark, "It is not, as a general rule, the larger, but the lesser congregations of Christendom, that have imposed the most minute and petty restrictions on opinion and practice." 13 In the light of the whole history of the Church, we see not how such a sentence could be written. The history of the Papacy, of all denominations, shows conclusively the tendency of the majority to persecute the minority-always the tendency of the party holding the power, from whatever source, to trouble the party which is not so fortunate.

Nor are we able to understand with what propriety, or justice to the records, Dr. Stanley can affirm of the Greek Church, that its refusal to accept of the filioque clause, insisted upon by the Council of Constantinople, as an addition to the symbol of Nice, A. D. 381, was on account of its "repugnance to any change in the decrees or creeds, laid down in the early councils." 14 It was altogether based upon other grouuds. It was opposed, as involving a falsity. Had that communion seen it true in any sense, it would have accepted it at once. It objected because it was a development, nay a corruption of doctrine.

We have not time, nor space, to follow our author throughout. With much of interest, much of truth, much of great moment, he is not always quite reliable. He devotes a large portion to the Council of Nice, giving all the details, and certainly presenting a picture, such as has never been yieldeď before to the student. In some particulars it is a more com

12 Pp. 69, 70. 13 P. 70. 14P. 142.

plete account than has been published heretofore in the English language. But with all his learning, he has not given an altogether correct picture of that Council, or a correct version of the general facts in connection therewith. We shall, therefore, mainly, devote the balance of this paper to that subject; and we deem this of some importance, as the researches of the Doctor are presumably the latest, and should be, from his position and reputation, the clearest and truest.

I. The Doctrine of the Trinity not known in the Church, in the 2d Century. We are prepared to admit the statement that the Nicene Creed is still the bond of faith in the Eastern Church. This tends to establish our view of the liberal Theology of that Church. We are also ready to admit, that "besides the decrees of the first four general councils, nothing is to be required as matter of belief necessary to salvation," though so much would scarcely be admitted by very many "Orthodox" theologians, as it would invalidate the dogma of endless punishment, which obtains all its authority as an article of faith from the fifth. But we cannot acknowledge that the Nicene creed "is the only creed accepted throughout the universal church;" or that "it was regarded at the time, and long afterwards, even by councils which chafed under the acknowledgment, as a final settlement of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity," and that "so in a certain sense it has been regarded by many theologians of later times." 15 It is not universally accepted. Even where acknowledged, it has been overlaid with other and later additions. Nay, what is usually accepted as the Nicene creed, is not the symbol drafted at Nice, but that altered and added to by after councils. Nor did it, nor is it at all generally admitted that it did, form a "settlement of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity." No "doctrines" were settled at Nice,-though a doctrine perhaps was-the Deity of Christ. The Trinity, as now held, was not established, or, apparently, dreamed of; while the whole previous history of the Church is one long protest against the idea of "Christ as God" being a "fundamental doctrine of Christianity."

15 Pp. 150, 151.

The doctrine of the Trinity-rather, the conception of the Deity of Christ-was of slow growth. But it was a thought which lost no time in developing after the first steps were taken. The original preparations for the dogma came, undoubtedly, from the influence, at a very early period, of the Platonic philosophy. The Platonic Logos was associated with the Logos of John; and the stress laid by the Scriptures upon the preëxistence of Christ helped to identify the one with the other. Perhaps, also, the desire to give all possible honor to Christ, and to make him as near God as was practicable, was largely productive of the tendency towards his deification. Yet the Christians of the first ages were very far from attributing to him underived existence, or making him "very God of very God," "one with the Father in substance,"-as, in one word, GOD.

Justin Martyr affirms, that Christ "Before created things was with God, and begotten, when through him, he (God) in the beginning created and beautified all things." 16 And what he means by "begotten" he explains when he says of him, that he is "next after God." 17

Clement of Alexandria calls the Redeemer "God." 18 But he qualifies this by declaring him to be "next to the only Omnipotent Father; obeying the will of the Omnipotent Father; ruling all things by the will of the Omnipotent Father," &c.19

Tatian makes him "The first begotten work of God." 20 Theophilus, speaking of God's creation, says, "When about to make those things he designed, (He) begat this Logos; producing, or throwing him forth, the first born of every creature." 21 Yet Theophilus was the first to use the word rods, 22 which proved a stepping-stone towards the Trinity. The Latin Trinitas, was first used by Tertullian.23

Athenagoras affirms Christ to be "The first progeny of the Father.'

24

Irenæus says, "above all is the Father, and he is the head of Christ." 25

17

16 Apol. 11, c. 6. 7 Apol. 1. 18 Bish. Kayes's Clem. p. 14. 19 Stroma. 1, viii. 20 Orat. con. Græcos. 21 Ad Autol. 1, 11. 22 Ad Autol. 11, 15. 23 De Pudic. c. 21. 24 Legat. pro. Christ. Adv. Hær. 11, 28. Comp. Origen con Celsus, v; vii; De Orat. 1, c. 15.

25

Tertullian even spoke of him as being God only in the sense, not of absolute equality with the Father, but as that "whatever is from God is God." 26 He refers to Jesus as being "the branch from the root, the stream from the fountain, the ray from the sun." 27 He also said, "The Father is different from the Son, since he is greater; as he who begets is different from him who is begotten; he who sends, different from him who is sent; he who does a thing, different from him by whom it is done." 28

not." 29

Once more, "There was a time when the Son was And yet again, "Before all things God was alone, himself a world and place, and all things to himself." 30

Thus, so far as the second century is in question, the doctrine of the Deity of Christ was unknown to the leading minds of the Church. If unknown in this century, it would be superfluous te attempt to show that it was not known in the first --which, however, could very easily be done. The dogma of the Deity of the Holy Ghost was also in the distance. was as yet" entirely undeveloped." 32

It

Neo-Platonism arose in the third century. Essentially heathen, especially in its justification of idolatry, it yet, in many essentials, became incorporated with much of the Christianity of the age. During this century Theology was greatly cultivated at the Catechetical School at Alexandria, where were such teachers as Pantenus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, Heraclas, and Dionysius. But that Theology was not honest always, from the admixture with it already of the old Platonism, and perhaps also in some degree of the new. So far as the interests of the Church were in question, it was thought that evil might be done for the good that might be accomplished.33

The Latin Church, meanwhile so wholly dependent on the Greek, was developing, to some extent, outside of that, chiefly through the influence of Tertullian, whose corruptions—those of Montanism, though that was condemned, in name-found

26

27

28

Apol. ad Gentes, c. 21. Apol. ad Prax. c. 8. Apol. ad Prax. c. 9. 29 Ad Hermo. c. 3. 30 Ad Prax. c. 5. 31 See Hagenbach, Hist. of Doc. 1, § 44. 32 See Gieseler, Hist. of the Ch. 1, c. 3, § 52. 33 Origen con. Celsus, iii.; also Strom. vi., in which is advanced Plato's argument, De Repub. iii. for the usefulness of falsehood in attaining certain desired good ends.