the Catholics dared not proclaim Divinity (Deity) of the Spirit." 62 As late as A. D., 380, we find that "great indistinctness prevailed among different parties respecting this dogma, so that even Gregory Nazienzen could say, 'some of our Theologians regard the spirit simply as a mode of divine operation; others, as a creature of God; others, as God himself; others, again, say that they know not which of these opinions to accept, from their reverence for Holy Writ, which says nothing upon it." Hilary of Poictiers, a Nicene Theologian,' expresses himself in a similar way, and does not venture to attribute to the Spirit the name of God, because the Scripture does not expressly so call him,' and though Basil of Cesarea wished to teach the Divinity (Deity) of the Holy Spirit in his Church he only ventured to do it gradually.'

9 63

As might have been foreseen, the decision of Nice rent the Church. Yet, East and West, though particularly in the East, Arianism long prevailed and extensively flourished, until almost the world bowed before it. Its extent and power are acknowledged by Stanley. 64 It was not long after the Council that the Emperor himself made up his mind to yield the word "consubstantial." After the death of Alexander, Athanasius, through fraud and violence, 65 succeeded him. Soon after Constantine recalled Arius, though Athanasius refused to receive him into the Church. But Athanasius was himself subsequently condemned and deposed on charges of crime of great infamy, and was banished by the Emperor, A. D., 335. The same Council, through which this was done (Tyre,) readmitted Arius, with his associates, into the full communion of the Church. About a year after, when ready to receive the fellowship, in person, of the Church at Constantinople, to which the Bishop, Alexander, was opposed, Arius died suddenly. He was probably poisoned by his enemies, though many historians have nervously striven to discredit the fact.

66

Thus the Nicene symbol was far from satisfying the Church for a long time. The second Council of Antioch, A. D., 341,

62 Origen, I, ii. c. 2. 63 Neander, Lec. on His. Chris. Dog. p. 303, et seq. 64 P. 151, et seq. 65 66 Philos. I, ii. c. 11. See Murdoch, Notes to Mos

heim's Instit. I, p. 297.

rejected it, especially the word "consubstantial," appealing to tradition in support of its action. 67 The third Council of Sirmium rejected "consubstantial." The Council of Philoppolis anathematized it. It was again condemned by the Council of Antioch; the fifth Council of Sirmium; by the Councils of Seluccia, Ariminum, or Rimini, and others. All the Bishops present at Ariminum signed the anti-Nicene creed adopted, though they had previously subscribed the Nicene formula. 68

Nevertheless, the creed of Nice had received the prestige of Orthodoxy from a General (Oecumenical) Council, and from Imperial authority, and the Church in after years, especially in the West under the influence and direction of Rome, swerved to its acceptance. It finally triumphed, and passed into the faith of the Church, with such alterations and additions as further development demanded. How all this came to pass, cannot here be portrayed.

We would like to follow this subject still further, did space allow. We would also be glad to dwell longer upon the general features of the Eastern Church, but for the same reason must refrain, referring our readers to the work of Dr. Stanley.

We have seen what the faith of the Church was up to the meeting of Nice, upon the subject of the nature of Christ, and what at Nice it was declared to be. What it has since become we all know. The Nicene affirmation passed into the wider dogma of the "Trinity," after the Council of Constantinople, A. D., 381. But that did not become the "Trinity" as now held by the Churches for long years after.

67 Soc. I, ii. c. 10; Sz. I. iii. c. 5. 68 Du Pin. His. Ecclesias. Wri ters, v. II. p. 264.

4*

ARTICLE III.

Salvation in Christ not limited to this Life.

To whatsoever branch of the Christian Church we may belong, as a responsible being, he is interested in such questions as these:-Is there any connection between conduct in this life and condition in the life immortal? Does character inhere in the moral constitution, thus forming a part of the substance of the soul, or is sin wholly of the flesh, so that its consequences end when the body dies? And if the And if the consequences of our conduct here do reach beyond the event of death, how long will they last-to what extent will they affect our peace -will they ultimate in happiness?

We shall make no attempt to answer all these inquiries within the limits of an article proper for these pages, but taking up the leading topic of Salvation in Christ, and the relation of the individual to the work of redemption, we shall have occasion, in part at least, to cover the general ground which these several questions touch.

Among the leading doctrines which are distinctively stated in the New Testament, we find these four; (1) Paternity of God; (2) Immortality of the Soul; (3) Responsibility for conduct; (4) Final Subjugation of all souls to God. The first of these doctrines-Paternity of God-Christ expressly states when he teaches us to pray, "Our Father who art in heaven." The second of these-Immortality of the soul-Jesus illustrated in his own resurrection from the state of the dead. The third-Responsibility for conduct-is taught in the repeated condemnations of sin, and the affectionate entreaties to holiness with which the Scripture abounds. The fourth-Final reconciliation of souls to God-is the grand idea of the New Testament-the very purpose for which Jesus came into the world. -to "seek and to save that which was lost." "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him and given him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee

should bow; of things in heaven and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." Phil. ii 9, 10; "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; and having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things on earth or things in heaven." Col. i: 19, 20.

And it is worthy of notice that the mission of Christ did not change the character of God so that he became, by virtue of that event, our Father: God was our Father before the Lord appeared in time at all. He revealed the truth of the Paternity of God, but he did not create the truth. "God is love," and that independent of all conditions and relations. It was this love that caused him to send his Son into the world, and to make known his pleasure toward his children. The Salvation which Jesus taught was not, then, any plan which originated with himself, but such as his Father and our Father had commissioned him to reveal. "I came down from heaven not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me." John, vi: 38. Furthermore, Christ did not come into this world so that man might live in the next. Man was immortal before Christ"brought life and immortality to light." Man came into this world, clothed in a temporal body, by God's appointment he will as certainly pass into the future state, and be clothed upon with a spiritual body, by God's appointment. Life is an inherent quality of the human soul and therefore death is to it an impossibility. But Christ did come to lead man from a state of sinfulness into a state of holiness. The evil from which he needed to be redeemed was not his mortality, but the wrongs associated with it. Everything which hinders the progress of the soul toward God, which enslaves man, makes him disobedient toward his Creator, Jesus came to overthrow. "I am the bread of life which cometh down from heaven and giveth life to the world." John, vi: 35, 33. Spiritual, eternal life, This is the purpose of the Saviour's mission. Not to transfer man from one world to another, but to lift him out of one condition into another-out of the condition of sin into the condi

tion of holiness. For it is not locality, but condition that determines happiness. "The pure in heart see God," not those who stand upon any particular spot. The radical question is not whether the soul is in the body, or out of the body; but whether it is pure, lovingly obedient to God, virtually joined to Christ the living vine. Holiness is the pledge of happiness -the New Testament recognizes no other. Whatever, then, quickens man's spiritual perceptions, opens his faculties on the God-ward side of his nature, raises him above the temptations which are addressed to his fleshly organism, is a co-worker with the Lord in the sanctification of mankind. The full completion of this work God has entrusted to his Son. "And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that all of which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but raise it up again at the last day." John, vi: 39. And the Apostle to the Gentiles tells us in his masterly statement of the doctrine of the resurrection," Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the Kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power." I. Cor. xv: 24.

These thoughts lead us to see that heaven is where holiness is. One is in heaven when he is vitally united to Christ, and spiritually pure. What then, it may be asked, becomes of those who are not holy?-do they not go to an opposite place, call that place by whatever name we may? Opposite place? The mind, in all such questions as this, is misled by a form of expression. To see how this question ought to be answered one has only to ask,-What becomes of those not good in this world? Their badness does not put them in another place, but holds them in another state. The laws of virtue and personal righteousness are eternal. They include all worlds and all conditions. There is no person absolutely good or thoroughly bad in this life. There is a theory which asserts the perfection of human nature in this life, but it is only a theoryfor there has never been but one all-perfect human being. When we pass into eternity we take with us all the results of our living in time, which have become incorporated with the substance of our moral natures.