favor through the West. Already also was Rome putting forth the first claims for preeminence-in doctrine, as in all else. The Scriptures, through all, were being philosophically, often falsely, interpreted. The doctrines culled from them were acknowledged not apparent. Thence flowed the necessity of learned expounders, and thence the plea for the Church as the infallible interpreter. Still the development and corruption of doctrines were gradual.

Origen was at this time the leading mind of the age. At eighteen he was Catechist at Alexandria, having been appointed by the Bishop, Demetrius, and was devoted to the study of the Bible-with, however, it must be confessed, philosophical notions that sometimes overshadowed the teachings of Revelation to his mind. Nevertheless, the main features of Origen's theology were not questioned during his life. Nor has his moral character ever been impugned. The orthodox Jerome, a hundred and fifty years after his death, says that his condemnation was not "on account of the novelty of his dogmas; not on account of heresy, for which he is now barked at by the rabid dogs; but because they could not endure the fame of his eloquence and learning.'

9 34

Prepared by Tertullian, Origen adopted the view of the "eternal sonship"-the idea, that while Christ had not an objective existence, yet he existed in the mind of the Father always, and thus might be called the "Eternal Son." But Origen, as did Tertullian, held this in strict conformity with the theory of "subordination." He compared God and Christ with the sun and its beams; with a statue, and a smaller copy. 35

He even objected to prayer being offered to Christ, as contrary to the idea of one God.36 He affirmed, also, that "The power of the Father is greater than the power of the Son and the Holy Ghost; the power of the Son is greater than the power of the Holy Ghost; and the power of the Holy Ghost is greater than the power of all other holy things." 37 Origen's works exerted, theologically, almost a controlling influence

34 Epist. ad Paul. 29. 35 See Hagenbach, 1, § 43, n. 2. 37 De Princip. 1, i., c. 3, §5.

36 De Orat. c. 15.

throughout the whole Church during this period. But views were developing which ascribed Deity, or very nearly that, to the Saviour, and which, with much of low chicanery, and not a little violence, prepared for the decisions of the Council of Nice, and their enforcement. That Council was hastened by an incident.

38

II. Origin of the Controversy respecting the Nature of Christ. Arius, whose Christian or moral character is not to be questioned, Presbyter of Alexandria, and established over an independent Parish, was arraigned, for heretical opinions upon the nature of Christ, by Alexander, the chief Bishop of that Diocese. This Arius was a man of great learning, profound thought, and vast influence not only within his own circle but with the entire Church. One day, according to Socrates, his Bishop propounded the Deity of Christ, in the expressions, "Always God, always the Son; as is the Father, so is the Son; the Son is unbegotten as the Father; neither in thought, nor in the least point of time, does God precede the Son; always God, always the Son." 39 Arius protested and argued against this, but Alexander only became the more stubborn. He endeavored to compel Arius to adopt his views, but without success. The refusal of Arius, with perhaps some unguarded expressions let fall in the heat of controversy, led a Synod, in the influence of Alexander, to excommunicate him. Doubtless also, Alexander was actuated considerably by feelings of jealousy. Arius had once declined the Episcopacy,10 and was feared by his Bishop on account of his popularity. After being excommunicated he retired into Palestine, about A. D. 320, 321. There he was received with open heart by Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea, a man distinguished for rank, talent and learning, possessing great influence, and known to us as the historian of that name. Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, also befriended him. He thence wrote to his Diocesan, declaring the faith he held, of "creation" and consequent "subordination," to be that which the traditions of the Church had taught him, and which even Alexander himself had at one time proclaimed, and in

33

38 See Gibbon's Decline and Fall of Roman Empire, 11, c. 21. 39 Letter of Arius to Eusebius, Theod. 1, i., c. v. 40 Philostorgius, b. 1, c. iii.

which he had instructed the clergy under him. That Arius did not believe he was holding or preaching a false or new doctrine, but thought he was supporting the old Church faith, is beyond question. He proclaims openly, "We must either suppose two divine original essences without beginning, and independent of each other; we must substitute a dyarchy in place of the monarchy; or we must not shrink from asserting that the Logos had a beginning of his existence, that there was a moment when he did not as yet exist." 41 Nevertheless the Bishop stirred the whole Church against him, chiefly by misrepresentations. A war of words ensued. Churches were divided. The people were separated into factions. All places were filled with discord and contention. The whole Empire was a scene of confusion. Even the Heathen were scandalized. During all this time, however, nothing was broached touching the nature of the Holy Ghost. Indeed, the Arian controversy occupied the full attention of Christendom.

And perhaps this was as good a time as could have been selected for the controversy. The Church had, in a large measure, emerged from its many years of suffering and depression, and had been taken under the protection of the State-was basking in the smiles of the Emperor Constantine. There was thus time to devote to doctrinal discussion and development. Development, also, would be aided by the influence of Councils, appointed by the authority of the Emperor, the laws of which were sanctioned, and often enforced, by the same great power.

Three views of the nature of Christ now obtained. 1. The emanation theory, developed from the ancient, philosophical doctrine of the Logos, and more fully unfolded by Origen's eternal generation, the seeds of which were sown by Tertullian. This was the general view at this time. But it was strictly "subordination." The eternal generation and hypostasis of Christ were retained by the Nicene party, in enlarged form. But the subordination was ignored in opposition to Arius,-not until Nice, however. How fully then, remains to be seen. 2. The

"Neander, Hist. of Chris. Ch. and Relig., 11, p. 361.

theory of Arius, of the "creation" of Christ. This was unquestionably the primitive faith, and was urged against the eternal generation, which Alexander developed into "very God of very God." 3. The theory of Sabellius, which applied the names, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, as so many different designations of the same Being-thus destroying the hypostasis of the Son. The matter, therefore, stood thus:Arius against the deification of Christ, on the one hand, and in support of the hypostasis against Sabellianism on the other.

The excitements flowing from the controversy called forth the interference of the Emperor Constantine. To this he was, in all probability, instigated by Silvestre, Bishop of Rome. Dr. Stanley endeavors to throw a veil over this, as do others. We nevertheless incline to the view we have expressed, for which, also, there is abundant authority. The Council was called by the Emperor to meet at Nice, A. D., 325.

Of Constantine, who has been the subject of great laudation on the part of many ecclesiastical writers, we pause here to state, that he was a fit instrument to work out the designs of ambitious and unscrupulous men. He was educated a NeoPlatonist. In A. D., 312, he became the sole ruler of the whole Roman Empire. Converted by a miracle, as is alleged, he embraced, rather accepted in a very partial manner, Christianity, A. D., 324. That in this he was actuated by policy—to bind to him the only united and constantly increasing body in his Empire-there is little room for doubt. He murdered his wife, his son, and his nephew. He pretended to support the Church in the Orthodoxy it established at Nice; yet he was baptized by the Arian Eusebius, of Nicomedia, just before his death,—but not until after he had been refused expiatory rites by the Heathen priests, who said, "There are no purifications for such deeds as these." He had encouraged the factions of the Church, that by his interposition he might popularize himself. For his works for the Church, however, he was canonized by the Greek communion, and he may be given this meed of praise, he established Christianity, which had struggled from the beginning, and which had just passed through a century of anarchy and confusion, and gave to it an impetus which it has since never lost.

III. Council of Nice. To Nice, at the Emperor's command, there gathered the leading ecclesiastics from all parts of the Empire, chiefly from the Eastern, with a large body of subordinate clergy. The West was represented, among others, by the celebrated Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, and by two Presbyters who attended on behalf of the Bishop of Rome, since recognized as Pope's Legates, though not known as such then. The number attending the Council has been variously estimated. Eusebius gives two hundred and fifty, while Athanasius and Theodoret give three hundred and eighteen,—which is that generally accepted. It is acknowledged, however, that a much larger number was present, but asserted that these constituted the Council. But if so, why? Dr. Stanley claims that the Council consisted of Bishops "chiefly, if not exclusively," 42 and that is, apparently, the idea prevalent. But it certainly can find no warrant. There is no authority for supposing, that others than Bishops might not have helped to constitute the Council; it is certain that some, who were not, did, -as Athanasius, the Arch Deacon, then only some twentyfive years of age, and the two Presbyters, Victor and Vicentius, who appeared on behalf of the Roman Bishop, with the Presbyter Arius.

The truth, in all probability, is, that there were over two thousand (2348) ecclesiastics present. But in some way, and for some purpose, all these were not allowed to sit as members. All but about (possibly) three hundred and eighteen (318) were weeded out by the Emperor's efforts, and at the instigation of Alexander, the antagonist of Arius, on the plea of ignorance and erroneous views. 43 It was thus a Council of picked men, to crush Arius, and to enforce the views of Alexander, than whom none exerted, from the position he occupied, more control through the Churches. Dr. Stanley tries to cast doubt upon this number, by intimating that the representation of the Alexandrians is, that the "mob" was the grand gathering of all the heretics of the world, Sabellians, Mariolaters,

42 P. 158. 53 Eutychius, Ann. 1, 440; see also C. Mather's Magnal. Christi, Amer.B. vii.