have done, or are trying to do, for religion? We walk by faith, not by sight, in the pursuit of objects unseen and blessings desired, whether material, intellectual or spiritual.

The real question is not, whether we must believe and obey to be saved; but whether one man, or one set of men, in one age can rightfully and properly form a Creed for all people in all ages, resting solely on their convictions and on their authority, without evidence to convince orreas on to approve; itself perhaps unreasonable, contradictory, mysterious, and absurd to minds as enlightened, hearts as pure, and souls as sincere as their own. Such Creeds people are not asked to examine, and approve or reject; rarely are they permitted to examine them in the light of reason and revelation, in a way to come to a clear comprehension, except at their peril. They are told time is pressing; delays are dangerous. Hence the unthinking are hurried to accept what they do not understand; scarce knowing what they do. The more considerate and serious ask for explanations, pure and simple. They are told they must not stop to inquire into the meaning of what others ask, almost order, them to believe. They must not reason; they are not capable of judging correctly, safely. Others, wiser and better, have done all that for them. Here is the Creed ready made. They have no need to bother their minds; only accept and be saved. If they still persist in demanding proof to convince before confessing a Creed they cannot understand, they are plied with outside arguments, special pleadings. The great antiquity of the Creed, the high and venerable authority, the vast amount of learning bestowed upon it, the numbers, wealth, splendors, popularity, social relations, political and commercial influence, personal benefits, appeals to the narrowest selfishness, are set before them in most attractive array to entice the unwary; followed by frowns and threats if there are still signs of hesitation; any thing to ensure a surrender of their honest convictions in submission to a Crced they cannot understand and do not believe, at the dictation of those for whose principles and moral character they have no cause for special respect. To yield is to sur

render their soul-liberty, to be regained only with utmost difficulty. To the Creed, the name, the sect, the appeal is thenceforth made; not, "To the law and the testimony." They are held "in durance vile " On this strange altar is sacrificed reason, right, freedom, fraternity, equality, manhood and perpetual inheritance God gave the.

What is received in return? The favor of a sect, a right to its name and fellowship. To waver afterwards on the Creed is to be suspected of skepticism and infidelity by all who think within the limits of dogma, or think not all. No where else in the realm of reason or revelation, right or responsibility, are such restrictions attempted on the freedom of thought, or such impudent assumption of man over his fellowmen. They are plainly traced in bloody lines on the pages of ecclesiastical history, and too frequently seen in the milder manners of sectarians of to-day.

The whole business of Creed-making, Creed-tinkering, heresy-hunting, and silly, simulating or severe trials, in ecclesiastical councils and courts, may be explained and illustrated by a brief reference to the first attempt of Civil Government to intercede and interfere in the affairs of the Christian Church. Without troubling the reader with a full account of the calling, assembling, discussions, and decisions of the General Council, it will suffice our present purpose to state the cause, object, means and result of that first effort to settle religious disputes, establish Christian truth, and secure harmony by majorities and imperial authority by the authorization of a Universal Creed.

Differing opinions on subjects not clearly understood, or foreign to the spirit and intention of Christianity, early obtained among the disciples.Peter was blamed for his departure from the traditions, prejudices and bigotry of the Jewish elders, because he consented to visit a devout Gentile, a good man who feared God and did alms, and desired more light and a better faith. When he came before the council over which James, the brother of Jesus, presided with more grace and generosity than is always seen in similar councils that have

succeeded it; having heard the frank statement of his new and more liberal convictions, instead of condemning or suspending him, "glorified God that he had also granted unto the Gentiles repentance unto life." The same council, in like spirit, settled the difference between Peter and Paul, and even commended the latter in his labors among the Gentiles. On the essential Principles taught by Jesus, there was no disagreement, nor has there been, nor can there be, among devout and honest Christians, any where at any time. With them the less was not given the greater prominence. The weightier matiers of pure religion were not overborne by selfishness, tradition, folly or fashion. They did not look backward, nor off into the dark and inscrutable, but strait forward into the dawning light of the perfect day; as humble followers of Him who had gone before, "the way, the truth, and the life." Walking in that light they found a safe guide to duty and peace, and to the knowledge and grace of God. As long as they studied the lessons of the Great Teacher, oueyed his commands, followed his examples, and were led by his spirit, "brotherly love continued," and peace and prosperity prevailed. But when men learned in the wisdom of the world, and conformed to its fashions, crept unawares into the church, bringing in metaphysical, abstruse and subtle questions, theories and systems, mysteries and traditions; creeds and rituals, making them standards, which have nothing to do with true piety, right living, and things pertaining to Godliness, not inspiring faith and hope in God; then discussions, dissensions and contentions arose and differences of opinion became the tests of fellowship, and led to sects and parties and quarrels without end. The warnings of the Apostles were unheeded, and many were "beguiled by enticing words, and spoiled through philosophy and vain deceit after the traditions and rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Hence the strifes, controversies, alienations, persecutions and untold evils which afflicted the early church, and have continued unto this day.

It was to allay the discords prevailing in the churches, es

66

pecially and chiefly in Alexandria, and to secure union, peace and prosperity that Constantine ordered the assembling of the bishops in a General Council at Nicæa, in Bythinia. A.D., 325." He had recently conquered his brother-in-law, Licinius, who had ruled in the East. He was now supreme in the Roman Empire. Having become a convert to Christianity, like most new converts, he was exceedingly zealous and anxious for the peace and welfare of the church. Instead of love, union and peace, he found discord, contention and faction. A writer of that day says: "One night see in every city bishop against bishop, people against people, and differences ran so high that they were ready to tear one another in pieces." It was in the larger cities and among the learned, that the controversies prevailed most fiercely, unchristianly, to the great detriment and disgrace of religion and good order.

It was, perhaps, with good intentions, bad as he was morally, that the Emperor ordered the Council and provided the means of conveyance to it from all parts of his empire. He had previously exhorted the chief disputants, Athanasius and Arius, deacons of Alexander, the metropolitan bishop of Alexandria, to cease their contentions on matters of abstract doctrines. He sent a letter jointly to them by Hosius, bishop of Cordova in Spain, his special favorite and counsellor, who had served him at the council at Arles, held soon after his conversion. In it he wrote: "My advice to you is neither to ask nor answer questions which, instead of being Scriptural, are the mere sport of idleness, or the exercise of ability; at the best keep them to yourselves and do not publish them. You agree in fundamentals," etc. His concilatory advice did not succeed. He found it easier to conquer nations than to settle theological disputes, even with the shrewd Hosius for his ambassador. Seizing upon his advantage, Athanasius procured a synod of his followers which Hosius and the superanuated Alexander attended, and by it procured the condemnation of Arius. Hosius, on his return, reported to Constantine what had been done and persuaded the calling of a General Council

to settle the two questions then chief in dispute: first, The nature of Jesus and his relation to God; and second, The time for holding Easter.

Hot in the fervor of these controversies the leaders met at Nicæa. Of bishops some say there were 318, some as many as 2,000, and some say less; and "of Presbyters and deacons an infinite number" to settle the quarrels among the disciples of the Prince of Peace! It should be remembered that bishop applied to preachers having charge of a parish or district. These in large cities were regarded, and regarded themselves, as metropolitans. At first James alone was revered as the superior. After the destruction of Jerusalem, Alexandria, as the chief city of learning, assumed to be the head of The Church, and the bishop was called Pope (papa), as the bishop afterwards became to the Latin branch of the church. It should also be remembered that of all the Western bishops not over ten were present, and only Hosius much known; even the bishop of Rome was not present in person.

66

After a fulsome speech, such as priests are apt to make to kings, the emperor cast his eyes round upon the bishops with a kind and careful regard, and collecting himself a little spoke to them with soft and gentle tone without rising from his seat." Among other things he is reported as saying, "The enemies of the church being now vanquished, and there being no person who dared oppose Christians, it is melancholy to see them fighting against each other, and making themselves. the jest of their adversaries, who are overjoyed to see them ruin themselves; that their quarrels were still more shameful in matters of religion, concerning which they had the instruction of the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures. For which reason we ought to banish all controversies; "good advice for any age of the church. Eusebius says: "He was a witness of the bishops' disputes. He heard them on both sides with a great deal of good temper, being patient and attentive to everything that was said to him; he sometimes inclined to one side, some times to the other, to reconcile by degrees those who appeared most warm in the dispute. He made himself agreeable and