containing no germ of the two conflicting schools, Sabellianism and Tritheism, which subsequently sprang up. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mentioned distinctly, but not in a manner incompatible with their unity. The Trinity is plainly affirmed; but the gloss "person" is not found. There is nothing in it which conflicts with the epistolary writings. Indeed the word "person" is not met with in the time of Justin, although it must be admitted that he makes use of phrases equivalent to the definition. It is argued that the same peculiarity attaches to the Epistles, that expressions are employed which involve a personal distinction. The contention is that the apostles would have introduced the word "person," or a corresponding word, had it been presented to them. This is simply a petitio principii. It is indeed assumed that the Greek word now anglicized as "hypostasis" (in which it has acquired, we must bear in mind, a theological sense not previously associated with it), which, in application to the Deity, occurs, I believe, only once in the Epistles,1 was identical in idea with the Latin "persona" subsequently adopted by Tertullian. Why, then, did not the apostles use it generally to illustrate their meaning? But the fact is vóσтâσis does not mean persona, either in a classical or apostolic sense;2 and would hardly have been so rendered in our version, had not the word person, from long usage, haunted the minds of our venerable translators. But when leaven is once introduced, its effects are soon seen on the whole mass. In the second century, when the idolatry of Imperial Rome fell prostrate before the power of Christianity, the theological leaders broke loose from their moorings, and ventured forth on the stormy

sea.

Men became, not simply advocates of the Gospel, but partisans of certain extréme aspects of doctrine. No doubt the Deity of the Saviour was taught somewhat loosely, so as to infringe the Scriptural distinction between the Father and the Son. This called forth a counteracting extreme, leading to a definition of the distinction between the Father and the Son, liable to the grossest abuse. The result was a systematic assault upon the Trinity in Unity, initiated by a remarkable man. Tertullian, educated in the subtle arts of Roman philosophy, embraced Christianity, and became celebrated as the first of the Latin fathers. Naturally a man of ascetic temperament, by education a specious advocate, and by mental tendency a fanatic, he became the avowed antagonist to what was subsequently styled Sabellianism (which maintained the absolute Deity of Christ), and taught that the distinction between the Father and the Son was

1 Heb. i. 2.

2 In Heb. xi. 1 it is applied to faith.

tantamount to a dual existence. As a rule, men are led more powerfully by specious and persistent eloquence than by calm reason. The theory of Tertullian grew into favour, and circumstances soon arose which gave it a wider fame.

Tertullian's principles appear to have been first publicly adopted into a formulary of belief at Cæsarea, the Roman capital of Palestine, where a Christian Church was early founded.1 But another danger was at hand, a daring heresy which filled all Christendom with consternation. This was the novel and strange tenet originated by Arius, a man of logical acumen, but led wildly astray by the inconsistencies of teachings already popular. The introductory phrases of John's Gospel had considerably troubled both Justin and Tertullian. Arius seized upon a plausible theory, which seemed to reconcile the minor difficulties of the subject, whilst (in reality) it struck at the very root of Christianity. The Logos or Word was described as a sort of intermediate being, the first of creatures, but endowed with Divine powers— the Administrator henceforward of the Divine behests. Thus the force of the word "God," employed by John, was altogether invalidated. To counteract this fatal error, Constantine summoned a council of bishops from all the churches to Nicæa, in Bithynia, A.D. 325, at which the conflicting opinions were fully represented. The issue was reached by a majority of votes. The creed of Cæsarea was confirmed, dividing the Godhead into persons, and a special clause was added to neutralize the Arian heresy, to the effect that the Father and the Son were coeternal and coequal. The new symbol was the first form of the Nicene Creed.

Half a century afterwards this creed was further confirmed by the Council of Constantinople, which added the final clauses. In this early form the creed stood for two hundred years, when a Latin Council, meeting at Toledo, introduced an additional definition, touching the procession of the Holy Spirit. In the early creed the third person was said to proceed from the Father: the improved version added "Filioque" (and the Son), as it now reads. The Greek Church, however, declined to indorse the new reading and still retains the original form.

This brings us down to about the close of the sixth century, when a new and more famous form of belief found its way into the Western Church, by whom composed is unknown: this was the Athanasian Creed, which, after tardy recognition, was made authoritative about the beginning of the ninth century. The peculiarity of this creed consists

1 Acts xviii. 22.

in its more definite statements respecting the dual nature of Christ, to which, indeed, there can be no just objection. In other respects it is singularly daring, presenting the tripersonality in the boldest manner, and thundering forth condemnation on all dissentients. But with the exception of what are now called the "minatory" clauses, it is commonly acknowledged throughout the Catholic and Protestant communities as the rule of faith.

For three hundred years after the recognition of the Athanasian Creed the iron rule of the Papacy caused a lull in the conflict of "beliefs." The force of councils "could no farther go,” and all nations were required to acquiesce without question in the formularies of the Church. But there are in all ages some few who prefer truth to worldly power. A crisis was reached, and the Papal arm received a stubborn check. Wycliffe, the father of the Reformation and the glory of England, seized the silver trumpet and blew a blast which resounded from the Thames to the Tiber. In the Lollard's dungeon at Lambeth, proudly clustered among historic glories, may be read the fury of the answer. Another century passes, and the printing press is the foe which disturbs the quiet of Rome. Another century, and Luther discovers the "Biblia Sacra" in the library at Erfurth. But what pen has yet drawn as it deserves the struggle of the next two centuries, from the moment the ninety-five theses were affixed by Luther on the door of the castle church at Wittemberg down to the days of Voltaire, when, after the strife of "beliefs" had raged with sevenfold bitterness, a lull more ominous than that of Papal domination came over society, and formalism and bigotry were mingled with indifference and scepticism such as the world had never witnessed ! The Bible had been restored. Who was to bring back an apostolic faith?

The 66 creeds," ," which were to be the bonds of concord, had at last produced their proper fruits-universal discord and "desolation.” The voice of the heavenly Rachel weeping for her children verified the "tribulation such as was not from the beginning of the world." The earnest theologian pondered in perplexity, and the brilliant sceptic made a target of the Church.

In truth the "creeds" were the chief difficulty, and such they remain. Dr. Nares, in his learned discourses before the University of Oxford,1 assumes that it was not intended by the framers of the formularies to make the doctrine intelligible, but simply to assert the undoubted teachings of Scripture: virtually he assigns to the beliefs an

1 In 1816. Published in 1819, and dedicated to the Earl of Liverpool.

inspired authority. We must ask, then, which of the councils it was that was truly inspired, that of Constantinople or that of Toledo? the one which affirmed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son? or the other, which affirmed that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only? And is the Greek Church-not keeping the Athanasian Creed "whole and undefiled"—to "perish everlastingly"? According to Dr. Nares, we shall know "at the day of judgment." That event is credited with a magical effect on the human faculties; and generally speaking people do not appear in a hurry to understand. At any rate, it seems we must patiently bear our "tribulation." Poor Dr. Watts' sorrow was all in vain. No light can possibly come from the creeds, although they contain the unquestionable truth! What a wretched state! "Woe unto them that give suck in those days -who endeavour to nourish the understanding from the doctrine of the Church! Yet, says the Divine Monitor, "Pray that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day." Watch equally against the subtle delusions of a wintry faith alone, and the pompous zeal of a pageant ceremonial.

There were two grand pillars in the ancient temple, and two grand pillars of the faith have been long laid low. The great doctrine of the Godhead has been tooled for some sixteen centuries by a thousand artificers, until we no longer recognise the glorious original. So with its noble companion-the beautiful doctrine of the Christian life: it has been ground to dust. First, by penances, indulgences, and masses, through the intercession of the Virgin and other exalted saints, by which the Church of Rome pretended to open the door of heaven. Lastly, by a merely persuasive faith, and an imaginary imputation of infinite righteousness, through the intercession of Christ in the presence of the Father, a means by which, hoary in vice, the sinner could still be admitted to the bosom of God.

Is it necessary to repeat, that on neither of these grounds is salvation promised in the Gospel? that on neither of these grounds is it possible? Is it necessary to prove that Christian righteousness consists in a wise, patient, lowly, persevering course of holiness, exhibited in a useful life, in imitation of the great Redeemer

Is it necessary to show that there must be many degrees of this Christian excellence or perfection, and that the sooner the seed is sown the more abundant is the harvest? But what created all the complications in this simple faith?

It is remarkable that in the chapter before us the Lord describes His Coming in two ways: first, under the figure of "lightning;" then, as "the sign of the Son of Man in heaven." The first analogy

describes His ordinary coming before the period of the Second Advent; a partial and imperfect illumination, like the flash from the cloud. This flickering glory is followed, however, by the darkening of all the heavenly luminaries; the Sun of Righteousness; the moon of faith; the stars of spiritual knowledge; the powers of heavenly intelligence; the light and influence of all things Divine!

What, then, are we to understand by "the sign of the Son of Man in heaven"? Let us consult two or three other passages of similar import. When Nathanael confessed Jesus to be the King of Israel, the Lord said, "Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.1 The opening of heaven denotes an operation on the mind, not on the body; the confession of the Lord opens the understanding, and enables it to discern those heavenly truths which are commonly involved in darkness. At the Second Coming men's minds are more interiorly opened than heretofore, conferring the ability of a rational discernment of those truths which the Church had declared to transcend human intelligence. Angels of God are not visible to sense, nor can the Son of Man now be seen in such a manner. He comes again in the same manner in which He was seen to ascend,2 when angels also were perceived. Hence the sign of the Son of Man is mentioned in the Revelation as "the Bright and Morning Star" 3—not the planet in the sky, but the knowledge of the Lord, "the Star of Bethlehem." The proper sign of the Son of Man is the diffusion of heavenly knowledge through the opening of the Word, for the letter of the Word is like a cloud, in which things Divine are concealed. There are two senses in which the Word is opened at the Second Coming: first, by genuine doctrine, placing all its topics of faith in perfect accord, especially the three great doctrines respecting the Lord, the Christian Life, and the Future State; second, the Word is opened as to the law of its spiritual sense, which is now revealed, confirming the occasional intimations of this inner sense found in the Gospels and Epistles.5 In the early Christian age this inner sense of the Word was acknowledged, as the curious expositions of Origen testify. But "the key of knowledge" had long been taken away; nor was the time come for its restoration. It would have fared the fate of the creeds.

There are several things in the Divine discourse which I am compelled to pass over; but there is one which the Lord mentions that I must just notice: "This generation shall not pass away till all these things be fulfilled." The disciples would naturally receive these words in the apparent sense. The Lord had used similar language when He

1 John i. 51.

4 1 Cor. x. 1.

5 See Rom. ii. 28; Gal. iv. 24-26; Heb. xii. 18-22. 6 The reader is referred to the following important works: "Illustrations of the End of the Church," by the Rev. Augustus Clissold, M.A., which contains an exposition from Swedenborg's works of the 24th chapter of Matthew. 'Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew," by the Rev. W. Bruce; being a critical and devotional exposition of the whole Gospel. J. Speirs, 36 Bloomsbury Street.

66