Paulist fathers lead the awakened sinner up to the cross of Christ with such a confidence in his willingness and power to save? The reviewer can speak that which he knows, and testify that which he has seen. He knows more than we can pretend to know about the actual character of religious experience and feeling, as well as of religious opinion, ainong Roman Catholics in our day and in our country. He can tell, better than we can, whether there is any possibility of new relations between devout and liberal men in the great communion to which he belongs, and other devout and liberal men whose hope of salvation stands or falls with the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Some Protestant hymns-as, for example, Watts's "Come, Holy Spirit, Heavenly Dove,” and, if our memory serves us, Wesley's "Jesus, lover of my Soul "-are sometimes found in Roman Catholic manuals of private devotion, just as hymns from the "Roman Breviary" are freely incorporated into Protestant manuals without asking whether they were composed before or since the Council of Trent. Is it possible for Roman Catholics and Protestants anywhereand more particularly in the reviewer's native Connecticut, of which he speaks with filial love-to come together in one assembly for the one purpose of singing with blended voices some of the hymns which are approved on both sides as expressive of truly Christian thought and feeling? Would it be possible, in such an assembly, to sing, "Come, ye weary," or that more exquisite song of faith in Christ, "Just as I am?" We ask these questions not to entangle the reviewer, but only as desiring information which he can give.

There is one thing more to be said before we take our leave of the subject for the present. After all, what is there of doctrine that can be profitably discussed between us and the writers in the Catholic World? For them the doctrines which divide them from us are already defined immutably by the infallibility of the Council of Trent. In the decrees of that Council, "the synopsis of all Catholic doctrine," in other words, the synopsis of all Christian doctrine, is propounded to their belief by an authority which they cannot conscientiously question. To them there is no possibility of correcting or otherwise improving any proposition in that synopsis ;-they

would charge themselves with impiety if they found their minds infested with a doubt of the infallibility on which they rest. Certainly no question between Rome and the Reformation is an open question to them. How then, can we and they enter into any discussion of such questions with the mutual profession of a willingness to be convinced by argument and of a desire to ascertain the truth? Such is the inequality between the parties that there can be no intelligent expectation of mutual helpfulness. In one view we have a great advantage over them. We profess to be learners, but it is impossible for them to learn anything on the subjects which are proposed for discussion. We do not recognize Luther, or Zwingle, or Calvin, nor all of them together, as having dominion over our faith. We are under no obligation to hold or defend their statements of doctrine any farther than those statements may be shown to be in conformity with the Scriptures. If our learned friends of the "Catholic World," any or all of them, even without converting us to the entire creed of Pope Pius IV., can give us any light, or can help us to any modification of our present views, on the doctrines proposed for discussion, we shall be greatly obliged to them. But it will not be possible for us to be the means or instrument of any such benefit to them; for, unless they first cease to be "good Catholics," they cannot give up or modify one jot or tittle of whatever the Council of Trent, three hundred years ago, decreed for them to believe and defend. In another view of the case, they have a great advantage over us. We have nothing but the Scriptures to back us in the conflict. They have an infallible church behind them. If we go into the proposed discussion, the questions which we must argue with them are, fundamentally, questions about the interpretation and exposition of the Scriptures, and we must search the Scriptures in the use of our own faculties, under our personal and direct responsibility to God, and with prayer for the enlightening and guiding influence of the Holy Spirit. But it is not so with them. On all the points of controversy between Rome and Protestantism, they hold that the meaning of the Scriptures is already definitely fixed; and the only question which they have to consider is not how to interpret holy Scripture, but how to

interpret the decrees of the Council of Trent. Why then should their time and thought, or ours, be expended in a discussion so unprofitable? After all, must not the questions between Romanism and Anglicanism be first disposed of? Does not the question whether the Council of Trent was infallible (including all the subordinate questions which that includes or into which it may be resolved) come first in order? What other question is there which can be fairly debated between us and them, except as preliminary or subsidiary to that main question? Let us then say, plainly, that we have no intention of entering into any discussion, however amicable, with the "Catholic World," concerning the proof of the great doctrines which we hold as evangelical Protestants. The mere repetition of old arguments on one side and the other is a work in which we do not propose to exercise our faculties at present. Yet, as the readers of this Article have seen, we are quite willing to do what we can towards a better understanding of each other's actual belief. We will do what we can towards helping intelligent and candid Roman Catholics to understand what we, on the authority of the Scriptures, believe concerning Christ and the way to be saved. We will endeavor to ascertain any misunderstanding of our views on their part, and to remove their misunderstanding by patient and charitable explanation. So, on the other hand, we hope to learn from them, not what we think (for in that field of inquiry we are more at home than they are), but what they think. In whatever particulars we misunderstand their faith and doctrine, let our misunderstanding be corrected. In this way something may be gained on both sides. Roman Catholics may learn to think more favorably of their Protestant neighbors, and may be more ready to cooperate with them in the interest of good morals and the public welfare; and earnestly religious Protestants, on the other hand, may learn some valuable lessons of respect and charity for those whose birth and education, or whose idiosyncrasies have made them the devoted subjects of Rome, but who are, nevertheless, endeavoring to be loyal to their country and to liberty.

ARTICLE VIII.-THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY.

THE doctrine of the Trinity is fundamental in the Christian system, and is most firmly established in the Christian faith; yet it is nowhere explicitly taught in the New Testament, though it involves the profoundest mystery of Revelation. Briefly stated it is: "There are three persons in the Godhead; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one God, the same in substance and equal in power and glory." "The same in substance" and yet "three persons; "three persons" and yet "one God; "-statements which stagger the intellect and can be exactly received only by a humble faith, and yet for fifteen hundred years that doctrine in its baldest statement has been the pillar and the glory of the Christian Church.

It is our object to consider the Arian Controversy which distracted the Roman Empire as well as the entire Church for more than fifty years, and in the heats of which the doctrine of the Trinity crystallized into its present form-a form which will probably remain unchanged and unexplained as long as the visible Church seeks to state its faith, and will only pass away in the day when all creeds and symbols shall die; for we shall see Him as He is.

Our Saviour did not state a formal doctrinal system, so far as we can judge from the narratives we have of his life. He simply lived a life and cast it into the center of the world's heart, and passed away. But that life began so mysteriously, was so simple and yet so full of startling and profound facts, ended in a removal so suggestive, and was followed by a spiritual influence so marvelous, that thousands of souls were, by its power, born again and became consciously accepted sons of God, even as he had promised. Tracing their new communion with God to their fellowship with Christ, in their practical faith and belief they worshiped Him as God. Not only the apostles and evangelists, the companions of our Lord, but the great body of the Church in the first two centuries, held the

Son in equal honor with the Father. In Clement of Rome, and Polycarp, and Ignatius, and Justin Martyr, and Irenæus, and Tertullian, we find the faith of the Catholic Church on this point, not expressed fully and consistently in the technical terms of the later controversy, yet hearty and unmistakable. The young Church had on its shoulders the tremendous missionary work of evangelizing the world. With glowing piety they preached a risen Lord; they had not tine or heart yet to stop and analyze their faith. Yet as they did the will of their Lord, a faith more perfect than any creed lived in their souls and awaited only opportunity to take on a full and exact statement. Time passed on. The age of Apologies began to pass away, for the Church had gained its position in the world. Gradually arose the spirit of speculation within the Church. Weak men and wicked men rose up and misstated the Christian consciousness, and good men and strong men too missed the full meaning of that wonderful life and death of Christ. But in every time of need sprang up a champion, and the age of Polemics came. By contentions and councils and persecutions the Church has to make its creed.

The first topic which presented itself for discussion was this: What is the relation of Christ to God? First in natural order it was, for Christ was the grand, central figure in the new dispensation; first in importance also, for on the dignity and nature of Christ rest the faith and the hope of the gospel. The Arian Controversy may be called the third stage in this discussion, so that to understand it we must first briefly characterize the two preceding stages out of which it naturally proceeded.

Passing over the Gnostic emanation theories as too remote from the Christian stand-point, we come first to the Patripassian and Sabellian heresies, akin to Gnosticism perhaps, in that human speculation rather than the Bible was the source from which they sprang, and also in that Christ was held to be by the one and by the other merely an emanation from, or a manifestation of, God. Both the Patripassians and Sabellians denied the hypostatic or personal distinction in the Divine essence, offering to the Church one God and one person, variously appearing, but still one person. The Church whose