substantial" with the Father. Both the Father and the Son subsist for themselves as persons, but have a substantial unity in their common nature; all materializing affections of the divine nature, which might seem involved in the idea of "generation," all subordinationism, is meant to be thus excluded, and the eternal divinity of the Son saved in that of the Father. One distinction alone must remain-the only one made necessary by Sabellianism-in the element of "generation" itself, the distinction of begetting and being begotten. We have already seen that this remained the only difference in the later orthodoxy of the Church. For subsequent times was left enough of labor; since the two essential elements of the Son's person were merely stated, not yet internally developed and reconciled. The subsequent history shows us how the three great Cappadocians (the two Gregories and Basil) took up the task of giving a more precise definition of the term "hypostasis," and of giving the characteristic properties of each one of the divine persons (hypostases.)

III. But these subsequent teachers could not contribute much that was new to the proper doctrinal vindication of the Homousia, after the brilliant career, and the comprehensive and thorough investigations of Athanasius. Friends and enemies of his faith in all times have, without reserve, given him the eulogy, that he illustrated and defended the Nicene doctrine in all its aspects with rare acuteness, with untiring truth and circumspection, by profound and comprehensive research, as well as with great clearness and elevation of thought. To the method in which he did this, we devote a few words of remembrance at the close of this article.

1. As to the exegetical proof of his doctrine, and the Biblical refutation of his opponents, no one can deny the fulness of his hermeneutical apparatus, the manifoldness of his proofs, nor his subtlety in detecting the different significations of any one passage. Yet, as is frequently apparent in our sketch, his arguments sometimes have their weakest support in his exegesis, since he often does not take the text simply as it is, but does violence to it for dogmatic, apologetic, or polemic reasons. Thus is it, for example, with his enlargement of the sense of Messianic passages in the Old Testament, his naïve juxtaposition of the Old and New Testament in the way of proof: e. g.

Solomon's song, viii. 1, interpreted of the Incarnation as enabling Christ to bear human suffering, Psalm xxxii. 9. "Be not as the horse, or the mule," as expressive of the human sympathies of the Logos; or Gen. vi. 2, that these "sons of God," like those in the New Testament, derive their sonship from Christ. The same exegetical prejudices, which cannot now be tolerated, are seen in his interpretations of Phil. ii. 5 sq., Heb. iii. 2, Sam. iv. 20. His typical interpretations, consciously such, are of a different kind, as e. g. a striking example in his sixth Festal Epistle. But these Epistles are also rich in passages in which the transient and shadowy nature of the Mosaic law and the whole Old Testament economy are held up to the view of those heretics who would practically revive an antiquated Judaism.

2. So much the greater, however, is in contrast the glory of his argumentation in its dogmatic aspects. The comprehensiveness and coherence with which he traced the influence of this doctrine upon the whole of theology; the deep earnestness with which he portrays the full burden of sin and its judgment, which is death; the completeness with which, on the other hand, he enumerates and establishes, one by one, the soteriological points involved; the threefold relation in which he justly carries out the unity of the Son with the Father, thereby, also, recognizing, though not further defining, the necessary distinction between them; these are points which do all honor to his doctrinal knowledge and depth, and distinguish him not only among his cotemporaries, but also above many theologians of later times; for he has many important statements they do not give, which after him seem to have been forgotten, and regained only with toil and study. How little the mere external forgiveness of sin can help us, without the internal appropriation of salvation, and the implanting of a new life, he has shown in a way that Hugo Grotius, with his external doctrine of the atonement, never conjectured. We meet with the idea of Catholicity in his eleventh Festal Epistle, in the precise sense of the "universalitas, antiquitas et consensio" of Vincens of Lirens.* The

"What blessedness will there be, when prayer to God shall ascend in like manner from all, who are everywhere, when the whole Catholic Church, which is everywhere, shall celebrate the worship of God with joy and jubilee, at the same time, and in one and the same way." Cf. Larsow, l. c. s. 123. Note 4.

clear and definite way in which he grasps the conception of the "new creation," (zawy xríos, revived by Rothe, after long forgetfulness of its value,) redounds to his honor, as also his thorough application of the designation of Christ as "the second Adam," the "spiritual man," the completion of the race; including the position that the human race, apart even from the fall, would have needed, to attain its destiny and blessedness, to be elevated to a spiritual state, (Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 45-47,) to a higher form of existence than the merely natural. For, he says, (Or. ii. 78,) "we could nevermore of ourselves have attained to eternal life, since (not because we have sinned, but because) we are of the earth."

3. To characterize Athanasius, in respect to his speculative or philosophical views, we need here only refer to the value he assigns to the passage, (Prov. viii, 30,) in which the Son, the eternal Wisdom, appears as united with the essence of God by an internal necessity, therein to see himself, and thereon to delight himself, (Or. c. Ar. i. 20: "God himself begets this Wisdom, that seeing himself in it he may rejoice with it;") to his discrimination between the essence and the will of God, the former relating to the Logos, (opera ad intra,) the latter to the world, (opera ad extra,) and the rank he assigns to the essence above the will; to the passages in which he declares, as well the immanence of God in the world, as the relative independence of the world; and also, in fine, to that Biblical realism which we ever find in him in contrast with all one-sided

idealism.

4. But Athanasius, with all his speculative depth, never loses sight of the practical element. With correct tact, he ever attributes to the three divine Persons (hypostases) the value which they have for us as the three-fold causality of all redemption: and hence, in his view, the manifested (transeunt) Trinity gives us the source and principles of our knowledge of the immanent Trinity. Hence he lingers at such length upon all the elements of the redemptive work. In this, as in all his life and writings, he proclaims that the right faith, especially in this funda:nental doctrine of the Church, proves itself to be as favorable to profound knowledge, as it is fruitful in good works.

ARTICLE II.

EXCLUSIVISM.*

BESIDES the Roman Catholics, there are three denominations of Christians in this country that unite with them in excluding all others. They are the Episcopalians, the Baptists, and some portions of the asteroidal fragments of the Scotch Presbyterian church.

The Episcopalians ignore all other churches. Ecclesiastically they treat them as if they were not. They recognize them in no way as churches; they perform no act which can by any fair interpretation be construed as an implied recognition of them as churches. They admit the ministers of no other denominations into their pulpits, either by exchange, or by any form of courtesy, or in the prosecution of any agency pertaining to the cause of Christian benevolence. They hold no intercourse by "correspondence" with the ecclesiastical bodies of other denominations. They regularly, and on principle, re-ordain all who leave any other denomination and become ministers in the Episcopal church. They recognize no act of the ministers of any other denomination as a proper work of the ministry. The Lord's Supper as administered by others they regard as unauthorized and invalid, and baptism as administered by a Presbyterian, a Congregationalist, a Baptist, or a Methodist minister, they regard as valid only because baptism administered by a layman is, in their estimation, valid. They dismiss, by certificate, none of their own members to other churches; they demand no certificate of membership from those who come into their churches from other communions; they attach no value, as indicating real church membership, to such a certificate if it is obtained and presented. The want of such a certificate is no bar to admis

*Note by the Author of this Article.-But one of the Editors of this journal is responsible for the sentiments contained in this Article. The other Editors consent to its publication as containing suggestions that may be worthy of reflection, and that may lead to a more thorough and able discussion of the subject.

sion to their communion by the member of another church; it furnishes no increased facilities to the communion of the Episcopal church if it is presented. In their Liturgical service no prayer is offered for any other denomination of Christians, or any other churches than their own; and the only implication in the service that there may, by possibility, be any other Christians than those which are in the Episcopal churches is found in the very general petition which they offer for "all who profess and call themselves Christians ;" and that prayer is only that they may "hold the faith in the unity of the Spirit, in the bond of peace, and in righteousness of life." At the same time, while this is the treatment of all other churches by the entire Episcopal body; while they thus practically ignore all other churches, it is true, also, that a very large portion of the denomination, avowedly, and on principle, maintain that theirs is the only true church; that theirs is the only valid ministry; that theirs are the only true sacraments, and that all others are left to the "uncovenanted mercies of God." The entire treatment of other denominations by Episcopalians is based on the implied belief that they have no valid ministry, and no valid sacraments; that they have cut themselves off from the true Apostolic Succession, and that there is no church organization to be recognized but their own. Neither Samuel Davies, nor President Edwards, nor Dr. Dwight could have been admitted to the deaconship in an Episcopal church without re-ordination, nor would a certificate of church membership from Dr. Griffin, Dr. Woods, or Dr. Alexander, have been to an Episcopalian any evidence whatever of membership in the true Church of Christ. Members will, indeed, be received by them gladly from other churches, but a certificate of membership is no credential, and furnishes no facilities for such an admission. Episcopalian ministers, indeed, act in concert with other ministers in the Bible Society, in the cause of temperance, and in promoting the interests of the Sunday-school Union, but it is never as ministers, and never in such a way that, by any fair interpretation, their co-operation can be construed as evidence that they recognize them as ministers of the Lord Jesus. They act with them as men; as the friends of learning and humanity; but never as ministers of the Gospel.