having sought, with a deep moral earnestness that was never surpassed, for the right answer, not content with privately knowing it, he has given it to the world at large. He has supplied men with, not what they asked for, but what they most needed. Faithful to himself, he has been faithful unto all men, and hence, utterly regardless of consequences, he has invariably stood up to say that which in his heart he knew to be true, and, doing so, to defy the worst that could be done against him. God has not a more faithful witness, nor humanity a firmer friend. The truth has never been able to boast a braver champion, none that has done more to widen the fields of human sympathy, or to produce that unity of action upon which everything like great progress mainly depends.

We write with no flattering pen; we do but give expression to our deep convictions when we say that his work on Matters pertaining to Religion,' has done more than any modern treatise to quicken, and purify, and set free religious thought. Every man who reads it feels himself to be elevated in the scale of humanity, both as a citizen and as a religious being. Nor can we conceive anything better calculated to shorten the reign of priestcraft, and to bring about the victory of true religion, than the widespread study of this work. Its logic is all-crushing; its arguments are perfect pictures; its rebukes are scathing; its piety is profound; its deep earnestness is unmistakeable, and its poetry is as noble as any that has appeared in modern ages, for there is the power of a Psalmist combined with the ethical beauty of Novalis and the grand moral earnestness of Carlyle.

The work whose title heads this notice contains an outline of his early life, the history of his early struggles as a minister, the way in which he achieved his religious freedom, and a summary of what he has taught. It admits us into his own mind, and enables us to understand somewhat of the terrible pressure against which through many years he has had to struggle. It is a fearful review and yet glorious-fearful as an indictment of his enemies; glorious as showing his victory. His early life was in the way of work; his education was excellent, and the "home influences" that operated upon him were of the highest order. From his younger years he was a diligent student and longed to be a minister; but, when the time for decision came, there were plenty who advised otherwise. It lay with himself to decide, and he did so, after answering the three following questions:

'

"1. Can you seek for what is eternally true, and not be blinded by the opinions of any sect, or of the Christian Church; and can you tell that truth you learn, even when it is unpopular and hated? I answered, I can! Rash youth is ever confident.

2. Can you seek the eternal right, and not be blinded by the statutes and customs of men ecclesiastical, political, and social; and can you declare that eternal right you discover, applying it to the actual life of man, individual and associated, though it bring you into painful relations with men? Again 1 swiftly answered, I can.

"3. Can you represent in your life that truth of the intellect and that right of the conscience, and so not disgrace with your character what you preach with your lips? I doubted of this more than the others; the temptation to personal wickedness seemed stronger than that to the professional deceit at least it was then better known; but I answered, I can try, and will!"

The account of his ministry furnished in this new work is a record necessarily brief, of how he has adhered to these answers. For his faithful adherence to them he has been denounced and hated, still has he not turned away to the

right hand or to the left, but has kept straight onward, as duty and truth showed him the way. He discovered that the Bible and manlike religion, a religion which lifts man towards the gods, do not stand to each other as causé and effect, and he made his discovery known; he discovered that the theological and biblical theories of Depravity, Original Sin, Predestination, Prevenient Grace, Atonement, Eternal Damnation, Inspiration and Providence were not true, and with all earnestness and sobriety, he proclaimed the truth in their place. Numerous were the discoveries he made in his long years of patient study, all of which in their turn were faithfully given forth to his congregation; but, of course, and beyond his own people, only at the expense of personal insult, loss of friends, and the branding by "brotherly Judases." From the Unitarian body he had some right to expect support, but in place thereof, he incurred their deadliest hatred. In every possible way, even to the extent of endeavouring to prevent the publication of his sermons, they fought against him; and all for "the glory of freedom and the honour of their churches." They boast themselves to be the friends of freedom; but, as in our own land, they are apt in striking the free speaker a much heavier blow than is struck by the more open and avowed enemies. Unitarians have a great work to do, but they have grown cowardly; as a rule, they are constantly labouring to prove themselves to be both orthodox and respectable Christians; thus it is that they endeavour to compound with the ultra-orthodox party for their "slight difference in opinion," by bitterly persecuting all others who move an inch beyond themselves. They brand the truth in order to win worthless applause. The consequence is that they lose power-for those unto whom they bow, mock them—and decline as a church. For no man can serve God and Mammon; heterodoxy and orthodoxy at the same time; they fear the world's opinion too much to conquer and guide it. But Theodore Parker grew as a man in thought and influence, despite the malignity and bitterness of their opposition, and won for himself a place in the esteem of all lovers of truth. His success may be read in the above "Experience as a Minister," which we advise all our readers to procure. Every man will be improved through reading it, and when they have reached its last page, they will join with the members of the author's congregation, who, in their letter to him, said

"While we feel the deepest and warmest sympathy for you under the new and serious development of the disease from which you are suffering, we yet trust that it is not too late to arrest its progress, and that, in some more genial clime than ours, relieved from the cares and responsibilities which have borne heavily upon you for so many years, you may regain that soundness of health which shall enable you to resume, at some future day, the great work to which you have devoted your life."

Heartily do we join in this hope, for we cannot afford to lose such a man from the leadership of progress in all its forms. He is now in Switzerland, trying hard to recover the power of body. It would be rash to predict any thing of his future, even did not the tone of the present work forbid it. He has reviewed his career, and has bidden farewell to his old friends. He may come forth again as a giant refreshed, and more powerful than before, or he may become one of the great army of those who, being dead, still speak. Who knows which? We know only that he will still speak!

We believe there are several editions of the above now publishing in England. We have seen only it, and therefore cannot speak of them either as to neatness or cheapness. The above is a neatly printed one shilling edition, and, as the record of a brave and earnest man's career, we trust it will find a place in all the homes of England.

P. W. P.

STUDIES OF CHURCH HISTORY.—VII.

ARIUS AND HIS BISHOP; A THEOLOGICAL DISPUTE.

It was a sorry day for humanity when kingly despotism cntered into alliance with spiritual tyranny. The temptation on the part of a constituted Priesthood to assume an undue authority over the thoughts, deeds, and words of men, is, at all times and under all circumstances, sufficiently strong. Thus we find the priestly class, in every age and nation, always seeking to exercise a power over men's minds, and in but too many cases, alas! succeeding in the attainment of its object. It is, however, only natural that this should be So. Man is naturally despotic,-put power into his hands, and he will use it, and the more willing to submit other men are found to be, the more despotically will he use it. The power in the hands of the Priest, being, as it is, based upon the strongest, that is the religious feelings of, men, being irresponsibly exercised with no appeal from it, and enslaving the very souls of those who submit to it, is at all times more dangerous, both to the justice and morality of those who possess it, and to the rights and interests of others, than any other power ever wielded by man. But when to this are added the might of kingly despotism, and the terrors of the civil government, then indeed is a tyranny created before which the strongest may quail. Beneath the grievous yoke of such a tyranny, created by Constantine when he called into existence that double-headed monster the State-Church, it was now the lot of humanity to " groan and sweat" for many a weary century: and in the attempt to throw off that yoke many a noble spirit was to be done to death. Yes! in the march of the ages-ages of darkness, and superstition, of tyranny triumphant, and of misery the great deeps of which history fails to fathom— ere yet we have to hail the clarion voice of the Victor in this mighty struggle, we have sadly to record many a victory of Might over Right, we behold Liberty in chains, earnest Thought and manful Endeavour crushed, human Progress stayed, and mankind the subject-slaves of Priests and Kings. Aye, indeed it was a legacy of tears and woe which Constantine left for after generations.

If a man

But perhaps the worst feature of the joint-despotism of Church and State is, that the tyranny which is thereby rendered possible is very frequently supported and approved of by some of the noblest feelings of men. suppose himself to be in possession of the truth, and have the power to enforce it upon others, he may very readily persuade himself that it is a virtue on his part so to do; and so we find that some of the best men in history have to be reckoned among the persecutors. On this account we would not always visit on the men who have used the power, which the creation of the StateChurch placed in their hands, the curses, brought to our lips by seeing the wrongs caused by their action; but must in justice attribute the wrong and the shame to the system in many cases. Thus much is due to the undoubted virtue of some, who, in the prosecution of a high but mistaken purpose, and having, unfortunately both for themselves and for others, the power in their hands, have sought to secure the victory of what seemed to them the Cause of Right, and to make all men bow down to what they looked upon as Truth: -not considering, as it has been finely said by Neander, that the " truth itself, "forced on man otherwise than by its own inward power, becomes falsehood." While thus much however is due to these men, let it not for one moment be supposed that we would class all persecutors in the same category with them.

We shall have in this and a few following articles to call the attention of our readers to the first attempt on the part of the Church, aided by the State, to circumscribe the thought, and define the limits of the faith of men; and in connection with that, and the persecutions which followed, it will appear plainly enough that it was not the love of truth, but the greed of power and pelf on the part of the dominant party in the Church, which led to this attempt. And looking at the entire history of the Church the conclusion is unavoidable, that though Power may have sometimes led good men to persecute, it has ever been seized by bad men to subserve their own selfish ends.

Constantine, in his ignorance of the principles which govern the conduct of Priests in power, a knowledge of which in the absence of any experience of a State-Church was not possible to him, had hoped in using Christianity as an adjunct to his own state-craft to find in it a compact and undivided power, and did not foresee the feuds which would naturally arise out of the numerous differences of opinion existent among the Christians so soon as they were free from external interference. He conceived that in granting toleration to the Christians he was giving freedom of action to a great party in the empire who would all work together for one common end. He had no notion or suspicion of the inveterate animosities which arise out of religious differences. Consequently great must have been his disappointment to find that within ten years after the promulgation of the Edict of Milan the Christian world was convulsed with a great struggle between the adherents of two different views of the doctrine of the Trinity; and that, in addition to this, numerous other questions had started up, which before the days of toleration had been allowed to remain in abeyance, or on which men had been content to differ, but which now brought their harvest of disputes. No sooner had the Church become invested with authority derived from the State, than these differences and disputes led to the formation of Sects, the passions of men were enlisted on one side or the other, and the more numerous party who had the ear of Constantine sought to drive out from all participation in place and power any who did not agree with them. So it was, that what Warburton calls "certain metaphysical questions, which, if considered in one light are too sublime to become the subject of human wit, if in another, too trifling to gain the attention of "reasonable men," engaged the attention, and fired the zeal of adverse partisans, and the Church became the arena of all kinds of disputes, and a very hotbed of feuds. A philosopher, according as he viewed these questions as sublime or trifling, would have been content to allow his incapacity to settle, or unnoticed, as matters of no moment, have left them: not so the Christian, he looked upon them as matters of religion involving great principles of truth and falsehood, and on which he believed the Church had power to decide. The Church of course would be the dominant party, hence the struggle for victory was fierce, feeling took the place of reason, and prompted to actions both unjust and cruel.

66

We now invite the attention of our readers to the great Trinitarian controversy of which Arius became alike the hero and the victim. Arius is supposed to have been a native of Libya, and received his theological education from Lucian of Antioch, in whose school was taught the free grammatical interpretation of the Bible as opposed to the mystical or Gnostic Christianity which had become prevalent during the time of Origen. Thus, a rational view of the Christian system lay at the basis of the doctrinal system afterwards promulgated by Arius. Early in life he became a presbyter of the Church of Baucalis in Alexandria; one Alexander, by name, being bishop at that

time. At a meeting of his presbyters, Alexander, on one occasion, some time in the year 319, maintained views of the Godhead, which, as they did not coincide with those entertained by Arius, led to a dispute between them; and, in this dispute, we find the commencement of the most extensive heresy which has ever divided the church, and the parent of more numerous sectarian divisions than we have space to name, or our readers would be willing to enter into the examination of. By some, it has been stated or assumed that Arius was led to question the correctness of the views of his Bishop by a feeling of ill-will, and by others, that ambition, and the desire for distinction, led him to do this; while, on the contrary, it is asserted that envy, and personal enmity to Arius, influenced the Bishop in resenting the conduct of Arius towards him, the theory of those who take this view being, that "the great popularity of Arius "had excited his jealousy." And yet that Arius could be influenced by ill-will towards the Bishop seems to be disproved by the well-established fact that he had-in favour of Alexander-generously declined the bishopric, to which he might have been elected; while ambition, and the desire for distinction, could hardly influence him in a private meeting of presbyters, and seem to be gratuitously charged against him, if his popularity were already such as to give colour to a charge of jealousy on the part of the Bishop. We may, indeed, dismiss these charges on both sides, as of no importance; for it is so natural for men to support the views they entertain on religious matters, and is, moreover, so extremely natural for them to differ in such views, that both Arius and Alexander may have been, and probably were, uninfluenced by those evil motives which partizan feeling has since attributed to them: nor is it to be thought wonderful that a bishop should undertake to judge and condemn the views of his presbyter, when they differed from his own, and were, moreover, according to his opinion, contrary to sound doctrine, and, therefore, condemnable.

In the opinion concerning the nature of the Godhead maintained by bishop Alexander, we see the germ of modern Trinitarianism—while to an untheological mind the views of Arius may be sufficiently defined by the modern term Unitarianism, they were in fact the commencement, in the shape of a distinct theory, of those doctrinal views which are now termed Unitarian. We say" the commencement in the shape of a distinct theory," because there can be no doubt in the minds of those who have read the early Church Fathers, that the doctrine of the primitive Church regarding the Godhead was Unitarian, and that the Trinity was an after importation. This is virtually admitted by Neander, and to a great extent also by Waddington, both of them orthodox writers on the history of the Church, and careful and laborious students. Neander says "Arius certainly did not believe that he was preaching a new "doctrine, but only bringing out and establishing the old Church subordina"tion system."* And Waddington tells us that "in the freedom exercised by "individual opinion on abstruse mysteries under the early Church, it is possible that many may have held the doctrine, afterwards called Arian."+ Alexandria, the very city where the contest between the Trinitarian and Unitarian views of the Godhead arose, must be looked upon as the place where the Trinity was born. In the early Gnostic Systems, and the writings which proceeded from the Schools of Neo-platonism where the triads of Plato, modified by, and mixed up with, Jewish Monotheism, found acceptance, we find the germ of the triune God. While the same ideas, Christianised and