that he attributes a great deal too much to this father, when he ascribes to him the merit of having "reinstated grammatical interpretation in its rights." It is true Origen admits that the Scriptures have a literal or historical, as well as a moral and a mystical sense; but then he is continually setting aside the literal to make way for the mystical, as more sublime, or more worthy of the Deity, and his canons of criticism and interpretation we suppose will now find few advocates.

Such, in few words, are the plan and arrangement of Gieseler's book, and they will recommend themselves, we are persuaded, to all who are competent to decide on the subject, as entitling the work to a decided preference, as a text-book of ecclesiastical history, to those at present in use among us. With the execution we profess ourselves, in the main, to be entirely satisfied. The method is clear, and the style perspicuous; and the great learning of the author; his critical skill, and truly German diligence; his remarkable candor and impar tiality, which constitute a somewhat rare endowment of the ecclesiastical historian, give him a peculiar claim to our confidence, and must render his volumes, on which Mr. Cunningham has labored, as we think, with eminent success, an invaluable acquisition to the American student, to whatever class of Christians he belongs. As a manual, the book should take the place of all others of the kind, and should be adopted, at once, in all our seminaries for theological education. We could wish to see it on the table of every theological student in our country.

A work of this character can hardly be supposed to furnish many passages suitable for extract. We will attempt, however, to glean a few. The following relate to the distinctive characters assumed by the theology of the East and of the West, chiefly during the third century. The author commences with a notice of the Alexandrian School.

"In the period before us," says he, "the doctrines of the church were developed chiefly at Alexandria, at that time the seat of the sciences, where the Catholic teachers, brought into constant collision with Heathen and Heretics, were forced to enter more philosophically into the Christian doctrines. In this highly-cultivated city, the necessity of something more than the usual instruction of Catechumens had been very early felt, as well for the philosophical proselytes, as for those who were in future to become teachers. In this manner, no doubt, distinguished men had often drawn around VOL. XXII. 3D S. VOL. IV. NO. I. 5

them great numbers of pupils; and thus prepared the way for the institution of the Alexandrian Catechetical School, which, beginning just before the time of which we are speaking, was now at the height of its prosperity, and through its distinguished teachers, Pantænus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Origenes, Heraclas, Dionysius, (Pierius and Theognostus?), was the source of all the advances made in Christian theology during this period. The Alexandrian school took its peculiar character from its very earliest teachers. Of Pantænus, indeed, we know nothing further than his name, and can only judge of him by his pupil Titus Flavius Clemens, on whose writings this character is plainly stamped. He presided over the school from the year 191 to 202, fled from the city in the persecution under Severus, and probably came back again afterwards, (died about 220). But these peculiarities were first fully developed and matured by the great Origen, the son of the martyr Leonidas, (died 202). At the early. age of eighteen he was a catechumen at the school in Alexandria, and had a high reputation abroad. But in the year 228 he offended his bishop, Demetrius, by being consecrated as Presbyter at Cæsarea, and, after his removal thither, was soon excluded by Demetrius from communion with the church for his peculiar opinions. The churches in Palestine, Arabia, and Achaia paid no regard, however, to this measure of Demetrius, and Origen not only continued to act as Presbyter, but likewise gave instruction in the sciences."-Vol. 1. pp. 134–136.

The Alexandrine school of philosophy, the author observes, was held in high esteem, not only as having been to the Heathen, what the law was to the Jews, a preparation for Christianity, but as the only means of penetrating the hidden spirit of its doctrines." This gnosis was to be concealed from the vulgar; it was handed down as a mystery; and even Origen, though more free than others in speaking of the secret doctrines, sometimes manifests a hesitation, and is very explicit in his warnings that "these things are not to be promiscuously told to the people." The author proceeds.

"Two great principles run through the whole of the Alexandrian theology. The one, that all anthropopathetic (borrowed from human nature) notions of God must be carefully avoided, is seen in their constant efforts to purify the doctrines of religion from every thing earthly and material; the other, that man is without any limitation a morally free being, and that the condition of all morally free beings depends entirely on themselves, led to still more striking results.

"The most remarkable of their doctrines are the following:

"1. That the Godhead can never be unemployed: so that an

endless series of worlds preceded the present, and an endless series of worlds will follow it.

"2. That all intellectual beings (angels, stars, men, demons) were originally created alike, and none of them without a body, as this is the peculiar attribute of the Deity. Some of them having sinned, God created the world and banished the fallen spirits into bodies, more or less gross, according to the degree of their sinfulness. Still they all retain their moral freedom, and are able, if they will, to rise again from their degraded state. Even the punishments of the damned are not eternal, but only remedial; whilst the Devil himself may reform and be pardoned. When the world shall have answered the purpose for which it was created, as the dwelling-place of fallen spirits, it will be destroyed by fire; and by this fire the soul will be purified from all the stains it may have contracted by its intimate union with the body. But, as spirits always retain their freedom, they may sin again; in which case a new world will be created for them.

"3. The Alexandrians speak of the Logos as a highly-exalted being, though their expressions are not always distinct. Evidently, however, they make him inferior to the Supreme God. The wish to remove every thing, that could be unworthy of God, from the notion of the generation of the Son, led at last to the doctrine taught by Origen, that the Logos did not proceed from the essence of the Father, but was produced by the will of God, generated from all eternity. He taught, also, that the Holy Ghost was created by the Son.

"4. The body assumed by the Logos, when it became man, was not of flesh, but of a nobler texture. According to Origen, it united itself not with a human body, but a human soul.

"5. The Alexandrians must of course have been averse to the doctrine of Chiliasm, which, as then held, was so contrary to their antimaterialism. Clement does not allude to it. Origen, however, opposes it openly, giving to the passages, which were thought to favor the doctrine, an allegorical interpretation.

"6. The doctrine of the resurrection of the flesh was, with many Christians, founded on such exaggerated notions of the relative importance of the body in man, that some of them (the Arabians) actually held the soul as an accident, or quality, of the body. With the Alexandrians, on the other hand, to whom the body was only the prison-house of the spirit, it was a natural and consistent doctrine, that the soul would not resume its material body, but one of an incorruptible and far more glorious texture." - Vol. I. pp. 138-141.

The theology of the East thus became highly speculative and mutable, and the way was finally prepared for the ap

pearance of Arianism, of which Lucian of Antioch "has been often considered the father, because he founded the school of Antioch, from which Arius and his most distinguished friends went out." In the West, theology wore a different aspect.

"After Tertullian had led the way in adapting the Latin language to the expression of Christian ideas, it soon came into very general use amongst Christians of the West; though much was still written in Greek, and even by Tertullian himself. But in proportion as the Greek language fell into disuse, the interest in the theology of the Greek church diminished. In consequence the Latin church remained stationary, and the gross material conceptions of the Greek theology, introduced by Tertullian in the second century, were still held fast in the third; the Latins being too much prejudiced against philosophy, and, from their ignorance of the necessary languages, too unskilled in criticism to go forward of themselves. Thus the characteristics of the Western church at this time are an aversion to all theological speculation, and in doctrine a profound immobility which prevented all improvement, except what was unconsciously brought about by the movements in the Greek church.

"Whilst they rejected the peculiar tenets of the Montanists, they still retained the gross conceptions of Christianity, and the high estimation of external observances, by which this sect was distinguished. Hence their strong disposition to extend and develope the science of Ecclesiastical Law.' Vol. 1. pp. 147, 148.

Again,

"The peculiarity of the theology of the Western church consisted in the gross material conception of the doctrines they had received from the East. This is seen even in their conception of God. They gave to the Deity a body, and the human soul they supposed to be literally his breath. They also retained the doctrine of the resurrection of the body, of the Millennium in its lowest form, of the damnation of all unbelievers, and of eternal punishment. With regard to the Logos, they retained the old Platonic notions, both as to its origin, the details of which they figured to themselves for the most part, according to the analogy of the senses, and as to its relation to the Father." Vol. 1. pp. 149, 150.

At a later period, the doctrines of Augustine, very nearly identical, as it is well known, with those of Calvinism, met with a very different reception in the East and the West. Having been approved by African synods, as well as by Zosimus, bishop of Rome, they became, says Gieseler, "the established faith of the Western church, but were never adopted by the

Greek church, which, from the first, had taken but little interest in the controversy." They were not altogether palatable, it seems, even in the West, for, says Gieseler,

"Although Augustine's doctrine of free grace had been adopted as the faith of the Western church, but few held to it in all its strictness. Its injurious practical consequences could not be overlooked, and were occasionally exemplified; and the monks, especially, were altogether opposed to a doctrine which took away all the merit of their monastic practices." — Vol. 1. p. 226.

Gieseler traces with some distinctness the several steps by which freedom of inquiry was impaired, and finally extinguished in the church.

"In the beginning of this century the universally received articles of the Christian faith were few and simple, leaving ample room for different interpretations and the exercise of private judgment. How different were the various systems thereupon founded, may be seen by a comparison of the different schools which were now in existence, the speculative school of Origen, the traditional, and the historico-critical school, which was, as yet, in its infancy. And even a greater contrast of systems was to be expected, from the speculative turn of the Greek Christians, which the cessation of the persecutions now left them free to indulge.

"Thus theological controversies became unavoidable; nor would this have been matter of regret, or have exerted any but a favorable influence, if the old distinction between riots and yvwσis had only been steadily kept in view, and points of theology not made matters of religion and church discipline. But the very simplicity of the old articles of faith tempted the disputants on either side to appeal to them, each, according to his own interpretation, accusing the other of heresy. This at once brought the question before the hierarchy, who claimed the exclusive right of deciding upon all questions of faith, and were always ready to seize upon any opportunity thus afforded them of interfering in the mere theological disputes of the day. And this tendency to pursue their own interest, they were now at less pains to disguise, inasmuch as they were left more free from the necessity of struggling against Paganism, and were at the same time supported by the strong arm of the state.

66

Thus the religious controversies soon assumed a new character. Formerly, they were confined to particular provinces; but now they divided the whole Christian world. To end them, the emperors called general councils, whose decisions became the laws of the realm, and were enforced by the civil power. Formerly, the councils, which were assembled to judge of heretics, contented themselves with guarding against innovation; but now, the general