Which spake by the prophets; in one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church; we acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. This creed, although twice formally recited at the Council of Chalcedon, yet was not allowed to take the exclusive place given by the Council of Ephesus to the Creed of Nicæa. The decree of Ephesus was still sufficiently powerful to restrain the Chalcedonian Fathers from introducing this creed, so called of Constantinople, into the place of the one authorized Confession of Faith. But as time rolled on this provision was doubly set aside. The Creed of Nicæa, as we have seen, is now read in no European church; and the creed professedly of Constantinople, really the production of some unknown church or father, gradually superseded it. The Emperor Justin, in the year 568, first ordered that it should be recited in the public services of the Church; and from that moment it has assumed its present position. It is difficult to trace precisely the motives by which this great change was effected. It would appear, however, to have been the result of that lull in ecclesiastical controversy which succeeded to the terrible scenes of the Ephesian and Chalcedonian Councils.* Some of the additions to the Nicene Creed might have seemed to have incurred the censure of the Ephesian Council not only in the letter but in the spirit. The clause, "He was begotten of the Holy Ghost and of Mary the Virgin," did not exist in the Creed of Nicæa, and was in fact vehemently contested in the Council of Ephesus, as having been brought forward by Nestorius and as expressive of his view. The clauses also relating to the Divine Spirit were not contained in the original Creed of Nicæa, and were perhaps added in order to meet the Macedonian heretics. The omission or transposition of the words "God of God," "the Only begotten," that is to say, from the substance of the Father," are, to say the least, unwarranted interferences with a document where every word and every position of every word are deemed of importance. But the Creed of Chalcedon (or Constantinople), however doubtful its origin, may still be regarded as, on *Hort's Dissertations, pp. 110-136. + Ibid. p. 112. the whole, an improvement on that memorable document which it supplanted, although under the penalty of deprivation of their orders to all the clergy and bishops who use it, and of excommunication to the laity who adopt it. The acquiescence (if so be) of the original Council of Constantinople in a private document which came before them, sanctioned by the authority of Cyril of Jerusalem and of Gregory of Nyssa, would be in conformity with the abstinence from further dogmatism into which they were driven almost inevitably by a weariness of the whole transaction in which they were involved. With this also would agree the more moderate counsels which we have already noticed, belonging to what may be called the central party at Ephesus and Chalcedon, and the deference at last paid to Theodoret. The total omission of the Nicene anathemas was a distinct step in this direction. The condemnation of any one who expressed that the Son was of a different "person" (or "hypostasis") from the Father might well become startling to those who were becoming familiar with the later formula, which at last issued in the directly contrary proposition by pronouncing a like anathema on any one who maintained that He was of the same "hypostasis." It was one of the constant charges against Basil and Gregory that they were unwilling to define precisely and polemically the doctrine of the Divine Spirit. Those who read the exposition of this doctrine as set forth in the Greek* of these clauses will be surprised to see how wonderfully the harshnesses and roughnesses that appear in the English or Latin translation disappear in the subtle, yet simple, language of the original. What may have been the feelings of the followers of Macedonius we know not; but we may be certain that no sect now existing, whether belonging to the so-called orthodox or the so-called heretical churches, could find any difficulty in accepting, in their original form, the abstract and general phrases in which the Biblical doctrine of the impersonality and neutrality of the Sacred Influence is set forth. Again, the limitation of the holy inspiration (the "Holy * Τὸ πνεῦμα, τὸ κύριον, τὸ ζωοποιόν, τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς ἐκπορευόμενον, τὸ σὺν Πατρί καὶ Υἱῷ συμπροσκυνούμενον συνδοξαζόμενον, τὸ λαλῆσαν διὰ τῶν Προφητῶν· com pared with the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son," etc. See Hort, pp. 82, 85, 86.) Spirit spoke by the prophets") is a remarkable instance at once of insight into the true nature of the Biblical writings, and also of the moderation of the highest minds of that age, compared with the fanciful and extravagant theories that have sometimes prevailed in modern times on that subject. The other parts of the Bible, the other writings of the great and good, are no doubt the offspring of the Divine Mind, but it is in the prophetical writings that the essence of Christian morality and doctrine is brought out. Yet once more, the definition of Baptism (“I believe in one Baptism for the remission of sins"), which has been sometimes quoted as if decisive of the whole question then at issue on the intricate question of the mystical or moral effect of Baptism, is couched in terms so studiously general as to include not only Christian Baptism, but the Baptism of John, from which, in the language of technical theology, no transcendental operations could be expected. Only by the most violent anachronisms and distortions of language can the scholastic doctrines of the sudden transformation of baptized infants be imported into words which embrace the doctrine of Baptism in the largest formula which the comprehensive language of Scripture has furnished.* Again, the questionable phrase, "the Resurrection of the Flesh" in the Apostles' Creed is here represented by the Bib lical expression, "Resurrection of the Dead." Lastly, it is to be observed that Nicephorus ascribes all these changes to Gregory of Nyssa, whose great name, if he in any way took them up, would, more than any other single cause, have led to their popular acceptance, not only from his own learning and genius, but from the fame of his brother Basil, and from the influence-at any rate at the beginning of the Council of his friend. The tradition that these words were derived from Gregory of Nyssa, whether borne out by historical evidence or not, has never been disputed on dogmatical grounds, is important as showing that the orthodox Eastern Church was not ashamed of receiving its most solemn declaration of Christian faith from one who, had he lived in our times, would have been pronounced by some as a dangerous heretic. * See Chapter I. There can be no doubt in the mind of any one* who has examined his writings-and it is freely admitted, indeed urged, by theologians without the slightest suspicion of latitudinarianism-that Gregory of Nyssa held the opinion shared with him by Origen, and although less distinctly by Gregory of Nazianzus, that there was a hope for the final restoration of the wicked in the other world. And whether or not he actually drew up the concluding clauses of the so-called Creed of Constantinople, there is no doubt that Gregory of Nyssa was present at the Council of Constantinople-that he, if any one, must have impressed his own sense upon them-and that to him, and through him to the Council, the clause which speaks of the "life in the world to come" must have included the hope that the Divine justice and mercy are not controlled by the powers of evil, that sin is not eternal, and that in that "world to come punishment will be corrective and not final, and will be ordered by a Love and Justice the height and depth of which is beyond the narrow thoughts of man to conceive. XV. *See especially Catech. Orat. ch. xxvi. De iis qui prematurè abripiuntur, ch. De Anima et Resurrectione (on Phil. ii. 10; 1 Cor. xv. 28). The contrary has been maintained by a recent writer, Vincenzo, in four volumes, on the writings of Gregory of Nyssa. But this is done, not as in former times (Tillemont, vol. ix. p. 602), by denying the genuineness of the passages cited in favor of the milder view, but by quoting passages from other parts of his works, containing apparently contradictory sentiments. This might be done equally in the case of Origen, of Archbishop Tillotson, and of Bishop Newton, and to any one who knows the writings of that age prove absolutely nothing. CHAPTER XVII. THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. THE Ten Commandments were always in the Christian Church united with the Lord's Prayer and the Creed (whether longer or shorter) as a Christian Institution. In earlier Catholic times they were used as a framework of moral precepts; in Protestant times they were written conspicuously in the churches. In either case there are important principles involved in the prominence thus given to them which demand consideration. In order to do this we must trace the facts to their Jewish origin. Outward form. I. Let us first examine what were the Ten Commandments in their outward form and appearance when they were last seen by mortal eyes as the ark was placed in Solomon's Temple. 1. They were written on two tables or blocks of stone or rock. The mountains of Sinai are of red and white granite. Israelite ar- On two blocks of this granite rock-the most lastrangement. ing and almost the oldest kind of rock that is to be found in the world, as if to remind us that these Laws were to be the beginning and the end of all things-were the Ten Commandments, the Ten Words, written. They were written, not as we now write them, only on one side of each of the two tables, but on both sides, so as to give the idea of absolute completeness and solidity. Each block of stone was covered behind and before with the sacred letters. Again, they were not arranged as we now arrange them. In the Fourth, for example, the reason for keeping holy the seventh day is, in Exodus, because "God rested on the seventh day from the work of creation;" in Deuteronomy it is to remind them that "they were once strangers in the land of Egypt." Probably, therefore, these reasons were not actually written on the stone, but were given afterwards, at two different times, by way of |