The aim of this paper is to show that the Alexandrian Fathers, Clement and Origen, helped shape subsequent philosophy and theology in the West by following a selective line from the tradition at their disposal. I shall try to give evidence that the tradition was richer, more ambivalent, than they recognized, and that by their failure to honor the whole tradition they narrowed the vision of Christian theology and therefore of Western philosophy as well. Whether one could support such a large thesis by tracing the story further, examining the rival philosophical schools of our own day, for instance linguistic analysis and existential phenomenology, as examples of similar selections within the tradition, is another question. Meanwhile, it may be helpful to approach the Alexandrians, about whom so much has been written of polemical and apologetic nature, with this larger theme in mind.

To consider the Ruthenian Uniate Church in its historical perspective, and to encompass its complex phenomenon in a few pages is difficult for the historian who must treat this matter as an exception to the rule rather than an isolated historical event. It stands in sharp contrast to the historical precedent of the Kievan state whose inception and development, always represented politically, culturally, and ecclesiastically, the unity of all Russia. The division of Kievan Russia into principalities governed by members of the Rurik dynasty did not inhibit the cultural evolution, nor did it cut Russia off from contact with Western Europe. Rather, the cultural evolution developed in the general direction it had been given by Kiev, and contact with the West was further intensified in the principalities of Galicia-Volhynia and Novgorod. In addition to Kiev, several new centers of Russian political life developed in proportion to the number of principalities which increased as fathers divided their appanages among their children.

Two recent essays dealing with Deism and the religious environment from which it emerged in England have done something to correct accounts which emphasize the philosophic, scientific, or latitudinarian background of English Deism. I refer to Gerald C. Brauer's “Puritan Mysticism and the Development of Liberalism,” Church History, Vol. XIX (September, 1950), and to George L. Mosse's “Puritan Radicalism and the Enlightenment,” Church History, Vol. XXIX (December, 1960). Both articles argue that there were current in 17th century Puritanism elements which could lead to Deism and which “helped to prepare the English scene for the arrival and triumph of liberalism” and Deism.

Richard Hooker's work seems relevant to two of the major human projects of our time, the search for unity within the Church and the attempt by modern states to establish their rival ideologies in the world. Hooker's fraternal patience with his Puritan opponents has frequently been noted, as well as his courage in daring to suggest publicly in Elizabethan England that even Roman Catholics might be saved. It would seem likely on the face of it that so irenic a figure could contribute much to ecumenical discussion. With regard to the war for the minds and souls of men in which some statesmen regard their countries as now engaged, one would also expect to find material for reflection in Of The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, a work in which ultimate convictions and values are treated in intimate relation to their possible social embodiment and political enforcement.

The extremely favourable assessment by historians of the life and career of Theodorus Jacobus Frelinghuysen (1691-c. 1748) as a forerunner of the Great Awakening is a puzzling one to those familiar with the Ecclesiastical Records of the State of New York. Three works are mostly frequently quoted in making this favourable assessment: Theodorus Jacobus Frelinghuysen by Peter H. B. Frelinghuysen (1938); The Great Awakening in the Middle Colonies, by C. H. Maxson (1920); and Eight Memorial Sermons and Historical Notes, by Abraham Messier (1873). Peter Frelinghuysen quotes Maxson and Messier extensively. Maxson quotes Messier extensively.

Since 1945 German historians, searching for answers to the question of the responsibility of the political parties for the failure of the Weimar Republic, have studied afresh the organization and political activity of parties in Germany. Their work concentrates on the history of parties after 1870, when they became centralized, mass organizations, and treats in a cursory manner the earlier stages in the formation of parties.1 In so far as recent and earlier historical studies delve into the period before 1870, they trace the origins of parties in Prussia to the Revolution of 1848. The relation of these parties to the partisan groupings that were formed in the territorial church during the Vormärz is overlooked.