Full text of "An introduction to the early history of Christian doctrine : to the time of the Council of Chalcedon"

BLACKWELL'S

Oxford, England

v' rtpp^ is il^c
itinit Jitrtt

M'-Ji

mnn ilxni jctfctit
lubcrstaniiiuij.^

SIGURD
j KRISTIANSEN

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE

EARLY HISTORY OF

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

AN INTRODUCTION

TO THE

EARLY HISTORY OF
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

TO THE TIME OF THE
COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON

J. F. BETHUNE-BAKER, D.D.

LADV MAKGARET'S PHOFKSSOR OF DIVINITY AND
FELLOW OF PEMBKOKB COLLEGE CAMBRIUCiB

METHUEN & CO. LTD.

36 ESSEX STREET W.C.

LONDON

Ftrit Published SepUmber loth 1903

Repriittfit ten times

HupnnUU, 1954

9.3
Catalogue No. 3465/U

primtbd in crbat britain

IT
25"
M

H03

VIRO • PERREVERENDO •

lOANNl • REGINALDO • HARMER •

ADELAIDENSIVM • EPISCOPO •

HVIVS • INCEPTI • QVONDAM • SVASORI •

NESNON • COLLEGII • MEl • ALVMNIS •
QVOS • DVM • DOCEO • PLVS • IPSE • DIDICI

PREFACE

In the preparation of this volume the writer has been guided by
the general purpose of the Series of Theological Handbooks of
which it is a part. A continuous narrative is given in the text,
with as much freedom from technical treatment as the subject
allows ; details and authorities are relegated to footnotes, and
some special questions and difficulties are dealt with in notes
appended to the several chapters.

The chief aim which has been kept in view throughout has
been to offer to the student of the history of Christian Doctrine
during the first four centuries of the life of the Clmrch such
information with regard to the facts and the sources as will
enable him to prosecute his study for himself.

It is only a limited period with which the book deals, but a
period in which the Christian theory of life — of the relations
between God, the World, and Man — was worked out in its chief
aspects, and all the doctrines to which the Church of Christ
as a whole is pledged were framed. The ' authority ' of these
doctrines is only to be understood by study of their history.
Their permanent value can only be appreciated by knowledge of
the circumstances in which they came to be expressed, knowledge
which must certainly precede any restatement of the doctrines,
such as is from time to time demanded in the interests of a
growing or a wider faith.

That Christian tliiiikers have been guided at various times,
in later ages, towards fuller apprehension of various aspects
of human life, and fuller knowledge of the divine economy,
must be thankfully acknowledged. But whatever reason there
is to hope for further elucidation from the growth of human
knowledge in general, and the translation of old doctrines into
the terms of the new knowledge, it seems certain that the work
of the great leaders of Christian thought in the interpretation of

viii CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

the Gospel during the earlier ages can never be superseded.
They were called ni)Ou, in turn, to meet and to consider in
relation to the Gospel and to Jesus Christ nearly all the theories
of the world and God which human speculation and experience
have framed in explanation of the mystery of human life ; and
the conclusions which they reached must still be at least the
starting-point for any further advance towards more complete
solution of the problems with which they had to deal. Chris-
tians, whether conservative or progressive, will find in the study
of the course through which doctrines were evolved their
strongest stay and safeguard.

On the one hand, if defence of Christian doctrines be needed,
it is found at its best in the bare history of the process by which
they came into existence. On the other hand, in an age when
other than the Catholic interpretations of the Gospel and of the
Person of Christ are put forward and find favour in unexpected
quarters, much heart-searching and laborious enquiry may be
saved by the knowledge that similar or identical explanations were
offered and ably advocated centuries ago; that they were tried, not
only by intellectual but also by moral tests, and that the experi-
ence of life rejected them as inadequate or positively false. The
semi-conscious Ebionism and the semi-conscious Docetism, for
example, of much professedly Christian thought to-day may
recognize itself in many an ancient ' heresy ', and reconsider its
position.

The mass of materials available for the study of even the
limited part of the subject of Christian Doctrine which is dealt
with in this book is so great that it has been necessary to exer-
cise a strict economy in references to books and writers, ancient
and modern, both English and German, from which much might
be learned. I have only aimed at giving guidance to young
students, leaving them to turn for fuller information to the
larger well-known histories of Doctrine in general and the many
special studies of particular doctrines. And as the book is
designed to meet the needs of English students, I have seldom
cited works that are not accessible to those who read no other
language than their own,

I wish that every student of Christian Doctrine could have
had the priv-ilege of hearing the short course of lectures which
Professor Westcott used to give in Cambridge. For my own
part, I thankfully trace back to them the first intelligible con-

PREFACE «

ception of the subject which came before me. Some of these
lectures were afterwards incorporated in the volume entitled The
Gospel of Life.

Dr. Harnack's History of Doctrines occupies a position of
eminence all its own, and will remain a monument of industry
and learning, and an almost inexhaustible treasury of materials.
To the English translation of this great work frequent references
will be found in the following pages. But the student who is
not able to examine the evidence and the conclusions, and to
make allowances for Dr. Harnack's peculiar point of view, will
still, in my judgement, find Hagenbach's History of Doctrines his
best guide to his own work on the subject, although he will need
sometimes to supplement the materials which were available
when Hagenbach wrote.^ He will learn a great deal also from
Dorner's Doctrine of the Person of Christ, from Neander's History
of Christian Dogmas and Church History, and from the works of
the older English divines, such as Bull's Defence of the Nicene
Creed and Pearson's Exposition of the Creed. Works such as
these are in no way superseded by the many excellent books
and treatises of later scholars, some of which are cited hereafter
in regard to particular points.* Many of the articles in the
Dict'>/)nary of Christian Biography (ed. Smith and Wace), the
Dictionary of Christian Antiquities (ed. Smith and Cheetham),
and Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible are of great value, while
for the Creeds the collection of Hahn (Bihliothek der Symbole
und Glauhensrcgeln der alten KircTie) is indispensable.

To two friends, who have special knowledge of different
parts of the subject, I am much indebted for help in the revision
of the proof-sheets — the Rev. A. E. Burn, rector of Kynnersley,
and the Rev. J. H. Srawley, of Sclwyn College, the latter in
particular having generously devoted much time and care to the
work. Their criticisms and suggestions have led in many cases
to clearer statement of a point and to the insertion of notes and
additional references which will make the book, I hope, in spite

' If he reads German he will do well to turn to Loofs' Leitfaden zum Studium
der DogmengeschicfcU^ (Ritschlian), Secberg's Lehrbuch (Protestant), and Sebwane's
DogmengeschiclUff' (Roman Catliolic). For introduction to the chief patristic
writiiigs lie may consult Banlenhewer's PcUrologie, or Swete's Patristic Htudy in the
Series ' Handbooks for the Clergy '.

' Sp'-nial attention may tin directed to two volumes of this series — Mr. Ottley'g
Doctrine of the IncarruUion and Mr. Bum's IrUroduclion to the Uiatory of the Creeds,
•ud to Dr. Swete's The Apostles' Creed.

I CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

of all the imperfections that remain, more useful for its purpose
than it wouUl otherwise have been.

In tlie earlier part of the book I had also the advantage of
the criticism of Dr. llobertson, the Editor of this Series, who,
even when the pressure of preparation for his removal from
London to Exeter left him no leisure, most kindly made time for
the purpose.

Finally, I have to thank the Syndics of the Cambridge
University Press, and the Dean of Westminster, as Editor of the
Series Texts and Studies, for permission to make use of various
notes — and in some cases whole pages — from The Meaning of
Homoousios in the ' Constantinopolitan ' Creed, which I contributed
to that Series (vol. vii no. 1). I have not thought it necessary
to include within inverted commas such passages as I have
taken straight over, but when I have merely summarized con-
clusions, for which the evidence is more fully stated there, I have
appended a reference to the volume.

The book, as I have indicated, makes no claim to originality.
It only aims at being a sketch of the main lines of the historical
developement of doctrine down to the time of the Council of
Chalcedon.^ But I am, of course, conscious that even history
must be written from some ' point of view ', and I have expressed,
as clearly as I can, the point of view from which I have ap-
proached the subject in the introduction which follows.

I believe that this point of view, from which Christian
doctrines are seen as human attempts to interpret human ex-
periences — the unique personality of Jesus of Nazareth supreme
among those human experiences, is a more satisfying one than
some standpoints from which the origin of Christian doctrines
may appear to be invested with more commanding power of
appeal. As such I have been accustomed to offer it to the
attention of students at an age when the constraint is often felt
for the first time to find some standpoint in these matters for
oneself.

But any point of view — any kind of real personal conviction
and appropriation — is better than none: and one which we

^ Though much indejxjndent work over old ground has been bestowed upon it,
and no previous writer has been followed without an attempt to form an inde-
pendent judgement, yet the nature of the case precludes real independence, except to
some extent in treatment.

PREFACE xi

cannot accept may serve to make clearer and more definite, or
even to create, the point of view which is true for us. Salvo
jure communionis diversa sentire — different opinions without
loss of the rights of communion — opposite points of view
without disloyalty to the Catholic Creeds and the Church —
these words, which embody the conception of one of the earliest
and keenest of Christian controversialists and staunchest of
Catholics,^ express a thought more widely honoured now than it
was in Cyprian's day.

It is in the hope that this sketch of some parts of the early
history of Christian doctrines may be useful in some such way
that it is published now.

J. F. BETHUNE-BAKER.

PeUBHOKB Ck)LLKQE, OAHBBICOB,

lat May 1903.

* They are the words in which Augustine {de Bapiismo 17 — Migne P.L. xliii
p. 202) deaoribes the priuciplea of Cypri&o.

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITIOIf

In the studies of which this book, published in 1903, was the
outcome, I had set before myself an aim as purely objective as
possible. I desired to ascertain, and to state as clearly as I
could, what had been the actual course of the developement of
Christian Doctrine so far as it was exhibited in contemporary
documents as they have come down to us. I wanted to detect
and to mark the stages that bridge the interval between the
New Testament and the Council of Chalcedon, and to understand,
rather than to account for and explain, what the leaders of
thouglit in the Church actually said and meant. Only so far
as was necessary for this main purpose was I concerned with
the roots of any particular elements of their thought in current
philosophies or popular religious speculation and worship.

It was not my purpose to vindicate the results of the
wonderful process by which One who was undoubtedly a man
was found by Christian experience to have the value of God ;
and earlier ideas of God, His being and nature, were amended
and enlarged in the light of this experience, and the doctrine
of the Incarnation and the Trinity elaborated. Nor was I con-
cerned to justify, or to claim finality for, the definitions of the
Church of the fourth and fifth centuries, closely dependent as
they could not fail to be on the historical knowledge and the
philosophical and scientific conceptions of the time — knowledge
and canceptions which I certainly cannot regard as nearer
finality than are those of our own age when the latter conflict
with the former.

The problem before the Christian philosopher to-day is how
to appraise and retain the religious values of old beliefs of the
Church which have lost their original correspondence with con-
temporary knowledge and ideas. Critical study of the origins
of these old beliefs, such as is absent from this book, is necessary

xii

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION xiii

before a valuation of this kind can be made. During the last
twenty years much fresh knowledge has come to hand about
these origins. Old documents have been studied by minds not
hypnotized by orthodox presuppositions, and fresh materials have
been discovered or made more generally accessible. Were I
to-day attempting to write a critical history of Christian Doctrine
I should have to draw on many sources of information which
were not utilized by me in the years before 1903.

But owing to the restricted range of the subject dealt with
in the book, I find but little that I should wish to alter if I
were free to rewrite the whole. Only perhaps at three points
would it be desirable to make modifications of any moment, if I
kept to my original scheme.

The real evolution of the study of the subject that has
taken place in recent years concerns much more the very
earliest beginnings than the succeeding history, the religious
thought and practice of the first century and the second, the
documents of the New Testament, rather than the writings
of the Fathers. The Gospels and the other books of the
New Testament are no longer so isolated as they have been
in the past from other religious literature of their period —
neither in language nor in ideas. We are able to appreciate
more justly the originality that belongs to them when we study
them in relation to their real background. And when we no
longer make the portentous assumption that the Gospels are
a photographic representation in writing of the actual facts of
our Lord's life and the very words of His teaching, the writers
being miraculously preserved from any of the errors and ten-
dencies which affect other historians and propagandists, we are
for the first time in a position to make a critical study of the
origins of the Christian Religion and to form a sane judgement
as to the real course of events. We can discriminate sources
and strata, tendencies and purposes, points of view and schools
of thought. To some extent at least we can detect earlier and
later versions of incidents ; we can compare different traditions
and estimate their historical values. But nothing of this kind was
possible for the men who framed and formulated the traditional
Doctrine of the Church. Though some of them were peculiarly
influenced by one or other of the many lines of interpretation
and exposition which the New Testament reflects, yet for the
Church it was the Bible as a whole — parts of the Old Testament

xir CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

quite as certainly aa the New — to which Doctrine muRt conform.
The Bible was accepted as it stood, without any critical dis-
crimination, as wholly authoritative. Accordingly, for the
understanding of the doctrinal developenients of the ancient
Church, we have to exclude from our minds the results of
modern investigation into the literary connexions and the
historical value of the documents that make up our New
Testament. Discussions about the true text and the true mean-
ing of different passages were common enough, and if more
' heretical ' writings had been preserved we should probably find
reflected in them much more of the modern historical sense than
survived in the doctrinal system of the Church ; but that
system was built up on the assumption that the sacred books
of the Church were infallible guides to truth, and we should not
be helped to understand the subject before us by any other
view of them.

Apart, therefore, from details of minor importance, so far as
concerns the subject of this book, it is with regard to Gnosticism,
the Mystery Keligions, and Nestorianism only, I think, that
fresh investigations since 1903 have added materially to our
knowledge, either of the background of Christian thought and
institutions or of the actual facts. But even here competent
judges are by no means entirely at one as to the true inter-
pretation of the new facts that have come to light, and I am
not clear that I could amend what I have written on the
subjects with advantage to the class of students who have found
the book useful.

Accordingly, in these difficult times 1 have not thought it
necessary to make alterations in the text which would entail the
cost and labour of re-setting the book as a whole. I have
contented myself with correcting a few misprints and supplying
an Appendix with references to fresh work and evidence and
brief indications of the new points to which the attention of
students should be directed. Some of these ' additional notes '
are, in my judgement, of considerable importance.

The Council of Chalcedon was, of course, deliberately chosen
as the limit of the period to be treated, The decisions arrived
at then have been normative for the Church to a degree not
reached by later decisions. Yet the questions at issue become
far clearer in the light of the later Monophysite and Monothelite
controversies, without study of which the real spirit and the

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION xv

full drift of the Doctrine of the ancient Church cannot be
adequately understood. As regards restatement of Doctrine,
almost all that happened afterwards down to the eighteenth
century may be ignored, but not the Monophysite and Monothelite
controversies themselves. The best short account of these
controversies known to me is given in the third volume of
M. J. Tixeront's excellent Histoire des Dogmes (Paris, 1905-
1912), where also other controversies bearing on the nature of
the conditions of our Lord's life on earth may be studied.
These are live questions to-day.

Absurd as it is, in my judgement, to permit the doctrinal
speculations of the Church of the first or of any later century to
fetter and control the thought of the Church of the twentieth,
I am yet convinced that study of the early period is the best
preparation for that reconstruction of Christian Doctrine in
relation to modern knowledge that must be effected in the
near future if the Church is still to offer men a Gospel worthy
to claim the allegiance of their mind, their heart, and their
soul, and so to engage their whole personality and become the
faith by which they walk.

J. F. B-B.

Cambridge, 10<A Xoven^er 1919

Thirty years after this book was first published I am still obliged
to have it reprinted without substantial alteration in the text.
I can do so with a clear conscience, not because I have ceased to
study the subject (inexhaustible as indeed it is), or to follow with
interest fresh and fruitful work of many other students of it, but
for the reasons which I gave in the preface to the second edition
of the book. My aim was an austerely scientific aim, to offer as
true a transcript as I could of the actual history of thought and
events in the limited period with which I dealt, and in the light of
the fresh evidence that has accrued since I wrote I find that very
few corrections are needed. Had I set before myself some other
more interesting aim, the result might have been different. As
it is, if a reader will pay heed to the additional notes and references
on pages 429 to 44G, to which a ff in the text calls attention, he may,
I tliink, have confidence that however widely ho may, by further
study, enlarge his knowledge of the period and its meaning, he
will have little to unlearn.

J. F. B-B.

nth Augutt 1933

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTORY

The scope of the book — What ^i..ioi
The part played by heresies .
Qradual progress and developement
Notes : Dogma .
alpicris .
Btokoyia — dfoikoydv

Christian Doc

nnes are

M«E

1,2

(note) 2

6
6

CHAPTER II

THE BEGINNINGS OF DOCTRINES IN THE
NEW TESTAMENT

The New Testament gives the earliest interpretations

The doctrine of God ....

The doctrine of Man — of Sin. .

The doctrine of At^jnement .

The doctrine of the Church and of the Sacraments

Baptism .

the Eucharist

9-11
11-16
16-18
19-21
22-23
23-27
27-32

CHAPTER III

THE DEVELOPEMENT OF DOCTRINE

DifTerent theories in explanation of the developement of doctrine-

(1) Corruption and degeneration (the Deists) .

(2) Di.scijjlina arcani (Trent) . . .

(3) Developement (Newman) . . .
In what sense developement occurred
Influence of Greek thought on thr exfirefwion of doctrint.

KoTK : OiKovofiia, 'Accommodation', 'Reserve'

33
34
36

36
38
39

IVUl

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

CHAPTER IV

THE SOURCES OF DOCTRINE: ORAL TRADITION—

HOLY SCRIPTURE

Earlieet idea of Christian inspiration .

of tradition
InBpiration of Scripture : different conceptions —
Jewish ....

Qentile ....

Fhilo .....

The Apostolic Fathers .

Muratorian Fragment of the Canon

The Apologists ....

Irenaeus .....

Clement and Origen
Interpretation of Scripture. The written word —

Homer .....

Philo .....

Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement . .

Origen's theory ....

The Cappadociana — Tyconius, Augustine —
Antioch ....

The place of tradition in interpretation —

Irenaeus .....

Tertullian ....

Vincent .....

rAom

• • •

• ' «

• • •

■ • •

• • •

62, 53

• • •

The School of

...

. « •

...

CHAPTER V
JEWISH ATTEMPTS AT INTERPRETATION. EBIONISM

Characteristic Jewish conceptions
Kbionism —

Different degrees . .

Cerinthus

The Clementines . .

Notb: Chiliasm

63-66

65 f.

66 f.
68 ff.

CHAPTER VI

GENTILE ATTEMPTS AT INTERPRETATION.
GNOSTICISM

Characteristics of Oriental religious thought ...

The problem of evil .......

Oriental ideas applied to the Christian revelation . .

73-76

CONTENTS

xtx

The Gnostics — their aims and classification of the various schools
The earlier representatives of Gnostic conceptions
Marcion and his followers ....

Carpocrates and his followers — The Cainites and Ophites
The School of Basilides .....
The Valentinians .....

The influence of Gnosticism on the developenient of Christian
doctrine ......

NoTB : Manicheism .....

PAOI

76-79
79-81
81-84
84-86
86-88
88-91

91-92
93-95

CHAPTEE VII

THE REACTION AGAINST GNOSTICISM.
MONARCHIANISM

The ' Monarchian ' School of interpreters prompted by ' orthodox '
intention .....

Attempts at explanation which should maintain alike the oneness
of God and the divinity of Christ

Two main Schools —

(a) Dynamic or Rationalistic
{h) Modalistic or ' Patripassian '

The Alogi the point of departure for both Schools .

(o) The Theodotians ....

Artemon .....

Paul of Samosata ....

(b) Praxeas and Noetus ....
Sabellius and his followers .

Sympathy with Sabellianism at Eome

Notes : Novatian ....

Hippolytus ....
Beryllus ....

Monarchian exegesis
Luciau .....
Paul of Samosata and o/xoouatoc

97
97

98
98
99

100-102
102-104
104-106
106
107
108
109
110
110
111

CHAPTER VIII

THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN DIONYSIUS OF ROME
AND DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

Signiftcaiice of this correspondence ..... 113

The points at issue ....... 114-115

l)iverHe uses of the equivocal terms oialn and vnoaraais and con-
fusion due to Latin rendering of ovaia by subatantia . . 116-118

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

CHAPTEK IX

THE LOGOS DOCTRINE

The Doctrine fully expressed in outline in the prologue to the
Gospel according to St. John, but not fully appreciated ;
different aspects and relations of the doctrine represented by
diflferent early Christian writers— these to be regarded as
typical and complementary rather than as mutually ex-
clusive .
The Epistles of Ignatius

ayivTjTot and dyfvvrjrns
The Letter to Diognetus
Justin Martyr

The Human Soul in Christ
Tatian ....

Theophilufl

In all three the distinction recognized is cosmic rather than hypo
static ........

Athenagoras — his fuller recognition of the problem .
Irenaeus — important contributions to the doctrine .
Clement of Alexandria ......

The Logos Doctrine superseded by the Doctrine of the Sonship

119, 120

121
. (note) 122

123
. 124-126
. (note) 125

126

127

128
128, 129
129-132
133-136
136-137

CHAPTER X

TERTULLIAN'S DOCTRINE OF THE GODHEAD

Tertullian's use of terms and analogies
Doctrine of the Sonship and the Trinity
The full Nicene and Chalcedonian doctrine .

138

140-144
144

CHAPTER XI

ORIGEN'S DOCTRINE OF THE GODHEAD

The great importance and influence of Origen

The basis of his doctrine

The eternal generation of the Son

The Trinity .....

Apparently contradictory teaching ,

146
146
147
148
148, 149

CONTENTS

XXI

The fitness of the Incarnation

His teaching Nicene ....

Nora ; Origenistic theology and controversies

PAOB

160

151

162-154

CHAPTER XTI

THE AEIAN CONTROVERSY

Introductory — the previous course of the doctrine and the causes

of the controversy ... . . 166, 156

Arius and his teaching ...... 156-160

The sources of knowledge of Arian theories .... 157, 158

The developenient of the doctrine of the Person of Christ

before Arius ...... (note) 167

The sources of knowledge of Arian theories . (note) 167-158

Arian interpretation of Scripture ....

Outbreak of controversy and history up to Council of Nicaea

The Council of Nicaea and its Creed . . . .

The Reaction after Nicaea — personal and doctrinal .
Attempts to supersede the Nicene Creed — Council of Antioch 341 .
Its second Creed .......

Its other Creeds .......

Opposition of the West to any new Creed — Council of Sardica 343

Renewed attempt to secure a non-Nicene Creed — the fiaKpoarixos

tKdtais .......

Condemnation of Photinusand tranquillization of the * moderates'

subsidence of fears of Sabellianism
Developenient of extreme form of Arianism after death of Constans
The Council of Sirraiura 357
Arianism in the West
The Sinnian manifesto
Protests of the ' moderates ' in the East
The * Homoean ' compromise ....

Gradual conversion of 'Semi-Arians' and convergence of parties
to the Nicene definition ....

Final victory of the Nicene interpretation at the Council of Con
Btantinople .....

The ' Conatantinopolitan ' Creed
Arianism outside the Empire, and the causes of the
failure of Arianism
liOTES : Marcel lus ....

Ilomoiousioe and the Homoeans

The meaning of Uomoousios in the 'Constantino

politan ' Creed . .
•By the Will ot the Father' .
Mofoyci/nc — Unigenitus — Unicus

161-163

163, 164

165-170

171

172

173-176

175

176

177

178

179

(note) 179

(note) 180

181

182-186

185-187

187-189
(note) 188

(note) 189
190-192
192-193

193
194
196

xxu

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

CHAPTER XIII

THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND
THE TRINITY

The course through which the doctrine went

The Old Testament and the New Testament doctrine

The early Church .......

The full doctrine expressed by Tertullian ....

Origcn's exposition of the doctrine — the first systematic attempt
at a scientific expression of it in view of difficulties suggested
Teaching in the Church just before the outbreak of Arianism —

Gregory Thaumaturgus ... .

Dionysius of Alexandria. ....

Eusebius of Caesarea .....

The Arian theories — not emphasized and for a time ignored

The teaching that was given in the Church in the middle of the

fourth century shewn by Cyril of Jerusalem's lectures
Need for authoritative guidance as to the doctrine . .

The teaching of Athanasius (the Letters to Sarapion)
and of Hilary (the de Trinitate)

The new theories of Macedonius ....

The doctrine declared at Alexandria in 362 and at subsequent

synods in the East and in the West
The Epiphanian Creed .....

The procession of the Spirit — relation to Father and Son

Basil's treatise on the Holy Spirit

Gregory of Nyssa, ' that there are not three Gods '

The prevailing uncertainty reflected in the sermons

Nazianzus
The Council of Constantinople

Augustine's statement of the doctrine

The nfpixa>pr](rit

Niceta on the doctrine of the Spirit
NoTKfl : Substantia

Persona

Oiaia and vTroaraait

of Gregory of

FAOB

197

198, 199

199

200

201-204

204

205
205

206

206-209
209

209-212
212

212

213, 214

214-217

(note) 216

217-219
220-222

222-224
224

225-231
(note) 226
(note) 231
231-233
23.'»-235
235-238

CONTENTS

xxiu

CHAPTERS XIV-XVI— THE CHRISTOLOGICAL CON-
TROVERSIES OF THE FOURTH AND FIFTH
CENTURIES

CHAPTER XIV
APOLLINARIANISM

PASS

The results of previous developement of doctrine . , . 239, 240

The points of departure of Apollinarius and his theories . . 240-243

Objections to them and his defence .... 243-246

The union of the two natures not satisfactorily expressed . . 246, 247

Notes : The Human Soul in Christ .... 247-249

The Human WUl in Christ . . . 249-250
How can Christ be 'complete man' and 'without

sin'?. . . . . . . 250-252

The Athanasian Greed .... 262-254

CHAPTER XV

NESTORIANISM

The theological schools of Alexandria and Aiitioch

The teaching of Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia

The outbreak of the controversy— Nestorius at Constantinople
The title dforoKor .....

Cvril of Alexandria — denunciation of the Nestorian teaching
Cyril's Anathemas and the answers of Nestorius
Their significance and the reception given to them
Cyril's dogmatic letter .....

Earlier teaching in the Church on the subject (Tertullian, Origen
Athanasius) ......

The Council of Kpliesus and the victory of Cyril .

The terms of agreement between Cyril and the Antiochenes — the
Union Creed ......

Dissatisfaction on both sides with the definitions — Cyril's defence
of them ......

The strength and the weakness of Nestorianism

Suppression of Nestorianism within the Empire

N0TK8 : 6fn<{)nf)ot ivdf)a>nnt ....

The Nestorian (East-Syrian) Church .

265

256-260
260

261, 262
262

263-266
267

267-269

269, 270

270, 271

272

273-274
274-275

276
276-279

27U

XXIV

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

CHAPTER XVI

EUTYCHIANISM

The teaching of Eutyches — his condemnation ,

Appeal to the West and counter- attack on Flavian .
The Council of Ephesus .....

Victory of the Eutychians through the Emperor's support

Death of Theodosius — A new Council summoned
The Council of Chalcedon and its Definition of the Faith .

Tiie letter of Leo to Flavian ....
The later history of Eutychianism — the Monophysites

Notes : The communicatio idiomatum .

Christ's human nature impersonal

The Kiumau .....

viin

281-282

282-283

283

284

284, 285

285-287

288-292

292

293

294

294-300

CHAPTER XVII

THE DOCTRINE OF MAN— SIN AND GRACE—
PELAGIANISM

Introductory : the diflBculties of the doctrine not faced in the
earliest times ......

Ditlerent theories as to the origin of the Soul .
Different conceptions of the Fall and its effects
The teaching of Augustine .....

Contrast between him and Pelagius
His doctrine of human nature, sin, grace . .

„ „ freedom of will ....

Novel teaching on other points — predestination, reprobation
The opposition of Pelagius .....

His antecedents and the chief principles which controlled his
thought and teaching .....

The Pelagian controversy — Coeleatius

Tlie first stage at Carthage — condemnation of Coelestius

The second stage in Palestine : attack on Pelagius by Jerome

and Orosius — acquittal by the Palestinian bishops ,
The third stage — appeal to Rome : condemnation of Pelagius
and Coelestius by Innocent, followed by their acquittal by
Zosimus .......

The fourth stage — condemnation of all Pelagian theses by the

Council of Carthage in 418, followed by imperial edicts

against the Pelagians, and their final condemnation at Rome

The ultimate issue of the controversy . . . .

Julian of Eclanum . . . * .

301

302-305

305-307

308-312

308

309

310

311-312

312-313

313-316
316
316

317

318

319-320

320

(note) 320

CONTENTS

XXV

PAas
Attempts to mediate between the two extremes of Pelagianism and

Augustinianism — Semi-Pelagianism .... 321

John Cassian — his teaching ..... 321-323

Faustus of Lerinum and Rhegium .... 323-324

The later history of the doctrine ..... 324-326

CHAPTER XVIII
THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT

Different points of view, but no definite theory, in early times

The Apostolic Fathers (Clement, Epistle of Barnabas, Hernias,

Ignatius)
Justin Martyr
The Writer to Diognetus
Tertullian
Irenaeus — doctrine of the Incarnation and theory of Satan's

dominion ....

Origen — Ransom to the Devil .

Other aspects of the Atonement
Gregory of Nyssa
RufinuB .

Gregory of Nazianzua
Athanasius
Augustine
Summary of the teaching of the period

NoTBS ; ' Heretical ' conceptions of the Atonement

The Doctrine of Merit (Tertullian and Cyprian)

327-328

328-330

330-332

332

333

333-337
337
338-340
340-342
342
343-345
345-349
349-351
351-352
352-353
353-365

CHAPTER XIX

THE CHURCH

General conceptions (no thought-out doctrine till Cyi)rian) , 356

A new spiritual society and organization .... 357

One, holy, catholic, apostolic : — these 'notes' implied from the first 357

Ignatius ........ 357-359

'Catholic' ...... .(note) 358

Irenaeus — the Church as teacher .... 359-360

Tertullian'fl conccpti^m ...... 360-3G2

The commission to Peter . . . . (note) 362

Clement and Origen ...... 362-363

Cy])rian'H conception ...... 303-366

The Kiiiscopate ..... .(note) 364

Cyril of Jeiusalem ...... 3GG-368

Augustine ....... 308-372

NoTKS: The Penitential System .... 372-373

The liishopH as the centre of unity . . . 373-375

ixvl

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

CHAPTER XX

THE SACRAMENTS— BAPTISM

General conception of a sacrament — the use of the term

Early conceptions of baptism : the names for it, the form, what

effected — New Testament and later
Justin Martyr on baptism
TertuUiau ....

The idea of the water
Cyprian ....

Cyril of Jerusalem (the rites and their significance)
Ambrose on baptism (his peculiar conceptions)
Notes ; Martyrdom as baptism
Heretical baptism
Baptism by laymen
The Unctiou and Confirmation

PAOI

376-377

378-380
380-381

381
(note) 381

382
383-384
384-385

386
386-388
388-390
390-392

CHAPTER XXI
THE SACRA^IENTS— THE EUCHARIST

[Note. — The different theories which have been held in later times,
namely, Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, the 'sacra-
mentarian ' theory, the 'receptionist' theory, the Anglican

statement of the real presence.] .... 393-398

The Eucharist at first connected with the Agape . . . 397
Early conceptions of the effect of consecration — the Didache,

the Christians of Bithynia, Ignatius, Justin . . . 397-399

Irenaeus ........ 399-402

The conception of the elements as symbols (only a distinction

in thought) ....... 402-403

The conception of the Eucharist as a sacrifice — Clement,

Ignatius, Justin, Cyprian ..... 404-406

Clement of Alexandria (the Agape) and Origen . . 406-409

Cyril of Jerusalem ...... 409-41 1

Eusebius and Athanasius ..... (note) 409

Gregory of Nyssa (marked developement of conceptions) . 411-415

Chrysostom ....... 415-416

Ambrose and Augustine ..... 416-418

Notes : Infant Communion ..... 418

Death-bed Communion .... 419

Daily celebration of the Eucharist . . . 419

Reservation of the Sacrament . . . 420-422

Oblations for the dead .... 422-424

The Ancient Mysteries .... 424

The Eucharist the extension of the Incarnation (Hilary) 425

The Eucharistic doctrine in early Liturgies . . 426

Appendix ........ 429

Aduknda 1948 ....... 447

Index . ....... 461

EARLY HISTORY OF
CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

CHAPTER I

Introductory

Christian Doctrines and 'Theology — Heresies

The scope of this book is not the presentation of a system of
dogmatic theology, but only a sketch of the history of Christian
doctrine during the first four hundred years of its course. We
have not to attempt to gam a general view of Christian truth so
far as it has been realized at present in the Christian society,
but only to trace through some of its early stages the gradual
developement of doctrine.

Christianity — the student of Christian doctrine needs always
to remember — is not a system, but a life ; and Christian doctrine
is the interpretation of a life. Jesus taught few, if any, doc-
trines : his mission was not to propound a system of metaphysics
or of ethics. If the question be put, What is the Christian
revelation ? the answer comes at once. The Christian revelation
is Christ himself. And Christian doctrine is an attempt to
describe the person and life of Jesus, in relation to Man and the
World and God : an attempt to interpret that person and life
and make it intelligible to the heart and mind of men. Or,
from a slightly different point of view, it may be said that
Christian doctrines are an attempt to express in words of formal
statement the nature of God and Man and the World, and the
relations between them, as revealed in the person and life of
Jesus.

The history of Christian doctrine must therefore shew the
I

2 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

manner in which these statements were drawn up, the circum-
stances wliich called tliem forth : how the meaning of the earthly
life and experiences of Jesus was more and more fully disclosed
to the consciousness of the Church in virtue of her own enlarged
experience.

The history of Christian doctrine is not concerned with the
evidences of Christianity, internal or external ; nor with the
proof or the defence of the ' doctrines ' thus formulated. That
is the province of Apologetics. Nor does it deal with religious
controversy, or Polemics, except so far as such controversy has
actually contributed to the developement of doctrine and the
elucidation of difficulties. Thus, while we have to follow up
the history of many heresies, we have to do this only in so
far as they constitute one of the most impressive instances
of the great law of ' Progress through Conflict ' which is
written over the history of human life : — the law that the
ultimate attainment of the many is rendered possible only by
the failure of the few, that final success is conditioned by
previous defeat.^

The supreme end to which Christian theology is directed is
the full intellectual expression of the truth which was manifested
to men, once for all, in the person and life of Jesus ; and the
history of Christian doctrine is the record of the steps which

* In this way 'heresies' have rendered no small service to theological science.
The defence of the doctrines impugned and the discussion of the points at issue
led to a deeper and clearer view of the subject. Subtle objections when carefully
weighed, and half-truths when exposed, became the occasion of more accurate
statements. "A clear, coherent, and fundamental presentation is one of the strongest
arguments. Power of statement is power of argument. It precludes misrepresenta-
tion ; it corrects mis-statements " (Shedd). It is true the early Christian ' orthodox '
writers seldom regard the influence of 'heretics' as anything but pernicious
{e.g. Eusebius reflects the po[)ular opinion that all heretics were agents of the
devil, and applies to them such epithets as these — grievous wolves, a pestilent and
scabby disease, incurable and dangerous poison, more abominable than all shame,
double-mouthed and two-headed serpents. See H.E. i 1 ; ii 1, 13 ; iii 26-29 ;
iv 7, 29, 30 ; v 13, 14, 16-20). Yet some of the greatest of the Fathers were
able to recognize this aspect of the matter. See Origen Horn, ix in Num.'.
" Nam si doctrina ecclesiastica simplex esset et nullis intrinsecus haereticorum
dogmatum assertionibus cingeretur, non poterat tarn clara et tarn examinata videri
fides nostra. Sed ideirco doctrinam catholicam contradicentium obsidet oppug-
natio, ut fides nostra non otio torpescat, sed exercitiis eliraetur." And similarly (as
Cyprian de unit, eccles. 10, before him), Augustine Confess, vii 19 (25), could write :
" Truly the refutation of heretics brings into clearer relief the meaning of thy
Church and the teaching of sound doctrine. For there needs must be heresies, in
order that those who are approved may be made manifest among the weak." (Cf
Aug. dc Civ. Dei xviii 51.)

INTRODUCTORY 3

were taken in order to reach the end in view — the record of the
partial and progressive approximation to that end.^ For several
centuries men were but ' feeling after ' satisfactory expressions
of this truth. To many of them St Paul's words to the
Athenians on the Areopagus still applied.^ Even those who
accepted Jesus and the Christian revelation with enthusiasm
were still groping in the dark to find a systematic expression of
the faith that filled their hearts. They experienced the difficulty
of putting into words their feelings about the Good-News.
Language was inadequate to pourtray the God and the Saviour
whom they had found. Not even the great interpreters of the
first generation were enabled to transmit to future ages the full
significance of the life which they had witnessed. And as soon
as ever men went beyond the simple phrases of the apostolic
writers and, instead of merely repeating by rote the scriptural
words and terms, tried to express in their own language the
great facts of their faith, they naturally often used terms which
were inadequate — which, if not positively misleading, erred by
omission and defect. Such expressions, when the consequences
flowing from them were more clearly seen, and when they were
proved by experience to be inconsistent with some of the funda-
mental truths of Christianity, a later age regarded only as
' archaisms ', if it was clear that those who used them intended
no opposition to the teaching of the Church.^ Often, it is evident,
men were led into ' heresy ' by the attempt to combine with
the new religion ideas derived from other systems of thought.
From all quarters converts pressed into the Church, bringing
with them a different view of life, a different way of looking
at such questions ; and they did not easily make the new point
of view their own They embraced Christianity at one point

^ Professor "Westcott used to define Christian doctrine as ' a partial and progres-
sive approximation to the full intellectual expression of the truth manifested to
men once for all in the Incarnation '. Cf. Oosiiel of Life,

' Acts 17".

» Thus Augustine de Praedestinatione c. 14, says : " What is tho good of scrutin-
izing the works of men who before the rise of that heresy had no need to busy them-
selves witli tills question, wliich is so hard to solve. Beyond doubt they would have
done so, if they had been obliged to give an answer on the subject." So against the
Pelagians he vindicates Cyprian, Ambrose, and Rufinus. Cf. de dono Per sever antiae
c. 20, and the two volumes of his own Halrac/atimis. In like manner Athauasius
defended Dionysius of Alexandria against the Arians (see infra), and Pelagius ii
{Ejh 5. 921) declared " ITuly Cluircli weigheth the hearts of her faithful ones with
kindlineM rather than their words with rigour ".

4 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

or another, not at all points ; and they tried to bring the
expression of Christian doctrine into harmony with pre-
conceived ideas. And not unfrequently it would seem that
Christian thinkers and teachers, conscious of the force of
objections from outside, or impressed by the conviction that
beliefs which were widely current must contain some element
of truth, were induced to go half-way to meet the views of those
they wished to win. In the main, however, it would appear that
' heresies ' arose from the wish to understand. The endowments
of man include a mind and a reasoning faculty, and doctrine
which is offered to him as an interpretation of the whole of his
being — the whole of his life — he must needs try to grasp with
the whole of his nature. He must try to make it his own and
express it in his own words, or else it cannot be real to him, it
cannot be living. In this process he is certain to make mis-
takes. And the remarkable fact about the history of Christian
theology is that in almost every case the expression of Christian
doctrine was drawn out — was indeed forced upon the Church
as a whole — by the mistakes of early theologians. By their
mistakes the general feeling of the faithful — the great common
sense of the Catholic Church — was aroused, and set to work to
find some phrase which would exclude the error and save the
members of the Church in future from falling into a like mistake.
So it was that the earliest creeds were of the scantiest dimen-
sions, and slowly grew to their present form, step by step, in
the process of excluding — on the part of the Church as a whole
— the erroneous interpretations of individual members of the
Church. Such individuals had drawn their inferences too
hastily : fuller knowledge, longer deliberation, and consideration
of all the consequences which would flow from their conclusions
shewed them to be misleading, inadequate to account for all the
facts. Those who persisted in the partial explanation, the in-
complete and therefore misleading theory, after it had been
shewn to be inadequate, the Church called heretics, factious
subverters of truth. Clearly they could not be allowed to
proclaim a mutilated gospel under the shelter of the Catholic
Church. As members of that Church they had initiated dis-
cussion and stimulated interest, without which progress in know-
ledge, the developeraent of doctrine — the nearer approximation
to a full interpretation — would have been impossible. But
when they seized on a few facts as though they were all the

INTRODUCTORY 5

facts, and from these few framed theories to explain and interpret
all ; when they put forward a meagre and immature conception
as a full-grown representation of the Christian idea of life, —
then the accredited teachers of Christianity were bound to
protest against the one-sided partial developement, and to meet
it by expansions of the creed which should exclude the error,
and to frame formal statements of the mind of the Church to
serve as guides to future generations — landmarks to prevent
their straying from the line of ascertained truth. So creeds
grew, and heresies were banished from the Church.

DOGMA

The word properly means that which has seemed good, been agreed or
decided upon : so an opinion, and particularly, as having been determined
by authority, a decree or an edict, or a precept. In this sense it is
used by Plato, and Demosthenes, and in the Septuagint ; and in the
New Testament of (1) a particular edict of the emperor (Luke 2^) ;
(2) the body of such edicts (Acts 17''); (3) the ordinances of the
Mosaic law (Eph. 2^*, Col. 2^'*) ; (4) the decisions of the apostles and
elders at the 'Council' at Jerusalem (Acts 16*, cf. 15"°), which dealt
particularly with ritual questions. It is nowhere in the New Testament
used of the contents or ' doctrines ' of Christianity. The Stoics, how-
ever, employed the word to express the theoretical ' principles ' of their
philosopliy {e.g. Marc. Aurel. Medit. 2. 3, ravra croi dp/cetrw, del Soy^aara
loTTcu), and it bears a similar sense in the first Christian writers who
used it: Ignatius ad Marjn. 13, 'the dogmata of the Lord and the
Apostles' (here perhaps 'rules of life'); the Didache 11. 3 (a similar
sense), and Barnabas Ep. 1. 6, 9. 7, 10. 1, 9 ; and more precisely in the
Greek Apologists, to whom Christianity was a philosophy of life, who
apply the word to the doctrines in which that philosophy was formu-
lated. And though much later Basil de Sjnritu Sancto 27 seems to
contrast Soyixara, as rites and ceremonies with mystic meaning derived
from tradition, with K-qpvyfxara, as the contents of the Gospel teaching
and Scripture; yet generally the term in the plural denoted the whole
substance of Christian doctrine (see e.f/. Cyril of Jerusalem Cat. iv 2,
where Soy/za as relating to faith is contrasted with Trpa^ts, which has
to do with moral action : " The way of godliness is composed of these
two things, pious doctrines and good actions," — the former being the
source of the latter ; and Socrates //i'.s/. ii 44, where Soy/za is similarly set
in antithesis to rj yjOiKrj SiSaa-KaX-'a). Hence the general significance — a
doctrine which in the eyes of the Church is essential in the true inter-
pretation of the Christian faith, and thcpefore one the acceptance of
3

« CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

which may be required of all Christians (i.e. not merely a subjective
opinion or conception of a particular theologian). It is not the interpre-
tation of any individual, or of any particular community, that can be
trusted. Just as the cecumenicity of a council depends upon its acknow-
ledgement by the Church as a whole, and a council at which the whole
Church was not represented might attain the honour of cecumenicity
by subsequent recognition and acceptance (e.g. the Council of Constan-
tinople of 381); so no 'dogma' (though individuals may contribute to
its expression) is authoritative till it has passed the test of the general
feeling of the Church as a whole, the ' communis sensus fidelium', and
by that been accepted.

Arpeo-ts— hf:rksy

Aipctris, the verbal noun from alpiw, alpeladai, is commonly used both
in the active sense of 'capture' and in the middle sense of 'choice'.
It is the middle sense only with which we are concerned, and especially
the limited sense of ' choice of an opinion '. Hence it is used of those
who have chosen a particular opinion of their own, and follow it — a
' school of thought ', a party, the followers of a particular teacher or
principle.

In this usage the word is originally colourless and neutral, implying
neither that the opinion chosen is true nor that it is false.

So it is used in the New Testament of the ' schools ' of the Sadducees
(Acts 5^^) and Pharisees (Acts 15^), and of the Christians — 'the aipto-is
of the Nazaraeans ' (Acts 24^* ^*). It is true that in all these cases the
word is used by those who are unfavourably disposed to the schools of
thought which are referred to ; but disparagement is not definitely
associated with it. And Constantine uses it of the doctrine of the
Catholic Church (^ alpea-L^ rj KaOoXiK-q — Euseb. x 5. 21), just as TertuUian
frequently uses * secta '.

But though the Christian Society as a whole may be in this way
designated a a'pco-is, inside the Society there is no room for aipcVcts.
There must not be ' parties ' within the Church. It is Christ himself
who is divided into parts, if there are (1 Cor. 1'^). And so, as applied
to diversities of opinion among Christians themselves, the word assumes a
new colour (1 Cor. 11^®), and is joined to terms of such evil significance
as ipidilai * factions ' and Si;^ocrTa(riai ' divisions ' (Gal. 5^).

The transition from the earlier to the later meaning of the word is
well seen in the use of the adjective in Tit. 3'**, where St Paul bids
Tihis have nothing to do with a man who is aipcriKos if he is
unaffected by repeated admonition. This is clearly the 'opinionated'
man, who obstinately holds by his own individual choice of opinion
(' obstinate ', ' factious '). So the man who in matters of doctrine
forms his own opinion, and, though it is opposed to the communis

INTRODUCTORY '/

$ensut fidelium, will not abandon it when his error is pointed out, is a
' heretic '.

To the question What is the cause of heresies? different answers
were given. The cause was not God, and not the Scriptures. " Do
not tell me the Scripture is the cause." It is not the Scripture that is
the cause, but the foolish ignorance of men [i.e. of those who interpret
amiss what has been well and rightly said) — so Chrysostom declares
{Horn. 128 p. 829). The cause is rather to be sought in (1) the Devil —
80 1 Tim. 4^ was understood and Matt. 13-* : Eusebius reflects this
common opinion; (2) the careless reading of Holy Scripture — "It is
from this source that countless evils have sprung up — from ignorance
of the Scriptures : from this source the murrain of heresies has grown "
(Chrys. Pros/. Ep. ad Rom.) ; and (3) contentiousness, the spirit of pride
and arrogance.

As to the nature of their influence and the reason why God permits
their existence, see supra p. 2 note 1. On the latter point appeal was
made to St Paul's words 1 Cor. ID', "for there must be 'heresies'
among you, in order that those that are approved may become manifest
among you." Heresies serve as a touchstone of truth ; they test and
try the genuineness of men's faith. So Chrysostom {Horn. 46 p. 867)
says they make the truth shine out more clearly. " The same thing is
seen in the case of the prophets. False prophets arose, and by com-
parison with them the true prophets shone out the more. So too
disease makes health plain, and darkness light, and tempest calm."
And again {Horn. 54 p. 363) he says : " It is one thing to take your
stand on the true faith, when no one tries to trip you up and deceive
you : it is another thing to remain unshaken when thousands of waves
are breaking against you."

Four stages in the history of these words may be detected.

(1) They were originally used of the old Greek poets who told their
tales of the gods, and gave their explanations of life and the universe in
the form of euch myths. Such are the 'theogonies' of Hesiod and
Orpheus, and the 'cosmogonies' of Knipcdocles. These men were the
Qiokoyoi. of what is called the pres(;ieiitific age. It was in the actions
of tlie gods — their loves and their hates — that they found the answer to
the riddles of existence. So later writers (as Plutarch, Suetonius, and
Philo) use the expres-sion rh. 6€o\oyovfj.€va in the sense of ' inquiries into
the divine nature' or 'discussions about the gods'.

(2) Still later the words are usotl to express the attribution of divine
origin or causation to persons or things, which are thus regarded as
divine or at leaut are referred to divine causes So in the sense ' ascribe

8 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

divinity to ', ' name as God ', ' call God ', ' assert the divinity of ', the verb
6(oXoy(iv is \ised by Justin Dial. 56 (in conjunction with KupioXoyeiv),
by the writer of the Little Labyrinth (deoXoyijixai tov ;^pi(rrov, ovk ovra
Sf^y — «call Christ God, though he is not God' — Kusel)iu.s II. E. v 28),
and by later writers of all the Persons of the Trinity and in other
connexions.^

(3) The verb is found in a more general sense 'make religious
investigations' in Justin Dial. 113; while in Athenagoras Leg. 10, 20,
22 the noun expresses the doctrine of God and of all beings to whom
the predicate ' deity ' belongs. (Cf. also the Latin ' theologia ' — Ter-
tullian ad Nat. ii 2.)

(4) Aristotle describes ^coXoyt'a as 77 irpwr-q fjiiXocrocfiia, and to the
Stoics the word was equivalent to ' philosophy ' — a system of philo-
sophical principles or truths. For Hellenic Christians at least the tran-
sition from this usage to the sense familiar now was easy. Theology
is the study or science that deals with God, the philosophy of life that
finds in God the explanation of the existence of man and the world, and
endeavours to work out theoretically this principle in all its relations ;
while Christian theology in a specific sense starts from the existence of
Jesus, and from him and his experiences, his person, his life, his teach-
ing, frames its theories of the Godhead, of man, and of the world. (See
note on the words, Harnack Dogniengeschidite Eng. tr. vol. ii p. 202,
Sophocles Lexicon, and Suicer Thesaurus.)

* In relation to the Son, in particular, deoXoyla is used of all that relates to the
divine and eternal nature and beini^ of Christ, as contrasted with oUofo/xla, wliich
has reference especially to the Incarnation and its consequences (so Lightfoot notes
Apost. Fathers 11 ii p. 75). But this is only a particular usage of the t«rm in a
restricteil senso.

CHAPTER 11

The Chieb Doctrines in the New Testament Writeks

The Beginnings of Doctrines in the New Testament

Christian theology (using the v/ord in the widest sense) is, as we
have seen, the attempt to explain the mystery of the existence
of the world and of man by the actual existence of Jesus.
It is in him, in his experiences — in what he was, what he felt,
what he thought, what he did — that Christian theology finds
the solution of the problem. In the true interpretation of him
and of his experiences we have, accordingly, the true interpre-
tation of human life as a whole. In tracing the history of
Christian doctrines, we have therefore to begin with the earliest
attempts at such interpretation. These, at least the earliest
which are accessible to us at all, are undoubtedly to be found
in the collection of writings which form the New Testament.
We are not here concerned with apologetic argument or history
of the canon, with questions of exact date of writing or of
reception of particular books. We are only concerned with the
fact that, be the interpretation true or untrue, apostolic or
Bub-apostolic, or later still, the interpretations of the person of
Jesus which are contained in these books are the earliest which
are extant. In different books he is regarded from different
points of view : even the writers who purpose to give a simple
record of the facts of his life and teaching ai)proach their task
with different conceptions of its nature; in their selection of
facts — the special prominence they give to some — they are
unconsciously essaying the work of interpretation as well as
that of mere narration. "Tlie historian caimot but interpret
the facts which he records." The student of tiie history of
Christian doctrines is content that they should be accepted as
interpreters : to shew that they are also trustworthy historians
is no part of his business. From the pages of the New Testa-
uieut there is to be drawn, beyond all question, the record of

10 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

the actual experiences of the Christians nearest to the time of
Jesus of whom we have any record at all. Their record of their
own experiences, and their interpretations of them and of him
who was the source of all, are the starting-point from which
the developement of Christian doctrines proceeds. In this sense
the authors of the Gospels and Epistles are the first writers on
Christian theology.^ No less ceitainly than later writers, if
less professedly and with more security against error, they
tried to convey to others the impression which Jesus, himself
or througli his earliest followers, had made upon them. In
him they saw not only the medium of a revelation, but the
revelation itself. What had before been doubtful about the pur-
pose of the world and of human life — its origin and its destiny
— all became clear and certain as they studied him, and from the
observations which they could make of him, and of his relations
to his environment, framed their inductions. Not only from
his words, but from his acts and his whole life and conduct,
they framed a new conception of God, a new conception of His
relations to mankind, a new conception of the true relations of
one man to another. They could measure the gulf that separates
man as he is from man as he is meant to be, and they learnt
how he might yet attain to the destiny which he had forfeited.
Under the impulse of these conceptions — this revelation — the
authors of the Gospels compiled their narratives, and the writers
of the other books of the New Testament dealt with the matters
which came in their way. Their method is not systematic :

* If it were necessary for our present purpose to attempt to discriminate nicely
between the various ideas expressed in different writings of tlie New Testament,
we might begin with the earliest and work from them to the later — on the chance
of finding important developements. "We might thus begin with the earlier epistles
of St Paul, and shew what conceptions of the Godhead and of the person and work
of Chiist underlie, and are presujiposed by, the teaching which he gives and the
allusions which imply so full a background of belief on the part of those to whom
he writes. And then we might go on to compare with tliese earliest conceptions
what we could discover in the writings of later date that seemed different or of
later developement. But this would be an elaborate task in itself, and without in
any way doubting that further reflection and enlarged experience led to correspond-
ing expansion and fulness and elucidation of the conce[)tions of the early teacliers
of the Gospel, it seems clear that some of the books of the New Testament which
are later in time of composition (as we have them now) contain the exfiression of the
earliest conceptions ; and therefore, for the purpose before us, we need not try to
discriminate as to time and origin between the various points of view whicli the
various writings of the New Testament reveal. We n^ed only note the variety,
and observe that the conceptions are complementary one to another.

CHIEF DOCTRINES IN NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS 11

it is in the one case narrative, and in the other occasional.
But in no case are we left in doubt as to the interpretations
which they had formed and accepted. It is, for example, absurd
to suppose that the doctrine of the Person of Jesus which they
held did not correspond to the teaching which tliey record that
he gave of his own relation to God. And when an Apostle
claims to have received his mission directly from Jesus himself,
and not from men or through any human agency, it is obvious
that he regards him as the source of divine authority. The
writers of the New Testament have not formulated their
interpretations in systematic or logical form perhaps ; but they
have framed them nevertheless, and the history of Christian
doctrines must begin by an account of the doctrines expressed
or implied in the earliest writings of Christians that are extant,
and then proceed to trace through later times variations or
developements from the interpretations which were then accepted
as true.

The existence of God and of the world and of man is —
needless to say — assumed throughout ; and it is certain that the
doctrine of creation by God (through whatever means) was
accepted by all the writers before us, inherited as it would be
from the Scriptures of the Jews. Of other doctrines all were
nfjt certainly held by all the writers, and in the short statement
of them which can rightly have a place here it will only be
necessary to indicate the main points. We shall take in order
God (the Trinity), Man, the relations between God and Man
(Atonement), the means by which the true relations are to be
maintained (the Church, the Sacraments).

The doctrines are, as has been said, expressed in incidental
or in narrative form, and so it is from incidental allusions and
from the general tenour of the narrative that we infer them.
They grow up before the reader.

The Doctrine of God in the New Testament

The doctrine of God, for example, is nowliere explicitly
stated. It is easy, however, to see that there are three main
conceptions which were before the writers of the New Testament.
The three descriptions of God as Father, as S}»irit, and as Love,
express together a complete and comprehensive doctrine of the
Godhead ; and though the three descriptions are specially

12 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

charactoristic of dinorcnt writers or groups of writings, respect-
ively, yet it is easy to see that the thought of God as Spirit and
as Love is present and natural to the minds of the writers who
use more readily the description of him as Father, which indeed
is the title regularly employed by all the writers of the New
Testament.^ It is the conception of God as Father that is most
Drigiual. Not that the conception was entirely new.

The doctrine of God which is to be found in the pages
3f the New Testament has doubtless for its background the
Jewish monotheistic belief, but the Ijelief in the form in which
it presented itself to the psalmists and the prophets rather
than to the scribes and rabbis. To the latter the ancient faith
of their fathers in one God, tenaciously maintained against the
many gods of the nations round about them, had come to convey
the idea of an abstract Unit far removed from all contact with
the men and the world He had created, self-centred and self-
absorbed, the object of a distant reverence and awe. The
former, on the contrary, were above all else dominated by the
sense of intimate personal relation between themselves and God ;
and it is this conviction — the certainty that such a close com-
munion and fellowship exists — that the followers of Jesus
discerned in him and learnt from his experience. But in his
experience and in his teaching the conviction assumed a form
so diifereut from that in which the prophets realized it, that his
conception of God seems to stand alone. Others had realized
God as Father of the universe (the Creator and Sustainer of the
physical world and of animate things), and by earlier teachers
of the Jews He had been described as — in a moral and
spiritual sense — Father of Israel and Israelites,^ but their sense
of ' fatherhood ' had been limited and obscured by other con-
ceptions.^ In the experience and teaching of Jesus this one
conception of God as Father controlled and determined every-
thing. It is first of all a conviction personal and peculiar to

' The writer to the Hebrews is perhaps an exception, but see Heb. l^- ^ 12".

* See the references given by Dr. Sauday, Art. 'God' in Hastings' D.B. vol. ii
p. 208 {e.g. Deut. pi 8* 32", Ps. 103^^ Jer. 3<-", Isa. 63i« Gl^) ; and for tlie whole
subject see, besides that article, G. F. Schmid Biblical Theology of the New
Testament.

' In particular the image according to which Israel is depicted as Jehovah's
bride, faithless to her marriage covenant, is incompatible with the thought expressed
by the Fatherhood of God. One broad difference cannot be missed. In the one
image the main thought is the jealous de.sire of God to receive man's undivided
devotion, in the other it is His readiness to bestow His infinite love on man.

CHIEF DOCTRINES IN NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS 13

himself, — ' My Father ', he claimed Him.^ But he also spoke of
Him to his disciples as ' your Father ', ^ and so the intimacy of
relationship which they saw he realized they came to look upon
as possible too for them, — and not only for them — the first
disciples of Jesus — but also for all mankind. The Fatherhood
of God extended to the good and the evil alike, the just and the
unjust ; and to all animate things — even the fowls of the air.
God was Father in the highest and fullest sense of the word.
So the earliest followers of Jesus understood his teaching and
explained his life. That they also thought of God as essentially
spiritual will not be disputed. The idea of God as ' Spirit ' is
in one sense co-ordinate with the idea of Him as ' Father ',
though definite expression is scarcely given to the idea except in
the writings of St John.^ This special description or conception
brings into prominence certain characteristics which must not be
passed over. The absolute elevation of God above the world
and men is expressed when He is designated Spirit, just as the
most intimate communion between men's life and His is expressed
when He is styled their Father. As Spirit He is omnipresent,
all pervading, eternal, and raised above all limitations.* He is
the source of all life, so that apart from Him and knowledge of
Him there can be no true life.^

When to the descriptions of God as Father and as Spirit St
John adds the description that is — in words — all his own, and
declares that the very essence of the being of God is Love ; *
when he thus sums up in a single word the revelation of the
teaching and life of Jesus, he certainly makes a contribution to

' E.g. both as to natural and as to spiritual life. Matt. n"6''-«-8, .lolin 2'8 5".
Cf. St Paul's ficquent use of the plirase 'the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ', e.g.
Col. 1», Eph. 1», 2 Cor. V IP', Rom. 15« ; cf, 1 Pet. 1',— though ho commonly
writes 'God Ihe Father', or 'our Fatlier'.

« Matt. 6«- " lO**, Luke &\ Cf. ' Our Father ', Matt. 6" ; ' My Father and your
Father', John 20". The connnon addition of the designation ' lieavcnly ', or 'that
is in heaven ', serves to mark the spiritual and transcendent character of the
relation.

• E.g. John 4**. He alone has jimsprvcd the definite utterance of Jesus, 'God is
Spirit', as he alone iiroclainis tliat 'God is Love'.

* E.g. Matt. 6«-«- •», John 4"'. » John h^^-^ ; cf. .''." 17».

'1 John 4". Though a triune pors'inality in the Godhead is implied if God is
ijs.sentially Love (ct. Augustine d<; I'rini/ale vi and viii), it does not appear that
St Jolin's 8tat<;ment was charged with this meaning to himself. It seems rather,
fr"m the context, to he used to ex])re8s the sjiiritual ami moral relation in which
God stands to man (cf. John 3"), and not to he intended to liavo explicit rcferenca
to the distinctions within the Godhead.

14 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Christian doctriTip which is of the hij^hest vahie. It is not too
much to say tiiut in the sentence ' God is Love ' we liave
an interi)retation of the Gospel which covers all the relations
between God and man. And yet it is only the essential
character of all true fatherhood that tlie words express.
St John is only explaining by another term the meaning of
Father, whatever fresh light he may throw upon the title by his
explanation.

And all the other descriptions of God which are to be found
in the New Testament add nothing to these three main thoui^dits ;
indeed, they only draw out in more detail the significance of the
relationship expressed by the one word Father.^

But much more is implied as to the Godhead by St John's
account of the sayings of Jesus in which he declared his own
one-ness with the Father ^ — teaching which obviously lies at
the back of the thought of St PauF and of the writer to the
Hebrews.* And more again is seen in the references to the
Paraclete, the Spirit of truth, in the Gospel according to St
John,* and to the Holy Spirit in the other books of the New
Testament.^ The Son and the Holy Spirit alike have divine
functions to perform, and are in closest union with the Father.
There are distinctions witliin the Godhead, but the distinctions
are such as are compatible with unity of being. There is Father,
there is Son, and there is Holy Spirit. Each is conceived as
having a distinct existence and a distinct activity in a sphere of
his own : but the being of each is divine, and there is only one
Divine Being. Thus to say that the Godhead is one in essence,
but contains within itself three relations, three modes of exist-

' As, for example, when God is described as holy and righteous, or as merciful
and gracious ; £is judging justly, or as patient and long-suffering. In all aspects
God is absolutely good, the standard and type of moral perfection, and His love is
always actively working (Matt. 19", Luke 18", Mark S"* 7'S John S^").

"See John l'* 14^-". Cf. John 10^ 13™ U^- ^o 15»* IC'^^ 1 John l'-», Matt.
11".

» Cf. 2 Cor. 4^ Col. l'", Phil. 2' (Christ the 'image' of God, and existent 'in the
form ' of God).

* Heb. 1' (the Son the 'effulgence of the glory' and the 'exact impress of the
very being' of God). John l^-\ Phil. 2«-», Col. l''*""*, and Heb. l^-^ should be care-
fully c(jiiii)ared together.

» John 14'«-»15=«' 167-1*.

• The baptismal commission. Matt. 28", which co-ordinates the Three would be
the simplest and most decisive evidence, but if it be disallowed there remains in
the New Testament ample evidence to the same efl'ect (tee the Pauline equivalent
2 Cor. 13'*, Rom. 8=«, 1 Cor. 12", Eph. 4*).

CHIEF DOCTRINES IN NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS 15

ence, is always at the same time actively existent in three
distinct spheres of energy : this is only to say what is clearly
implied in the language of the Gospels and Epistles, though the
conception is not expressed in set terms, but is embodied in the
record of actual experience. As from Jesus himself his dis-
ciples derived, in the first place, their consciousness of God as
Father, so from him they first learnt of God as Holy Spirit ;
but their realization of what was at first perhaps accepted on
the evidence of his experience only, was soon quickened by
experiences of their own which seemed to be obvious mani-
festations of the working of God as Holy Spii'it.^

The doctrine of a triune God — Father, Son, and Spirit —
is required and implied by the whole account of the revelation
and the process of redemption ; but the pages of the New
Testament do not shew anything like an attempt to enter into
detailed explanations of the inner being of God in the threefold
relation.

It is to this fact that we must look for the explanation of
the subsequent course of Christian thought, and the puzzling
emergence of theories that seem to be so utterly at variance
with the natural interpretation of the apostolic writings that
we find it difficult to understand how they could ever have
claimed the authority of Scripture. There are at least three
points which must be noted. First, the New Testament leaves
a clear impression of throe agents, but the unity and equality of
the three remains obscure and veiled. Secondly, the doctrine
of the Incarnation is plainly asserted, but the exact relation and
connexion between the human and the divine is not defined ;
there is no attempt to indicate how the pre-existing Christ is
one with the man Jesus — how he is at the same time Son of
God as before, and yet Son of Man too as he was not before; and
how as Son of Man he can still continue to be equal with the
Father. Thirdly, that the Spirit is divine is assumed, but that
he is pre-existent and personal is an inference that might not
seem to be inevitable. And so it was witli these ])oints that
subsequent controversy dealt, — controversy that resulted in re-
solving ambiguities, and led to the clearer and fuller expression
of the Christian conception of God.

' Such ex])erienco« are represented ns lieginninR on the day of Pentecost, and as
continuing all tlirDugli llio lii.story reconli'd in tlir Acts of tlie Apoiitles ; and they
vre also implied, if not actually expressed, iu most of the Epistle?.

16 CHRISTlAiN DOCTRINE

The Doctrine of Man in the New Testament

In like uicanner, with regard to the conception which the
writers of the New Testament, the first Christian theologians,
had formed of man and his place in the universe, we find no fall
and systematic expression, but only a number of isolated — and
for the most part incidental — indications of a doctrine.

The teaching of the Old Testament must be assumed as the
background and as the starting-point, so far at least as regards,
on the one side, the dignity of man — as made in the image of
God ^ and destined to attain to tlie likeness of God ; and, on the
other side, his failure to fulfil his destiny, and his need of super-
natural aid to effect his redemption.

At the outset it is clear that the doctrine of the Fatherhood
of God in itself declares the dignity of human nature. Man is
by his constitution the child of God, capable of intimate union
and personal fellowsliip with God. It is on this relationship
that the chief appeals of Jesus are based : it is to make men
conscious of their position that most of his teaching was directed.
It is to make them realize the sense of privilege, which it allows,
that was the chief object of his life. It is because of this kin-
ship that men are bidden to be perfect, even as their Father
which is in heaven is perfect.^ For this reason tliey are to
look to heaven rather than to earth as the treasury of all that
they value most.^ Man is so constituted that he is capable of
knowing the divine will and of desiring to fulfil it;* he has a
faculty by virtue of which spiritual insight is possible,^ — he can
not only receive intimations of the truth, but also examine and
test what he receives and form right judgements in regard to it.*
Such, it is clear, is the sense in which the writers of the Gospels
understood the teaching of Jesus, and the same theory of the
high capacities of human nature is presupposed and implied by
the general tenour of the teaching of St Paul.

At the same time the free play of this spiritual element in
man is hindered by the faculties which bind him to earth — the
elements represented by ' the flesh ' ; and the contrast between

' The phrase clearly refers to mental and moral faculties, such as tlie intellect, the
will, the affections.

« ilatt. 5*«. » Matt. 6'» ».

* E.g. John 5". " E.g. Matt. 6«- =», Luke ll"-».

• E.g. Matt. 11" 13'^ Mark 4=^, Luke 12»«-", John 7**

CHIEF DOCTRINES IN NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS ]7

them and the higher constituent is strongly expressed — ' the
spirit is willing, but the tiesh is weak '.^ And so at the same
time there is declared the corruption of human nature in its
present state, so that sin is a habitual presence in man, from
which he can escape only by the aid of a power which is not
his own, even though that power must work by arousing and
quickening forces which are already latent in him.

As to the nature of sin the pages of tlie iSTew Testament
reflect the teaching of the Old. The account of the Fall of
Adam shews the essence of sin to be the wilful departure on the
part of man from the course of developement for which he was
designed (the order determined by God, and therefore the order
natural to him) ; and the assertion of his will against the will of
God. Tlie result of sin is thus a disordered world — a race of
men not fulfilling the law of their nature and alienated from
God, who ia the source and the sustainer of their life. Exactly
these conceptions are embodied in the treatment of the matter
which is recorded, on the part of Jesus and the earliest Christian
teachers, in the New Testament itself. The commonest words
for sin denote definitely the missing of a mark or the breach of
a law, the failure to attain an end in view or the neglect of
principle.^ And the other words which are used imply the
same point of view : sin is a ' trespass ' or * transgression ', that is,
a departure from the right path which man is meant to tread ;
or it is ' debt ', in the sense that there was an obligation laid
upon man, a responsibility to live in a particular way, which he
has not fulfilled and observed.^ This manner of describing sin
shews that it ia by no means thought of as an act, or a series
of acts, of wrong-doing. It is rather a state or condition, a
particular way of living, whicli is descril)ed as sickness,* or even,
by contrast with true life, as death. Those who are living under
Buch conditions are ' dead '. ^ Of this state the opposite is life,
or life eternal — a particular way of living now, characteristic of

* Matt. •2r,*\ cf. John 3" : "Tliat which is lirfjotton of tlie flpsh is flfish, nnd that
which is hc^oltcii of the Spirit is spirit." Similarly ' flesh ami blood ' to;^'i'llior M.itt.
16". ('Flesh' is the name hy which mankind was commonly expressed in the
Hebrew Scrijitiircs, with jiarticular reference to its weaker and more 'material'
Constituents.)

'The words anaprla and dcoM^a— the essence of sin {auaprla) bei^* d<— Iwti by
St John to lie lawlessness or the absence of law (dfou/a) 1 .fohn 3*.

* The words rapdirTUfia, irapdpaaif, 6<ptl\r]na.

* E.g. Matt S^'"'. * E.g. John .^."■»

18 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

wliicli is knowletlcje of God and love of the brethren.^ It is to
give this knowledj^o. and to quicken this love that is declared
to be the special object of the life and death of Jesus.^ The
condition of sin is one of estrangement from God and selfish
disregard of what is due to others. It is a state which merits
and involves punishment, and yet at the same time is its own
punishment.'

' John 17» e"- « 3=« 5« and ,')». » John W° 13»» 15", 1 John 4«.

» The conception of sin expressed in St Paul's epistles, though not essentially
different from the conceptions which are reflected in other writings of the New
Testament, is characteristic enough to call for special notice.

It was the comiuon belief of the Jews at the time that the personal tran^^gression
of Adam was the origin of sin, and further that death came into the world as the
penalty for sin.

St Paul assumes this belief. The keynote to his meaning in the chief passage
in which he discusses the matter (Rom. 5''^-*') is struck in the words ' through the
one man's disobedience the many were made sinners' (ver. 19). Sin, then, entered
the world by Adam's trespass, and death— which is the penalty of sin — followed.
And, furthermore, death became universal, because all men sinned. 'E(p' t? Trdvres
^jxaprov can only mean 'because all sinned': but the question remains whether by
»tiese words St Paul means to assert the personal individual sin of every one since
Adam, or whether he means that, in some sense, when Adam sinned, the whole race
then and there became guilty of sin. It is also a question which of the two concep-
tions was familiar to Jewish (Rabbinic) thought. (See Sanday and Headlam on the
passage, and the discussion by G. B. Stevens The Patdine Theology p. 127 ff. See
also H. St J. Thackeray The Relation of St Paul to Contemi^orary Jewish Thought
eh. ii 'Sin and Adam', and further ' Pelagianism ' infra p. 309.) To determine
the question we must look beyond the mere words to the argument of the context.
Two things are clear — (1) the universality of sin is emphasized, and its connexion
with Adam's sin ; (2) the redemption from sin actually accomplished through the
one man, Jesus Christ, is treated as parallel to the results of the sin of the one man,
Adam.

In both cases alike there is implied an orgaruo unity between the representative
and the race (whether of all men, in the one case, or of those who are 'in Christ',
in the other case). Of. 2 Cor. 5" " one died for all, therefore all died " {i.e. to sin,
an etliical death to be followed by an ethical rising-again to life). The unity which
exists between Christ (the head of the spiritual humanity) and Christians is parallel
to that which exists between Adam (the head of the natural humanity) and all
mankind. (Cf. 1 Cor. 15" "as in Adam all died, even so in Christ shall all be
made alive".) But in regard to Adam, at all events, St Paul docs not attempt to
define the way in which the connexion comes about. On this question the ]j]irase
ijfi€6a T^Kva (jivaei ipyri%, Eph. 2^ must be considered. The doctrine of original or
liirth-sin has been found in it. But the context must determine the meaning, and
three facts must be noted — (1) the order of the words shews that there is no stress on
<pvati; (2) the exjire-ssion 'children of wrath' is jiarallel to such Old Testament
expressions as ' sons of death ' and means ' wortiiy of God's reproVjation ' ; (3) the
reference Ls to individual jiersonal sins actually committed ; (4) so far as there is
any emphasis on <{)va(i the int-ntion is to mark the contrast between the natural
powers of man, left to himself, and the power of the grace of God in effecting
•alvation. See the emphatic reiteration of x<ip'ri in the verses following. In thia

CHIEF DOCTRINES IN NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS 19

The restoration of the true relations between God and man,
from which will follow the establishment of the true relations
between man and man, is thus the purpose which Christ was
understood to have declared to be his purpose and his followers
believed he had achieved.

The Doctrine of Atonement in the New Testament

Of the nature of the atonement which he effected there is
no formal theory in the New Testament. It is certain that
St John, at all events, understood his Master to have constantly
taught that the knowledge of God and, with the knowledge of
God, the increased knowledge of man's own position, was to play
a large part in the work. And this mental and moral illumiua-
tion was effected by the whole life and teaching of Jesus, while
by his death in all its circumstances the true meaning of his
life was brought to the consciousness of his disciples. So that
the conception of redemption through knowledge can certainly
claim to be among the earliest conceptions. At the same time,
that the redemption was wrought in some special sense by this
death of Christ — that the death in itself was one of the instru-
ments by which the whole work of Christ became effective
— is clearly implied by all the allusions to it.^ But the

passage too, therefore, it ia the actual prevalence of sin in the world, as a fact of
general experience, that is in the Apostle's mind, ratlier than any tlieory as to the
propagation of sin or a tendency to sin. Cf. Gal. 2*, wliere the Gentiles are regarded
as sinners <pv<rti, i.e. belonging to the class of sinners — see Sunday and Headlam on
Koni. 5'».

Furtliermore, it is clear that St Paul speaks of the crdpf, in antithesis to the
wvtv^ia, as the seat and sphere of manifestation of tliis sin. }{o uses the expression
in different senses : (1) literal or physical, of the body actnally subjugated and
ruled by sin, conceived as the sphere in which, or the medium through which, sin
actually works; (2) ethical, of the element in man which is, in practical experience,
f)pposed to the spiritual ; (3) symbolic, of unregciierate human nature. The three
senses tend to pass over into one another, and the first and second, and the second
and third, respectively, cannot always bo exactly distinguished.

But when he describes the sins of 'the (lesh ' he includes many forms of sin
wbi'h have their origin in the mind or the will — sec e.g. (ial. .O""'- ; and thu
an ti thesis between the 'spirit' and the ' flesh ' is not presented in the manner of
Greek or Oriental dualism. (On Kom. T^'**, see Sanday and Headlam.)

• On the meaning of the 'blood' of Clirist, see jiarticularly Westcott Epistles of
f^l John, wlicro it is shewn that the 'blood' always includes the thought of the
life, prrsorvr;d and active beyond death, though at the same time it is only through
the death that the blood can bo made available. On the New Testament doctrine of
the atonement in general, see Oxenbam diUholic Dorli-ine of the Atonement p. 108 ff. ;
and K. W. Dale The Atonement, witli the notes in the Appendix.

20 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

writers of the New Testament are content to treat the result
as a fact and to emphasize some of its consequences. They
do not attempt to explain the manner in which the result was
obtained.

The work of the atonement is described under various
images and metaphors, which may perhaps be grouped in four
classes.

First, there is the idea of ' reconciliation ' (KaTaWaj})), ex-
pressed in some of the parables, as when the prodigal son is
reconciled to his father, and in passages in which those who
were once enemies and aliens are said to be reconciled to God by
the death of His Son, and to have won ' peace ' and union with
God, or 'life' in union with Him, as the result.^

Under another image sin is regarded as personified : man is
held in bondage to sin, and has to be purchased or bought with
a price out of the slavery in which he is held ; so a ' ransom '
has to be paid for him.^

Again, corresponding to the notion of sin as a debt, there is

^ The \v0rd3 KaTaWayr;, K-araWacrcreic in this sense are peculiarly Pauline (Rom.
gio.ii iiis_ 2 Cor. 5's- "*•-"), and aTroKaTaWdffffew (Eph. 2'«, Col. l*"- ="), and it must
be observed that tlio conception is of the world and man being reconciled to
God (not God to man), just as it is always man who is represented as hostile
to God and alienated from Him. The change of feeling has to take place on
the side of man. The obstacle to union which must be removed is of his
making. (Cut see Saiiday and Headlam on Rom. 5'^) For the result as peace,
see John 14", Rom. 5', Eph. '2^-*- ", Col. 3'» ; as union with God or life in Christ,
see esp. St John, e.g. John 3"-" 20»', 1 John 5"-'*; cf. Col. 3»- *, 2 Tim. V,
Rom. 5>», Heb. 10-».

* The chief words used to express this conception are dyopdl;u,\ Cor. 6^ 7^,
Gal. 4' ; i^ayopdi^ui, Gal. 3^' ; \vTp6u, Xvrpwais, dwoXvTpuiais, Tit. 2''', 1 Pet. 1",
Eph. V, Col. 1'*, Rom. Z^*, Heb. gi^-"*; and Xvrpoi', dvriKvTpov, Matt. 202" |l Mark
10**, 1 Tim. 2'. It is only in connexion with this metaphor that Christ is said to
have acted 'instead of us {dvrl), and even here the phrase in 1 Tim. 2* is
dvTiKvTpou virip tjuQv. He paid a ransom 'instead of or 'in exchange for ' us. In
all other cases his death or sufferings are described as for our sakes or on our behalf
{virip Tjfj.wv), and more simply still as 'concerning' us, or 'in the matter of sin or
our sins (Tfpt ijuQv or irtpi dfiaprias, irepl dft.apTi.i2v ij/xwi'). That is to say, it is the
idea of representation rather than of substitution that is expressed. The conception
is clearly stated in the words, ' if one died on behalf of all, then all died' (2 Cor.
5*") ; that is, in Christ the representative of the race all die, and because they have
died in him, all are made alive in him (cf. such passages as Rom. 6''"). And,
again, it mu.st be observed that it is not said to whom the ransom is paid. It is
indeed only when what is simply a metaphor is pressed as though it were a formal
definition that the question could well arise. One thing, however, in this respect,
is clearly imjilied — the person thus ransomed and freed from bondage belongs hence-
forward tn liis redeemer : it is only in him, by union with him, that he gets hia
freedom. See e.g. Rom. 6'*-7*.

CHIEF DOCTRINES IN NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS 21

the metaphor of ' satisfaction ' ; as though a creditor was satis-
fied by the payment of the debt, or the debt was remitted. This
is the thought when death is styled the wages of sin, when men
are declared to be debtors to keep the law ; when Christ is de-
scribed as being made sin for us and bearing our sins on the
tree, and when reference is made to the perfect ' obedience ' of
his life.^ Yet again there is the conception, derived from the
ceremonial system of the old dispensation, of the life and death
of Christ, pure and free from blemish, as a sacrifice and ex-
piation which cleanses from sin, as ceremonial impurities were
removed by the oflerings of animals of old. And so ' propitiation '
is made.^

A complete theory of the atonement must, it is clear, take
accoimt of all these aspects of the work of Christ to which the
various writers of the New Testament give expression. But it
is not probable that all of them were present to the minds of
each of the writers ; rather, it is probable that each approached
the matter from a different point of view, and that none of them
would have wished the account which he gives — the metaphors
which he uses — to have been regarded as exclusive of the other
accounts and metaphors which others adopted.

The Christian theologians of later times in like manner put
forward now one and now another aspect of the mystery, only
erring when they wished to represent some one particular aspect
as a sufficient interpretation in itself, or when, going behind the
earlier writers, they tried to define too closely what had been
left uncertain. But the Church as a whole has never been com-
mitted to any theory of the atonement. The belief that the
atonement has been efl'ected, and the right relations between man
and God restored and made possible for all men, in and through
Christ, has been enough.

' Rom. 6», Gal. 5» 3", 2 Cor. 5", 1 Pet. 2-«, Thil. 2». Hob. 5» 10» ; k4,«n$,
•remisHion* of sins, Matt. 26'-*, Luke 24«'', Acts 2^^ et saepc, Eph. 1^ Col. V* ;
cf. Heb. 9»

'This conception ia expressed especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews and by St
John. Sec Ileb. 2" g'""^ jq'"- "• '*• =*•, and 1 -luhn 1' 2^ 4'<' ; but cf. also Rom.
3", Eph. 61 Here too it must be noticed that the idea of jjropitiating God (as one
who is angry with a jursonal feeling against the offender) is foreign to the New
Testament. I'rojiitiation takes place in tho matter of sin and of the sinner, altering
the character of that which occasions alienation from God. See Westcott Epistles
of St John, note on IKdcKtcdai, lXa<rfji6t, IXaari^pioy, p. 85. But see also Sunday and
Headlam, I.e. supra

22 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Tlie Doctrine of the Church and of the Sacraments in the

New Testament

As to the means by which these true relations are to be
realized and maintained by individuals throughout their life
on earth, the teaching of Jesus and the practice of the first
Christians, as recorded in the New Testament, is clear, though
not detailed.

Membersliip of the society which gathered round him in his
lifetime upon earth was the first step to union with him. ' He
that is not with me is against me.' ^ All who were sincere in
their acceptance of him and their faitli in him must * follow ' him,*
and thereby shew themselves his disciples. The realization of
the ' kingdom ' was to be effected through the society which he
founded.^ And after his death, at any rate, admission to the
society was to be by baptism, baptism into himself ; and the life
of the society was to be sustained, and its sense of union with him
kept fresh, by the spiritual food which the sacrament of his body
and blood supplied. The Church is thus primarily the company
or brotherhood of all who accepted Jesus as their Master and
Lord, and shared a common life and rites of worship, recog-

' Matt. 12'", Luke 11^. The saying may have been intended only to give
emphatic expression to the truth that iu the contest between Christ and Satan no
one can be neutral. The side of Christ must be resolutely taken. But the inter-
pretation which was apparently put upon the saying by those who recorded it, and
by the Church from the first, was probably true for those days at all events. There
might be here and there a secret adherent ; but, in the main, discipleship of Christ
and membership of the society were bound to go together, thoufjh there might be
some interval of time between the inward conviction and the outward act. This
interpretation is not excluded by the other saying : ' He that is not against us (you),
is for us (you) ' (Mark 9*", Luke O**"), though that saying was elicited by an act which
was based on the principle that one who did not join the society could not be really
a follow«r of Jesus. The chief purpose of this saying is to teach the apostles the lesson
of toleration. One who was ready in those early days to publicly invoke the name of
Jesus was not far from the kingdom and should not be discouraged. The half disciple
might be won to full membership of the society. At least he should not be disowned.

' Note the frequency of this exjiression in the Gospels.

' The society was at first a society within the Jewish nation. On the process by
which it outgrew its original limits, so far as it can be traced in the New Testament,
see Hort The Christian Ecclesia. The kingdom was in one sense established when
the first disciples ' left all and followed him ' ; hut they had to be trained for their
work of spreading the kingdom (see Latham Pastor Pastorum), and it would not be
realized till all nations of the world were made disciples (cf the ]iarables, Matt.
j3»i. w. n and t^^ commission, Matt. 28'9). That the Church and the kingdom of
God are not convertible terms in the teaching of Jesua is certain. See further
A. Robertson Regnum Dei p. 61 ff.

CHIEF DOCTRINES IN NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS 23

nizing theii" common responsibility and obligations ; and this
company or brotherhood was one and the same society or Church
although existing in separate local organizations. There is no
trace in the New Testament of any idea on the part of the first
Christians that it was possible to be a member of the Church
without being a member of one of these visible local societies, or
to receive in any other way whatever benefits membership of the
Church bestowed.^

This new society was to inherit the promises and succeed to
all the privileges which had been granted to the special people
of God — the Church is the ' Israel of God '. The natural
descendants of Isaac, the ' Israel after the flesh ', having proved
for the most part unworthy of the destiny assigned to them,
their privileges do not pass to the faithful remnant only, but room
is found for all who by their spiritual character are rightly to
be regarded as the true children of promise. These are all
grafted in to the ancient stock, and take the place of the
branches which are pruned away.^

From another point of view the whole of this new Church is
the body of Christ, he himself being its head, the centre of
union of all the ditferent members, which have their different
functions to fulfil, the source of the life which animates each
separate part and stimulates its growth and progress, the guiding
and controlling force to which the whole body is subject.^ From
this point of view, what Christ, while he was on earth, did
through his human body, that he continues to do through the
Church, which since his Ascension represents him in the world.
It is his visible body : from him it draws its life and strengtli,
and through it he acts.

And, in particular, he acts through the two great rites which
lie appointed — baptism and ' the breaking of the bread ', Neither
of those rites has any meaning apart from membership of the
Church. Except by baptism no one could enter the Christian
society ; * that no one could remain a member of it without par-

' If the iflca fiii'ls any justifination in snrh sayin^js of onr Tiord as ' He that is not
against ds is for us' (Lukn 'J^, of. Mark 9*") ; 'Oilier slieup I liave wliicli are not of
this fold ' (John 10"), at all events there is no evidence thiit thoy were so under-
stood by liis early followers.

« See Rom. 9«, 1 Cor. 10>«, Gal. G'«, Rom. ll"-^*. So 1 Pot. 2"- '". The titles of
honour used of the people of God arc ai'iilied to Cliristiuns.

> Kph. 4"-»« 5»-»- (Col. l"-'-^ 2") ; cf. 1 Cor. 12"-".

* Acta 2*', 1 Cor. 12" 1".

24 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Inking in the one bread wliieh was tlie outward mark of union
and fellowship ^ seeius certain.-

Baptism is thus primarily the rite by which admission to the
Church, and to all the spiritual privileges which membership of
the Church confers, is obtained. It is administered once for all.'
It must be preceded by repentance of sins,* and it eilects at once
union with Christ — membership of his body and participation
in his death and burial and resurrection.^ It is thus the
entrance into a new life, and so is styled a new birth, or a birth
from above — that is, a spiritual birth or ' regeneration '. * As
such it involves the washing away or remission of sins which
had stained the former life,'^ — a real purification, by which the
obstacle to man's true relationship to God is removed and he
occupies actually the position of sonship which had always been
ideally his.^

In the New Testament itself forgiveness of sins is always

* 1 Cor. 10". It is because it is one bread of which all partake that the many
are one body.

» Acts 2«- *«, 1 Cor. 10"- " 11"-".

* It is clear from all that is said in the New Testament, and from the very nature
of the rite as it is there represented, that repetition could never have been thought
of in those days. It is perhaps to baptism that the strong assertion in Heb. 6^-* of
the impossibility of 'renewing again unto repentance those that have been once
enlightened ' refers.

* Acts 288 gM e Gal. 3" ; cf. 1 Cor. 12^7, Rom. 6»- *.

* John 3'- », Tit. 3» ; cf. 1 Pet. 1» S'^K

7 1 Cor. 6", Acts 22'8, Heb. lO*^. So of the whole Church, Eph. 5*»- *.

* This is imiilied in the phrases, 'born anew or from above', 'begotten of God',
1 John 3» ; 'children of God ', 1 John 3^ ; ' sons of God ', Rom. 8", Gal. 3»'- ^. The
terra vlodeala, ' adoption as sons ', is used (Rom. 8"''*- '^, Gal. 4') in specially close con-
nexion with the action of the Spiiit (more closely defined as 'the Spirit of God', or
' the Spirit of His Son '). So Tit. 3°, ' the laver of regeneration and renewing of the
Holy Spirit'. Whether the gilt of the Holy Spirit was lielieved to be conveyed by
ba|)tism, or rather by the laying-on of hands as a subsequent rite, is not certain.
The words of St Peter (Acts 2=^^) appear to imply that the gift was a result of
baptism. The narrative in Acts S'*"" clearly records two distinct rites, separated
by some interval of time, — the first, of baptism, unaccompanied by the gift of the
Holy Spirit ; tbe second, of ' laying-on of hands ', which conferred the gift : the first
performed by Philip, the second by tbe Apostles. From the narrative in Acts 19'-*
a similar distinction is to be inferred, thougli the questidus in verses 2 and 3 point to
the closest connexion in time between the two rites. Cf. also 1 Cor. 12". (See further
A. J. Mason The Relaliov. of Confirmation to Baptism, and note on 'Confirmation'
infra p. 390.) The gift of the Holy Spirit, though actually conferred by a subse-
quent symbolic rite, was naturally to be expected as an immediate sequence to the
washing away of sins which the baptism proper effected. Siinilarly, the writer to the
Hebrews includes among the elementary fundamental truths familiar to all Chris-
tians ' the doctrine of baptisms and of laying-on of hands ', at once distinguishing
and yet most closely connecting the two parts of one and the same rite (Heb. 6').

CHIEF DOCTRINES IN NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS 25

regarded as the accouipaninient or result of baptism. It
was to obtain remission of sins that Peter on the day of
Pentecost bade the multitude be baptized ^ every one of
them (Acts 2^"'- ^) ; and ' Be baptized and wash away thy
sins, calliug upon the name of the Lord ', was the counsel
Ananias gave to Saul of Tarsus (Acts 22^®). St Paul's own
references in his Epistles to the effects of baptism sliew the
same conception (e.g. 1 Cor. 6^^ and Eph. 5^- ^^),2 and the
allusion in the first Epistle of St Peter to its ' saviug ' power is
equally strong (1 Pet. 3^^).

The fullest doctrine of baptism to be found in the writings
of the apostles is given by St Paul (Eoni. 6^^^^). It is above all
else union with Christ that baptism effects — in that union all
else is included. Baptism into Christ Jesus is baptism into his
death, and that involves real union with him. The believer in a
true sense shares in the crucifixion and literally dies to sin, and
in virtue of this true union he is buried with him and necessarily
shares also in the resurrection — the new life to God. It is
through baptism, which he also elsewhere (Tit. S**) directly calls
' the bath of regeneration ', that he reaches these results : and

* It is ' in the name of Jesus Christ ' that they are bidden to be baptized in thia
— the first recorded — instance of Christian baptism, and all later instances of baptisms
in the New Testament are described as in or into the single name of Jesus (or Jesus
Christ, or Christ) ; see Acts 8^^ 19» lO*^, Gal. 3*^, Rom. 6^ It is possible that the
baptism was actually so eflFected, — in which case its validity (from the later stand-
point when baptism was required to be into the names of the Trinity) could be
entirely defended on the ground that baptism into one of the 'persons' is baptism
into the Trinity (cf. the doctrine of circuTni7icessio). But in view of the Trinitarian
formula given in Matt. 28'" (which it is diflicult to believe represents merely a later
traditional expansion of the words which were uttered by Christ) it is possible that
the actual formula used in the baptism did recite the three names, and that the
writer is not jjrofessing to give the formula but rather to shew that the persons in
question were received into the society wiiich recognized Jesus as Saviour and Lord
and made allegiance to him the law of its life. The former view had the support of
Ambrose, and the practice was justified by him as above {dc Spir. Sonet, i 4), and
probably by Cyprian in like manner (/v)). 73. 17, tliough he is cited for the latter
view). See Lightfoot on 1 Cor. 1", and I'lummer, Art. 'Baptism' Hastings' D.B.

' There is, however, no trace of any idea that baptized Christians could be
preserved from future lai)se8 witliout ellbrt. Though St John could declare —
from the icleal standpoint — that any one who was truly bom again was, as such,
unable to sin (1 .John 3'') ; thougli in aim and intention sin was inipossiblo for any
one who was 'in Christ': yet the constant moral and spiritual exhortiitions whiili
the Apostles pressed upon the Churches, and such a confession as St Paul's, "the
good which I would, I do not: but tlie evil which I would not, that I practise"
(Rom. 7"), serve to shew that the Apostles difl not consider that the hope ol
forgiveness was exhausted in baptism (cf. Jaa. G'").

26 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

there is no kind of unreality about them — death, burial, resur-
rection are all intensely real and practical. " As many of you
as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ " (Gal. 'S'^^- ^''), and
are become ' members of Christ' (1 Cor. 6^^).

The main points in this conception of St Paul were seized
upon and utilized by subsequent writers on baptism, and became
the text on which sermons to catechumens were preached.^
But it was still forgiveness of sins that was commonly regarded
as the chief gift in baptism.

St Paul's conception of baptism was probably as original as
any other part of his teaching ; he applies to baptism his domi-
nant thought of being ' in Christ ', a ' new creature ' in Christ :
but from a slightly different point of view it is the same con-
ception which St John expounds in his account of the conversa-
tion of Jesus with Nicodemus, the main principle of which was
also seized and expressed by St Peter.

" Except a man be born from above (anew), he cannot see
the kingdom of God. . . . Except a man be born of water and
the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That
which is born of the llesh is liesh ; and tliat which is born of the
Spirit is Spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee. Ye must be
born from above." ^ Here St John reports his Master as explain-
ing the birth from above to be a birth of water and the Spirit, and
it is clear that he understood it to mean a real change of inward
being or life. ' Becoming a child of God ' and being ' begotten
of God ' are other expressions which St John frequently uses of
the same experience.^

It is a new relation to God into which the baptized person
enters. Becoming one with Christ, he also becomes in his
measure a son of God : one of those to whom he gave " the
right to become children of God, even to them that believe on
his name : which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the
flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God ".*

So too St Peter speaks of God as begetting us again (re-
generating us),^ and of Christians as ' begotten again (regenerated),
not from corruptible seed, but from incorruptible ',® and seems to

• See e.g. Cyril of Jerusalem Cat. xx 4-7. Cyril particularly insists on the
truth of each aspect of the rite, shewing how much more is involved in it than mere
forgiveness of sina.

» John 3^». » E.g. 1 John 3' 5» 3». * John 1«- ».

» 1 Pet, 1». » 1 Pet. 1»

CHIEF DOCTRINES IN NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS 27

have St Paul's teaching to the Romans in mind when he brings
baptism and its effects into immediate connexion with the death
of Christ in the flesh and the new life in the spirit,^

Seen then from slightly different points of view, but all
consistent with each other, baptism is regarded by the writers
of the New Testament as the manner of entrance into the Church,
and so into the kingdom of God ; or as conferring a new spiritual
life and a closer relationship to God, as of a child to a father ; or
as effecting once for all union with Christ and all that such
union has to give.

In like manner, as baptism, administered once for all, admits
to union with Christ, and thus to membership of the Church,
which is the body of Christ, so the Eucharist maintains the
union of the members with Christ and with one another. Union
with Christ necessarily involves the union with one another in
him of all who are united with him, and it is as ensuring
union with Christ that the Eucharist is treated in the only
passages in the New Testament in which anything like a doctrine
of the Eucharist is expressed.

In the first of these, the earliest in time of composition,
St Paul is writing to the Corinthians, and trying to lay down
principles by which to determine the difficult position of their
relation to pagan clubs and social customs connected (directly or
indirectly) with tlie recognition of the pagan gods (Saifiovia,
deities or demons). The reference to the Lord's Supper is
introduced incidentally to ilhistrate the question under dis-
cussion. It is intended to point, by contrast, the real nature
and effect of participation in a ritual meal of which the
pagan god is the religious centre. It is impossible, the writer
argues, to separate the meal from the god. Christians know
quite well, he assumes, the significance of the Christian meal.
What is true of it and its effect is true mutatis mutandis of the
pagan meal.*

» 1 Pet. 3" ":

' It is clear that the Christian rit« — a.ssumed to be understood in this way — is the
startiiigiioiiit of St PhuI'h argiiincnt. But he might equally well, if his argument
had so rrqiiirrd, have reasoned from the ])agan rite to the Christiiin ; for recent
studies have jiroved that the fundamental idea of sai-rifice was that of coinumnion
between tlie god and his worshippers through the medium of the victim which was
slain. Through particiiiitinn in the flcsli and blood of the victim a real union was
effected between thom, and so the divine life was communicated to the worsliijipor
who offered the sacrifice. See especially Robertson Smith Religion of the Semites,
ttud Art. ' 8acriftc« ' in Eneycl. Brit.

28 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

In this connexion, accordingly, he describes the nature of
the Christian rite ^ to whicli, in recording its institution, he gives
the name ' tlie Lord's Supper '? He insists that in it there is
ellected fellowship with the blood of Christ and with the body of
('hrist.** It is one bread which is broken, and therefore all who
partake of it are one body. And so, in like manner, to eat of
Lbe things sacrificed to demons, to drink their cup and to partake
of their table, is to become fellows (to enter into fellowship) with
them. Such fellowship at one and the same time with demons
and with the Lord is impossible. The two things are incom-
patible — union with demons and union with the Lord. This
then is the main thought : the Lord's Supper means and effects
the union with the Lord of those who partake in it. And it is
in this sense that St Paul must be supposed to have under-
stood the phrases used immediately afterwards in regard to the
institution * — ' This is my body which is (given) for your sakes ',
and ' This cup is the new covenant in my blood '. To eat of
the bread and to drink the cup is to be incorporated with
Christ. But though the act is thus so intimate and individual,
it is also at the same time general and social. There is involved
in it a binding together of the brotherhood of Christians one with
another. In virtue of their sharing together in the one bread
they are themselves one body. " Because it is one bread, we, who
are many, are one body." ^

Another aspect of the rite as it presented itself to St Paul*

»1 Cor. 10""'. MCor. 11«"'.

• "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not fellowship with the blood of
Christ! The bread which we break, is it not fellowsliip with the body of Christ?
Because it is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one
bread "(1 Cor. 10'«-").

*1 Cor. 11^8,

• 1 Cor. 10''. This conception, which understands by the body not only Christ
himself (and so a personal union with him), but also the society of Christians (and
so membership of the Church), is easily detected in later times. Cf. Didache ix 4,
Bp. Sarapion's Prayer-Book, p. 62, S.P.C.K. ed. ; Cyprian Ep. 73. 13 ; Aug. Trad,
in Joann. xxv 13— in all of which passages the unity of the Church with its many
members is associated with the idea of the loaf formed out of the many scattered
grains of wheat collected into one.

• This conception of the Eucharist as a pi-rpetual memorial, expressly ordained by
Christ himself as a rite to be observed by his followers till his coming again, is
only found in St Paul and, as an early addition to the original account of the
institution (possibly made by the autlior himself in a second edition of his work), in
the Gospel of St Luke. It is not necessary here to attempt to determine whetlier
this conception was introduced by St Paul. We need only note that it certainly
was St Paul's conception : that he claims for it the express authority of Christ's own

CHIEF DOCTRINES IN NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS 29

is shewn by the words, " Do this as a memorial of me ", and " As
often as ye eat this bread and drink the cup, ye proclaim the
death of the Lord ". It had not only union with Christ as its
effect, but also the perpetuation of the memory of his death
according to his own command. It was to be a memorial of
him and of all that his death signified — the broken body and
the shed blood ; and it was to continue till his coming again.
Such a commemoration was in its very nature also an act of
thanksgiving, and thanksgiving was always an essential part of
the rite.^ And if this memorial was to be observed with fitting
dignity and solemnity, there was needed due preparation on the
part of those who made the commemoration. They must be
morally and spiritually worthy. So in this "respect a subjective
element in the rite must be observed.^

From yet another point of view, the incidental reference to
the Manna and the Water from the Rock as spiritual food and
spiritual drink (the Eock being interpreted as Christ),^ shew that
St Paul also thought of the bread and the wine (the body and
the blood) as the means by which the spiritual life of those who
partook of them was nourished and sustained.

It is this latter thought that is dominant in the only other
passage in the New Testament which treats at any leu!4th of the
doctrine of the Eucharist — St John's account of tlie discourse of
Christ on the Bread of Life.* The doctrine is worked out step
by step. The Lord is represented as beginning with the reproof
of the people for the worldly expectations which the feeding of
the five thousand had aroused in them, and then (as saying after
saying causes deeper dissatisfaction and bewilderment in the

words delivered to him ; and that there is no trace of any opposition to the practice
aa indicated by St Paul's instructions to the Corintliian Christians, hut on the con-
trary that all the evidi'nce supports the assertion that Christ, himself ordaiiu'd the
ol)8ervance and that the idea of couiiiiciuoration was present from the first. On the
other hand, there is no evidence till later times that the words els ■riiv iti.^i> i.v6.ixvr)(nv
were understood to mean a sacrificial memorial {e.g. Eusebius Demonslr. 1. 13
seems to conceive it so).

* All the accounts of the institution give ]>rominence to this aspect, and the early
prevalence of the word (17 ivxapiaria) as the name for the whole service shows bow
it was regarded.

»Cf. 1 Cor. ll"". »1 Cor. 10'-».

* John 6*"^. Whatnver opinion he held as to the time wlicn the rite was instituted,
and as to the frcn'lom which tin; autlior of tliis Gospel permitted himself in interjiret-
ing the teaching which he apparently professes simply to record, it cannot well bo
doubted that when he wrote this account he had the Lord's Supi)er in mind, and
that it ezprvitsos his doctrine about it.

30 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

minds of some) giving stronger and stronger expression to the
doctrine, till many of his disciples were even driven away by
the hardness of the saying.

First of all there is only the contrast between the ordinary
bread, their daily food, and the food which he, the Son of man,
will give. The earthly food has no permanence, it perishes ;
the other is constant and continuous, and reaches on into life
eternal

Then, in reply to the demand for faith in him, they ask for
a sign, and hint that greater things than he has done were done
for their fathers of old : he has only given them ordinary bread,
but Moses gave manna, — bread from heaven. He aeclares that
it was not Moses who gave the bread from heaven, but that his
Father gives the real bread from heaven, and that he himself is
the bread of God {or the bread of life) which comes down from
heaven and gives life to the world, — hunger and thirst are
done away with for ever for all who come to him and believe
on him.

' I am the bread which came down from heaven ' — this the
Jews find hard to understand, and against their murmuring the
doctrine proceeds a step further in expression. The bread of
life gives life eternal. Those that ate of the manna died in the
desert all the same, but he that eateth of the living bread
which came down from heaven shall not die but shall live
for ever. And the bread which shall be given is the ilesh of
the speaker.

' How can he give us his flesh to eat ? ' The objection which
is urged leads on to much more emphatic assertions. Not onlv
does he who eats this bread have life eternal, but it is the only
way by which true life at all can be obtained. And now the
reporter records the words which shew beyond all question that
he has the Eucharist in mind. The Christian must both eat the
flesh and drink the blood of Christ (' Unless ye eat the flesh of
the Son of man and drink his blood, ye have not life in your-
selves '), — that is the only food (the only eating and drinking)
on which reliance can be placed. It is the only sustenance
provided.

And then the discourse carries the doctrine a stage turther
on, and as it were explains the inmost significance of the rite.
It establishes union between the Christian and Christ. By its
means the Christian becomes one with Christ and Christ one

CHIEF DOCTRINES IN NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS 31

with him ; and because of this union he will receive life just as
Christ himself has life because of his union with the Father.
It is Christ himself who is eaten, so he himself is received, and
with him the life which is his.^

The comments which follow serve to complete the doctrine
by precluding any material interpretation of the realistic lan-
guage in which it is expressed. It is a real eating and drinking
of the body and the blood of Christ, and a real union wath him,
and a real life that is obtained. But it is all spiritual. " The
Spirit is that which maketh alive {or giveth life), the liesh doth
not profit aught." *

The conception of the Eucharist as a sacrifice is not pro-
minent in these early accounts, but the sacrificial aspect of the
rite is sufficiently suggested. As the death of Christ was a
sacrifice, to ' proclaim the death of the Lord ' is to proclaim the
sacrifice, or, in other words, to acknowledge it before men and
to plead it before God. It was ' on belialf of ' others that the
body was given to be broken and the blood was poured out, and
through the use of these words the Eucharist is unmistakeably

' "He that eateth my flesh and driiiketh my blood ahideth in me and I in him.
Even as the living Father sent mo and I live because of the Father, so he that
ealeih me shall himself too live because of me." It is not eas}' to determine wliat is
the exact significance of the phrase ' the flesh and blood ', but it seems that the
manhood of Christ must be meant. The words 'eat the flesh of Clirist' must
mean something more than have faith in him. "This spiritual eating, this
feeding upon Christ, is the best result of faith, the highest energy of faith, but it is
not faith itself. To eat is to take that into ourselves whirh we can assimilate as the
8up[K)rt of life. The phrase ' to eat the flesh of Christ ' expresses therefore, as
perhaps no otlier language could express, the great truth that Christians are made
jiartakers of the human nature of their Lord, which is united in one person to the
divine nature ; that he imparts to us now, and that we can receive into our man-
howl, something of his manhood, which may bo the seed, so to speak, of the
glorified bodies in which we shall liereafter behold him. Failli, if I may so exi)res3
it, in its more general sense, leaves us outside Christ trusting in him ; but the
crowning act of faith incorporates us in Christ." Westcott Jlevelalion of the Father
p. 40. Cf. Gore The Body of Christ p. 24: "He plainly means them to under-
stand that, in some sense, his manhood ia to be imparted to those who believe in
Him, and fed upon as a princijilo of new and eternal life. There is to bo an
'influence' in the original sense of the word— an inflowing of his manhood into
ours." And he goes on to note that " it is only because of the vital unity in which
the manhood stands with the divine nature that it can be 'spirit' and 'life'. It is
the humanity of nothing less than the divine person which is to bo, in some sense,
communii:ated to us ".

*0n the patristic interpretation of this saying (sometimes as explaining, some-
times as explaining away, the previous discourse), see Gore IMssertaliont p. 303 fl".

3? CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

the niomorial of a sacrifice.^ It is, however, only in the Epistle
to the Hebrews that this couceptiou is clearly implied, the
sacruineut on earth being the analogue of the perpetual inter-
cession offered by the High Priest on high.

The later statements of the doctrine during the four follow-
ing centuries are for the most part, as will be seen, merely
amplifications and restatements of the various aspects to which
expression is given in the New Testament itself.

' Besitles the four accounts of the institution, cf. Heb. 13". The words toOto
iroiuTc naturally would have the meaning ' perform this action', though the sacri-
ficial significance of iroielj' may possibly have been intended (viz. ' offer this ').
But in any case, as is shewn above, the action to be performed is a commemoration
of a sacrifice. [TroieTi' is certainly used frequently in the LXX as the translation of
asah in a sacriticial sense, but the meaning is determined by the context, and
there is no certain instance of this use in the New Testament. Justin (Dial.
c, Tryph. 41, 70) is apparently the only early Christian writer who recognizes this
meaning in connexion with the institution of the Eucharist.]

CHAPTER 111

Developement of Doctrine

We have had occasion to speak of the growth or developement of
doctrine. Exception is sometimes taken to the phrase, and the
changes which have taken phice have often heen regarded as iu
need of justification. It is felt that a divine revelation must
have been complete and have contained all doctrines that were
true and necessary; yet iu is undeniable that changes of momentous
importance in the expression of their faich have been made by
Christians and the Church. How are the differences between
the earher and the later ' doctrines ' to be explained ?

To this question various answers have been given. Some
have been unable to see in the later developements anything but
what was bad — corruption of primitive truth and degeneration
from a purer type. The simplicity of scriptural teaching has
been, it is argued, from the ai)ostolic age onwards, ever more and
more contaminated. Men were not content with the divine
revelation and sought to improve upon it by all kinds of human
additions and superstitions. Above all, the Church and the
priests, the guardians of the revelation, perverted it in every way
they could to serve their own selfish interests, and so was built
up the great system of ecclesiastical doctrines and ordinances
under which the simplicity and purity of apostolic Christianity
was altogether obscured and lost. Such a view as this was held
and urged by the English Deists of the eighteenth century, when
the wave of rationalism first began to sweep over the liberated
thought of England. It is the dominant idea of a large part of
Matthew Tindal's Christianity as Old as the Creation, and still
inspires some of the less-educated attacks ui)on the Church.
But for the present purj)ose this notion of universal apostasy
may be dismi.'-.sed.^

' It must, however, be said that it is practically the same j)Oflsimi.stic estimate
of the course of the hi.Htory of flnrtriiH- that umlcrlies Ilaiiiack's great work on the
itubjoct. At all events, during tlic {Muioil wilh which wu have to dual ho does liot

34 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

More consideration must be given to another explanation
which was accepted at the Council of Trent, and is therefore still
the authoritative answer to the question given by the Church of
Rome. It affirms that there are two sources of divine know-
ledge : one, Holy Scrij/ture ; and the otlier, traditions handed
down from the Apostles, to whom they had been dictated, as it
were, orally by Christ or by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in
the Catliolic Church by unbroken succession since. According
to this theory, the later doctrines were later only in the sense
that they were published later than the others, having been
secretly taught and handed down from the first in the inner
circle of bishops, and made known to tlie Clmrch at large when
the need for further teaching arose. This is the theory of
' Secret Tradition * or disciplina arcani, — the latter term being one
of post-Eeformation controversy, which was applied to designate
several modes of procedure in teaching the Christian faith.
Between these modes we must discriminate, if we are to decide
whether we have or have not in this practice the source of the
developement of doctrine. In the first place it is obvious that
some reserve would be practised by teachers in dealing with
those who were young in the faith or in years. For babes there
is milk ; solid food is for adults.^ ' Spiritual ' hearers and ' carnal '
hearers need different teaching.* Wisdom can only be spoken
among the full-grown.' Knowledge must always be imparted
by degrees, and methods must be adapted to the capacity of
pupils. This is a simple educational expedient which was of

recognize (unless perhaps in the case of St Paul) any progressive developement of
Christian truth, but rather a progressive veiling and corruption of the original
Gospel through the spreading of Greek and other pagan influences in the Ghurcli.
The disease, which he styles 'acute Hellenization ' or ' secularizing ' of the faith,
wrought (he considers) deadly ruisuhief, and obscured or even destroyed the original
character and contents of early Christianity. It cannot, however, be claimed that
any clear statement of the real constituents of this pure and uncoirupted early
Christianity is given iu the Ilhtory of Doctrine, and till they are certainly deter-
mined without question we are left with no criterion by which to distinguish the
later changes and accretions from the original teaching. This being so, we may
adopt the words of a distinguished critic, who wrote that "where a definite con-
ception, based on history, of the nature of Christianity is so wholly wanting, the
question as to whether individual iiheiiomena are truly Christian or a degeneration,
corruiition, and secularization of true Christiunity, can only be answered according to
personal taste" (Otto Pfleiderer Developement of Theology p. 299). Such a view
remains subjective and defies scientific treatment. (We can now, however, refer to
fVTicU 13 Christianity t\

1 Heb. 6>^-". « 1 Cor. 3». 1 Cor. 2«.

DEVELOPEMENT OF DOCTRINE 35

course always employed by Christian teachers. The deeper
truths were not explained at first ; catechumens were not taught
the actual words of the Creed till baptism, and were not allowed
to be present at the celebration of the Eucharist. The spiritual
interpretation of the highest rites was not laid bare to them.^
And the reticence observed toward catechumens was of course
extended to all unbelievers. That which is holy must not be
cast to dogs ; pearls must not be thrown before swine. The
mysteries of the faith must not be proclaimed indiscriminately
or all at once to the uninitiated. Christian teachers had ever
before them the parabolic method of their Lord. Eather than
risk occasion of profanity by admitting catechumens or unbelievers
to knowledge for which they were not prepared, they would
incur the suspicion which was certain to fall upon a secret
society with secret religious rites. But such a disciplina arcani
as this could not be a source of fresh doctrines, even if it could
be traced back to apostolic times. It was always a temporary
educational device, not employed in relation to the initiated,
the ' faithful ' themselves, and always designed to lead up to
fuller knowledge — to a plain statement of the whole truth as
soon as the convert had reached the right stage. Of any
reserve or ceconomy of the truth among Christians, one with
another, there is no trace : still less is any distinction between
the bisliops and others in such respects to be found.^ The
nearest approach to anything of the kind which we have is
to be seen in the higher ' knowledge ' to which some early
Christian philosophers laid claim. It was said that Jesus had
made distinctions, and had not revealed to the many the
things which he knew were only adapted to the capacity of
the few, who alone were able to receive them and be conformed
to them. The mysteries (ra uTroppTjTa) of the faith could not
be committed to writing, but must be orally preserved. So
Clement of Alexandria^ believed that Christ on liis resurrection
had handed down the ' knowledge ' to James the Just, and John

'The earliest reference to such rctifence is j)orlia|i.s TiTtuIlian's "omnibus
myxteriia silentii fides adhilietur" {Apol. 7) ; and liis coinpliuiit tliat licretics threw
open everytliin/ij at once {dc Pracacr. 41). With reganl to the secrecy of the Creed,
see Cyfirian Test.im. iii .10, Sozonifn H.E. 1 20, Augustine Serm. 212.

' See Additional Note ot'/coco^ia infra ji. 39.

* See the jias-sai/n from the Ilypolyjioxds bk. vii (not extant) quoted in Eusebiua
Eccl. Hist, ii 1. Cf. Strum, i 1, vi 1 ad fin. ; cf. Slnrm. v 10 a^ fi,n. on Rom.
15M. M. » an J 1 (j^r. 2«- •' ; and i 12 on Matt. 7*. 1 Ck»r. 2'*.

36 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

aud Peter, and they to the other apostles, and they in turn to
the Seventy. Of tliat sacred stream of secret unwritten know-
led;j;e or wisdom lie had been permitted to drink. But this
' knowledge ' of Clement was clearly not a distinct inner system
of doctrine dilVering in contents from that which was tauglit to
the many ; it was rather a dilVerent mode of apprehending the
same truths — from a more intellectual and spiritual standpoint —
an esoteric theology concerned with a mystic exposition, a philo-
sophical view of the popular faith.^ There is no reason to
suppose that it was more than a local growth at Alexandria,
the home of the philosophy of religion, or that it was the source
of later developements of doctrine.

A third explanation removes the chief difficulty in the way of
the apologist, by recognizing the progressive character of revela-
tion. The theory of developement which Cardinal Newman
worked out is not concerned to claim finality for the doctrines
of the apostolic age. In effect it asserts that under the con-
tinuous control of a divine power, acting through a super-
natural organization — the Church, the Bishops, the Pope, there
has been a perpetual revelation of new doctrines.^ Under divine
guidance the Church was enabled to reject false theories and ex-
planations (heresy), and to evolve and confirm as established truth
all the fresh teaching which the fresh needs of the ages required.

By this explanation those to whom the theory of perpetual
revelations of new doctrines seems to accord but ill with the
facts of the case, may be helped to a more satisfactory answer
to the question. It Is not new doctrines to which Christians
are bidden to look forward, but new and growing apprehension
of doctrine : not new revelations, but new power to understand
the revelation once and finally made. The revelation is Christ
himself : we approximate more nearly to full understanding of
him, and to the expression of that fuller understanding. Such
expression must vary, must be relative to the age, to the general
state of knowledge of the time, to individual circumstances and
needs. It is impossible to " believe what others believed under
different circumstances by simply taking their words ; if we are
to hold their faith, we must interpret it in our own language "."

' See Strom, vi 15.

* See the essay on the Developement of Christian Doctrine, 1845. Cf., however,
C. Gore Bamptan Lectures p. 253.

* Westcott Co^demp. Review July 1868.

DEVELOPEMENT OF DOCTRINE 37

It is quite possible for the same theological language to be at
one time accepted and at another rejected by the Church,
according to the sense in which it is understood. The develope-
ment of doctrines, the restatement of doctrine, thus understood,
is only an inevitable result of the progress of knowledge, of
spiritual and moral experience. It might well be deemed a
necessary indication of a healthy faith, adapting itself to the
needs of each new age, so that if such a symptom were absent
we might suspect disease, stagnation, and decay. If Gliristian
doctrines are, as is maintained, formulated statements designed
to describe the Person and Work of Christ in relation to God
and Man and the World, they are interpretations of great facts
of life. Nothing can alter those facts. It is only the mode in
which they are expressed that varies. " It can never be said
that the interpretation of the Gospel is final. For while it is
absolute in its essence, so that nothing can be added to the
revelation which it includes, it is relative so far as the human
apprehension of it at any time is concerned. The facts are
unchangeable, but the interpretation of the facts is progres-
sive. . . . There cannot be . . . any new revelation. All that
we can need or know lies in the Incarnation. But the meaning
of that revelation which has been made once for all can itself
be revealed with greater completeness."^ Certainly the student
of the liistory of Christian doctrines cannot discourage th(
attempt to re-state the facts in the light of a larger accumu-
lation of experience of their workings. It is to such attempts
that he owes the rich body of doctrine which is the Christian's
heritage, and he at least will remember the condemnation
passed on the Pharisees who resisted all reform or developement
of the routine of faitli and practice into which they had sunk.
Their fathers had stoned the prophets — the men who dared to
give new interpretations and to point to new developemcnts ; but
what was then original and new had in a later age become con-
ventional and old, and the same hatred aiid distrust of a new
develf)i)ement, which prompted their fathers to kill the innovators,
led their children to laud them and to build their soiuilohres.*

As a matter of fact, we can see that such devclopenients
have been due to many external causes, varying circumstances

* Westcott Gospd oj Lift preface p. xxiii. The roveliUon ih in this bclsi
continuous, [)re.s('nt, iind progrtusive.
'* dee Eccc Uomo ch. ixi.

38 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

and conditions of personal life DifTerent nationalities, owing to
their dilVerent antecedents, apprehend very dilTereutly. The con-
ception that as Christ came to save all men through himself,
so he passed through all the stages of human growth, sancti-
fying each in turn, was familiar in early days,^ and doctrine
must correspond to the intellectual and moral and spiritual
growth of man. To the expression of doctrine every race in
turn makes its characteristic contribution, not to the contents
of the Revelation but to the interpretation and expression of
its significance. The influcHce of Hebrew, Greek, and Roman
modes of thought and of expression is obvious during the early
centuries with which we are concerned. It is indeed so obvieus,
for example, that it was from Greek thought that the Church
borrowed much of the termmology in which in the fourth
century she expressed her Creed, that some have been led to
imagine she borrowed from Greek philosophy too the substance
of her teaching. In disregard of the highly metaphysical
teaching of St John and St Paul, and of the mystical concep-
tions underlying the records of the sayings of Christ himself,
it is argued that the Sermon on the Mount is the sum and
substance of genuine Christianity ; that Christianity began as a
moral and spiritual ' way of life ' with the promulgation of a
new law of conduct ; and that it was simply under Hellenic
influences, and by incorporating the terms and ideas of late
Hellenic philosophy, that it developed its theology. An ethical
sermon stands in the forefront of the teaching of Jesus Christ :
a metaphysical creed in the forefront of the Christianity of the
fourth century.^ What has been said already of doctrines and
their developement — of the finality of the revelation in Christ
and of the gradual process by which expression is found for the
true interpretation of it — recognizes the element of truth con-
tained in these over-statements.^ They seem to involve a con-

' Irenaeus ii 33. 2 (ed. Harvey vol. i p. 330).

' See Hatx:h Jlibhert Lectures, and Gore Bampton Lectures iv. Cf. also
Lighttoot Ejiistle to the Colossians p. 125.

* It lias been truly said that with the Incarnation of the Redeemer and the
introduction of Christianity into the world the materials ot the history of doctrines
are already fully ^iven in germ. The object of all further doctrinal statements
and definitions is, from the positive point of view, to unfold this germ : ironi the
negative, to guard it against all foreign additions iind influences. This twofold
oljject must be kept in view. The spirit ot Christiiuiity had to work through the
forms which it found, attaching itself to what was already in existence and
appropriating prevalent modes of expression. Christ did not come to destroy but

DEVELOPEMENT OF DOCTRINE 39

fusion between conduct and the principles on which it is based ;
between the practical endeavour to realise in feeling and in act
that harmony between ourselves, creation, and God, which is the
end in view of all religion, and the intellectual endeavour to
explain and interpret human life so as to frame a system of
knowledge. It is with the early attempts to frame this system
of knowledge that the student of Christian doctrines has to
deal They all rested primarily on the interpretations which
were given by the first generation of Christians of the life and
teachinj^ and work of Christ.

otVovo/itta— RESERVE

Such an ' economy ' or ' accommodation ' of the truth as is described
above is evidently legitimate and educationally necessary.^ We must
note, however, that among some leaders of Christian thought, through
attempts at rationalising Christianity to meet the pagan philosophers
and at allegorising interpretations of difficulties, the principle was some-
times extended in more questionable ways. In controversy with
opponents the truth might be stated in terms as acceptable as possible
to them It would always be right to point out as fully as possible how
much of the truth was already implied, if not expressed, in th faith
and religious opinions which were being combated It would be right
to shew that the new truth included all that was true in the old, and
to state it as much aa possible in the familiar phraseology : such
argumenta ad hominem might be the truest and surest ways of en-
lightening an opponent. But phrases of some of the Alexandrian
Fathers are cited which sound like undue extensions of such fair
' economy '. Clement declared {Stro77i. vii 9) that the true Gnostic
' Ijears on his tongue whatever he has in his mind ', but only ' to those
who are worthy to hear ', and adds that ' he both thinks and speaks the
trutli, unle.ss at any time medicinally, as a physician dealing with those
that arc ill, for the safety of the sick he will lie or tell an untruth aa
the Sophists say ' (ovTrore ij/evhtrai kSlv \}/€v8o<; AtyTj). And Origcn is
quoted by Jerome (adv. Rujin. Ajiol. i 18; Migne I .L xxiii p. 412)
as enjoinuig on any one who is forced by circumstances to lie the need

to fulfil. All are God's revelations — Tro\vft^pwt kuI iroKvrpSwu: God spoke of old.
Tlic Son in whom He apoke to us in those latter days He made heir of all the parli.il
and manifold rfvolationH. The student of (Jhiistiiin dootriiics has to study tlio
jirocess by which tin; inhcrit.inco was slowly a.ssuiucd, and .he riches of the Gentiles
claimed for his service.

' {>:<•<• N<jwiii;in A Huns i 3, and his AixAoyia. See also liis essay on DevelopemtiU
uj (Jhrislian Lfuclriiu.

40 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

of care to observe the rules of the art, and only use the lie as a
condiment and medicine. To no one else can it be permitted So his
pupil, Gregory of Neo-Caesarea, used language about the Trinity con-
fessedly erroneous,^ and was defended by Basil (Ep. 210. 5 ; Migne
P.O. xxxii p. 776) on the ground that he was not spealung
8oy/iariKu)s but dycovto-TiKcus (controversially), that is, not teaching
doctrine but arguing with an unbeliever; so thai he was right to
concede some things to the feelings of his opponent in order to win
him over to the most important points.^ And Jerome himself claimed
to write in this manner yv/xi-aortjcws, and cited in support of the practice
numbers of Greek and Latin Christian writers before him, and even the
high authority of St Paul himself {Kfj. 48. 13 ; Migne P.L. xxii ]), 502).
So Gregory of Nazianzus, in defence and in praise of Basil (see Ep. 58 ;
cf. Orat 43), insisted that true teaching wisdom required that the
doctrine of the Spirit should be brought forward cautiously and gradu-
ally, and that he should not be described as God except in the presence
of those who were well disposed to the doctrine. (See further Ilarnack
DG. Eng. tr. vol. iv p. 116.)

Such expressions as these might easily lead to a perversion of the
true psedagogic reticence. Yet language is, in any case, so inadequate
to express the deepest thought and feeling on such questions, that it
may well seem that if the true idea is secured it matters little in what
precise language it is clothed. It is impossible to be certain that a
particular term will convey the same idea to different people. The
thing that matters is the idea. You want to convey your idea to your
opponent — you may have to express it in his language. The limit would
seem to be set only when feeling the ideas to be different you so
express them as to make them seem the same. When reserve, economy,
accommodation, gets beyond that limit, then and not till then does it
become dangerous and dishonest. (See D.C.A. Art. "Disciplina
Arcani".)

* When he said Father and Son were two iirivolq., but one iirodTicrei. (but really
vvSaTOffis was then equivalent to ovcria).

' Cf. also Basil de Spir. Sancto GG on the value of the secret unwritten tradition.
See Swete DoctriTie of the Holy Spirit p. 64, and C. F. II. Johnstone The Book of
St Basil on the Holy Spirit. On Reserve as taught by the later casuists see Scavini
Tht.olog. Mor. ii 23, Pascal Letters, and Jeremy Taylor Ductor Dubit. iii 2 (Jackson
'Basil ' N. and P.-N. Fatliera vol. vii).

CHAPTER IV

The Sources of Doctrine: Oral Tradition — Holy

Scripture

The original source of all Christian doctrines is Christ himself,
in his human life on earth. The interpretations of him which
were given by the apostles and earliest disciples are the earliest
Christian doctrines. They were conscious that they had this
work of interpretation of Christ to the world committed to
them, and they believed they might look for the help of the
Spirit which he had promised to send — the Spirit of truth — to
guide them to the fulness of the truth.^ Under his guiding
inspiration many things would grow clear as the human power
of apprehension expanded, as their experience was enlarged :
when their capacity grew greater they would understand the
thiugs of which their Master had told them he had many to
say to them, but they could not bear them yet.^ For this
function of witnesses and spokesmen — true ' prophets ' — of Christ
they would be more and more fitted by a living inspiration
coming from him — a spiritual illumination and elevation which
would intensify their natural powers and quicken their innate
latent capacity into life and activity. Sucli was the earliest
idea of Christian inspiration. It shewed itself in the earliest
apostolic teaching, the oral record of which became at once the
' tradition ' to which appeal was made. To this tradition, whicli
naturally dealt both with doctrine and with practice, St Paul
referred his converts in one of bis earliest and in one of his
latest Epistles. ' Hold fast the traditions which ye were taught ' '
he bids the Thessalonians, ' the tradition which ye received from
ub';* and again he urges Timothy to guard the deposit com-
mitted to him.*

By degrees this oral tradition was su])plcmcntcd by the

' Joliii 16^- '». » John 16". » 2 Thcss. 2'».

* 2 Thcsa. 3«. » 1 Tim. 6*.

42 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

written tradition, so that already in his exliortation to the
Thessalonians St Paul was able to place side by side on a level
the traditions which they had lieard from him, whetlier by word
or by letter, his teaching when with them and what he had
written since. But between the two traditions there was no
sense of discord, and we shall search in vain for any suggestion
that one possesses a greater measure of inspiration than the
other.^ The one and only source of the teaching was Christ ;
from him the stream flows, Scripture and ' tradition ' are blended
in one great luminous river of truth, and do not separate into
divergent streams till later times. They were at first two forms
of the same thing. Both togetlier constitute the Tradition, the
Canon or Eule of Faith.^

But that which is written has a permanent character which
oral tradition lacks. It is less capable of correction if error
or misunderstanding creep in. And as more and more of the
would-be interpreters wrote their comments and expansions, and
Christian literature of very various merit grew, and it became
important to exclude erroneous interpretations, a distinction was
made between the writings of apostles and those of a later age.
By the ' sensus fidelium * — by the general feeling of believers
rather than by any definite act — a selection was gradually
formed. In this process some have recognized a definite act
of Inspiration, the ' inspiration of Selection '.^ The selection,
representative of so many types of interpretation, thus slowly
completed, was sanctioned by Councils, and the ' Can'en ' of
Scripture (the ' Canon ' in a new sense) was formed. And so
in this way Holy Scripture came to be ' stereotyped ' as a
source of doctrine, and regarded as distinct from the interpreta-
tions of the Church of post-apostolic times, whether contained
in oral or in written tradition, which henceforth constitute a
separate source of doctrine. So " the testimonies of primitive
and apostolic Christianity in collected form serve as an authori-
tative standard and present a barrier against the introduction of

' It might perhaps be inferred that in early times the oral tradition was regarded
as more trustworthy than the written account. Cf. the Preface to the Gospel
according to St Luke, and the Introduction to the work of Papias quoted by
Eiisebius H.E. ill 39. Cyprian ajipjirently styles Scripture divinae traditionis
caput et origo {Ep. 74.10), appealing to it as the ultimate criterion, but this conception
is unusual.

* The same terms Kaviliv, regula {se. fidei), irapiSoffis, traditio, are applied to both.

• See Liddon'a Sermon before the University of Oxford with this title.

THE SOURCES OF DOCTRINE 43

all that was either of a heterogeneous nature or of more recent
date which was trying to press into the Church " (Hagenbach).

It is no part of our work to study the process by which
inspired Scriptures became an inspired book, invested with all
the authority conceded to the Jewish collection, our Old Testa-
ment, which had been at first pre-eminently the Bible of the
Christians. But in order to understand the growth of doctrine
we must trace a little in detail the manner in which the early
teachers of the Church viewed the authority of the Scriptures,
their conception of Inspiration, their method of Exegesis, the place
assigned to Tradition therein.

Inspiration of Scripture

Of Inspiration a formal definition was never framed. We
can only point to personal conceptions and individual points of
view, conditioned by various influences and differences of country
and education as well as of temperament. Two broad lines of
influence may be distinguished, Jewish and Gentile.

On the one hand there was the Jewish view of the verbal
inspiration of their sacred writings, formed and fostered m
connexion with the work of the scribes on the Law. After
the Return from the Exile and the establishment of Judaism on
a new basis, the religious interest of the nation was enlisted in
the work of microscopic investigation of the letter of the Law.
The leaders of Judaism desired to regulate every detail of the
life of the nation. Immense reverence for the I^w stimulated
the aim of securing its sanction on the minutest points and
working them out to their utmost consequences. And so arose
the system of exposition of the Law to make it apply to the
purpose in view, till every letter contained a lesson. And side
by side with this view of the written revelation, by a process
the reverse of that which took place in regard to the Christian
revelation, there grew up the idea of the inspiration of the oral
tradition as well. The network of scribe-law — the traditions
of the scribes — entirely oral — was regarded as of equal authority
with the written law. Tliere even aiose the notion of a disciplina
arcani going back to the time of Moses, who it was said had
handed down a mass of oral traditions, which were thus referred
to divine authority.

On the other hand was the Ethnic idea of divination (17 navriKri),

44 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

according to which the medium of the divine revelation, who was
usually a woman, becixme the mechanical mouthpiece of the God,
losing her own consciousness, so that she gave vent in agitated
trance to the words she was inspired to utter.^ Inspiration is
thus an ecstatic condition, during which the natural powers of
the individual who is inspired are suspended : it is ' an absolute
possession which for the time holds the individuality of the
prophetess entirely in abeyance '. A typical instance of this
kind of inspiration is described in the lines of Virgil* —

Struggling in vain, impatiant of her load,
And lab'ring underneath the pond'rous God,
The more she strove to shake him from her breast,
With more and far superior force he press'd ;
Commands his entrance, and, without control,
Usurps her organs, and inspires her soul.

If in later times under Platonic or Neo-Platonic influence a less
external conception grew up, it probably did not establish itself
or spread beyond the circle of philosophic thought.

The conception of Inspiration which was held by Christians
was doubtless in some cases influenced by these Greek and
Eoman ideas, but it was probably in the main an inheritance
from Judaism. This is a natural inference from the fact that
the Jewish Scriptures were the first Christian Bible, and that
the idea of verbal inspiration was at first associated much more
definitely with them, and only indirectly and by transference
with the selected Christian literature. The early Christian
idea was, as we have seen, rather of inspired men than of an
inspired book ; though the transition is an easy one, as the
writings of inspired men would naturally also be inspired.
When we come to definite statements on the subject we find
now the one and now the other influence strongest.

In Philo ^ we might expect to find a transitional theory of
inspiration, but he seems to combine the Jewish and the Ethnic
views in their exfremer forms. He applies the Ethnic conception
of divination to the Hebrew prophets, and repeats with em-
bellishments the fable of the miraculous translation of the
Hebrew Scriptures by the Seventy. Even the grammatical
errors of the Septuagint he regarded as inspired and rich in

» See F. W. H. Myers "Greek Oracles" in Essays— Classical.

' Aen. vi 77-80 — Drydeo.

• See William Lee Insjriralion of Holy Scripture, Appendix F.

THE SOURCES OF DOCTRINE 46

capacity for allegorical interpretation — a view of literal inspira-
tion with which can be compared only the assertion by the Council
of Trent of the sanctity and canonicity of the books of the Old
Testament and the New Testament and the Apocryphal writings,
* entire with all their parts as they are accustomed to be read in
the CathoHc Church and in the old Latin Vulgate edition '.
Philo's conceptions are shewn with equal clearness in his system
of interpretation, examples of which will be cited in their place.

To the Apostolic Fathers the Scriptures are the books of
the Old Testament, though if there is a reference to a written
Gospel it is introduced by the same formula as is used in the
other citations. Barnabas makes explicit allusions to the
different parts of the Old Testament (* the Lord saith in the
Prophet ' or ' in the Law '), but it is clear that the whole
collection is looked upon as one divinely inspired utterance —
the voice of the Lord or of the Holy Spirit. There is of course
no sign of a New Testament of definite books and of equal author-
ity with the Old ; but the Apostolic Fathers do separate the
writings of Apostles from tlieir own and disclaim apostolic
authority.^ Thus Clement, in writing to the Corinthians,^
appeals to ' the Epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle ' to them
as authority alike for him and for them. It was 'in the
Spirit ' that he had charged them against the sin of making
jjarties, and Clement refers to his warnings as commanding the
same attention which they would obviously give to the writings
of the older ' ministers of the grace of God'.

A passage in the Muratorian Fragment throws light on the
current conceptions of the autliority of the written Gospels
about the middle of the second century. " 1'hough various
principal ideas (pnncipia) are taught in the dilierent books of
the Gospels, it inaki-s no didercnce to the faith of believers,
since in all of them all things are declared by one principal
(or sovereign) Sjjirit (ujio ac principali spiriiu) concerning the
Nativity, the Passion, the Kesurrection, the manner of life {con-
versatione) [of our Lord] with his disciples, and his double
Advent, first in lowliness and humiliation which has taken place,
and afterwards in glory and royal power which is to come."

' Cf. Wcstcott Thi Bible in the (Jhurch, j». 86. (Tho citations are all anonymous.
Clement has ' it is writt'ii ', ' the Scriiiture saith ', ' tlio Holy Spirit saitli ' ; Ignatius,
' it is writt<;n ' ; Polycarp, no formula. )

' (Jf. §§ 47, 8.

46 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

About the same time and later on we have some indications
of the prevailing view of Inspiration in the writings of the
Apologists and Irenaens.

To Justin, for example, Scripture is the word of God, given
by God througli the \V(;rd, or through the Spirit. It is the
Spirit of God who is the author of the whole of the Old
Testiiment — the single author of one great drama with its
many actors. The prophets were indeed inspired, but the
words which they utter are not their own. We must not
suppose, he says, "that the language proceeds from the men
who are inspired, but from the Divine Word which moves
them "} It is to prophecy, to Scripture, that he makes his
appeal : on the fulfilment of prophecy he relies for proof of
the truth of the claims of Christ.

In Athenagoras — Atlienian philosopher though he was, and
perhaps connected with the school of Alexandria — we find a
description of the process of inspiration derived from purely
pagan sources. The Spirit uses men as its instruments, playing
upon them as a flute-player blows a flute. They are entranced
and their natural powers suspended, and they simply utter under
the influence of the Divine Spirit that which is wrought in
them.2

Theophilus, however, recognizes much more fully the quality
of the human instrument. The inspired writers were not mere
mechanical organs, but men who were fitted for their work by
personal and moral excellence, and on account of their fitness
were deemed worthy to be made the vehicles of the revelation
of God and to receive the wisdom which comes from Him.^

Tertullian too lays stress on the character of the medium
chosen. " From the very beginning God sent forth into the
world men who by their justice and innocence were worthy
to know God and to make Him known — filled full of the
Divine Spirit to enable them to proclaim that there is one
only God ..." and so gave us a written testament that
we might more fully know His will.* In the Scriptures
we have the very ' letters ' and ' words ' of God. So much
so indeed that, under the influence of Montanism, he
argued that nothing could be safely permitted for which
such a letter or word of God could not be cited in

> Apol. i 36 (cf. 33, and ii 10). » Legatio 9.

» Ad Autol. ii 9 (cf. Euseb. Uist. Eccl. iv 20). * Apol. 18.

THE SOURCES OF DOCTRINE 47

evidence. The principle that nothing is required for salvation
which cannot be proved by Scripture ^ was not enough for
liim : rather, Scripture denies that which it does not give
instances of, and prohibits that which it does not expressly
permit.*

To the Montanists the annihilation of all human elements
was of the first importance. Prophecy must be ecstatic. Un-
consciousness on the part of the person through whom the
Spirit spoke was of the essence of Inspiration.

Irenaeus leaves us in no doubt about his view. The inspiration
of the writers of the New Testament is plenary, and apparently
regarded as different in degree from that of the prophets of
old, whose writings — though inspired — were full of riddles and
ambiguities to men before the coming of Christ : the accom-
plishment had to take place before their prophecies became
intelligil)le. Those who live in the latter days are more
happily placed. "To us . . . [the apostles] by the will of
God have handed down in the Scriptures the Gospel, to be the
foundation and pillar of our faith. . . . For after our Lord
rose again from the dead the Holy Spirit came down upon
them, and they were invested with power from on high and
fully equipped concerning all things, and had perfect capacity for
knowledge " ^ . . . and so they were exempt from all falsehood
(or mistake) — the insj)iration saving tliem from blunders — even
from the use of words that might mislead ; as when the Holy
Spirit, foreseeing the corruptions of heretics, says by Matthew,
' the generation of Christ ' (using the title that marked the
divinity), whereas Mattliew might have written ' the generation
of Jesus' (using only the human name).* But this inspiration
is not of such a character as to destroy the natural qualities of
its recipients: each preserves his own individuality intact.

To the end of the second century or to the beginning of the
third probably belongs the anonymous ' Exliortation to the
Greeks ', which used to be attributed to Justin.^ It contains
the following significant description of the manner in which
inspiration worked. " Not naturally nor by human thouglit

' Cf. Articlo vi. " J)e Monog. 4 ; dc Cur. 2.

' Sen ndi.'. Ifnyrrsfji iii 1 and 5 — Harvey vol. ii pii. 2, 18.

* Ibid, iii 17 — Harvey ii p. 83.

' EusebiiiB J/Lil. Eecl. iv 18 nienlionB two writinj(8 of Justin to the Greeks, but
neither the extant Oratio ad Genlilo.^ nor tlio Cuhortalio which coiituin.s the aixiva
I)<i8.iage is believed t,o be tlie worirC of Justin.

48 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

can men get to know such great and divine things, but by the
gift which came down from above at that time (sc. under the
Jewish dispensation) upon the holy men, who had no need of
skill or art of words, nor of any debating and contentious
speech. They only needed to present themselves in purity to
the influence of the divine Spirit, so that the divine power by
itself coming down from heaven, acting on those just men, as
the bow acts on an instrument — be it harp or lyre, might reveal
to us the knowledge of divine and heavenly things. So it was
that, as if with one mouth and tongue, they taught us in due
gradation and concord one with another — and that too thougli
they imparted their divine teaching to us in different places and
at different times — concerning God and the creation of the world
and the formation of man and the immortality of the human
soul and the judgement which is to be after this life." Here
it appears that moral fitness only is recognized as a necessary
qualification for the medium of the revelation, and there is
again the metaphor which seems to indicate a merely mechanical
mode of inspiration But the metaphor should not be strained,
and the effect of the peculiar structure of the instrument in
determining its tone must be taken into account.

Of the Alexandrines, whose special glory it was, in an age of
wild anti-Cliristian speculation on the one side and fanatical
literalism on the other, to lead men to the scholarly study of
the Scriptures, Clement has little of special interest on the
manner in which the inspiration worked. Kecognizing as he
did the action of God in the moral teaching of Greeks and
barbarians, who had in philosophy a covenant of their own,
he believed that the God of the Christians was also the giver
of Greek philosophy to the Greeks, and that He raised up
prophets among them no less than among the people of Israel.
But it was by the chosen teachers of His peculiar people tliat He
led men to the Messiah ; the Word by the Holy Spirit reducing
man, body and soul, to harmony, so as to use him — an instru-
ment of many tones — to express God's melody.^

It is from Origen first that we get an express rejection of

^ " But he that is of David and was before him, the Word of God, despising lyre
and harp — mere lifeless instruments— took this cosmic order — yes, and tiie micro-
cosm man, his body and soul, and attuned it to the Holy Spirit {or by the Holy
Spirit), and so through tliis instrument of many notes he sings to God." Protrept
cU. i— Migiie P.G. viii p. 60.

THE SOURCES OF DOCTRINE 49

pagan conceptions in this respect. He assumes the doctrine of
Inspiration to be acknowledged — it was the same Spirit who
worked all along in the prophets of all ages : but it was to
enlighten and strengthen them that His influence went — not
to cloud or confuse their natural powers like the Pythian
deity. By the contact of the Holy Spirit with their souls
the divine messengers became clearer in vision and brighter
in intuition both in mind and in soul. The preface to the
Gospel of St Luke is cited as shewing that this was so : what
others attempted they — the inspired writers — moved by the
Holy Spirit actually wrote. And St Paul's own words in
his Epistles shew that he was conscious of speaking sometimes
in his own person and sometimes with divine authority. None
of the objections commonly alleged against the Scriptures in
any way invalidated their claim to be received as containing
a true revelation of God. What seemed to be unworthy of
God, or beneath His dignity, should be understood as an
accommodation to the intelligence of men, and things which we
could not yet explain we should know hereafter.^

The method of interpretation adopted by Origen shews and
illustrates his general conceptions. This method was partly his
own, but largely an inheritance which he could not escape.

The Interpretation of Scripture

The ideas of inspiration, as applied to writings, and of
exegesis, were formed, it has been said,^ while the mystery
of writing was still fresh. A kind of glamour hung over the
written words. They were invested with an importance and
impressiveness which did not attach to any spoken words,
giving them an existence of their own. Their precise relation
to the person who first uttered them and tlieir literal meaning
at the time of their utterance tended to be overlooked or
obscured. Especially in regard to the writings of Homer is this
process seen. Keverence for antiquity and belief in inspiration
combined to lift him above the common limitations of time and
place and circumstances. His verses were regarded as having
a universal validity : they were the Bible of the Greek races, the

' Spe (U. Prinrip. hk. iv. Cf. Orog. Njhs. de comm. Not. p. 181 (Mi^^'iie P.O. xlv).
' Hatch Ililihert Lectures, 1888, from which (p. TjO fr. ) the following paragrajihs
ar« taken.

50 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

voice of an uudyiiijj; wisdom. So when the unconscious imitation
of heroic ideals passed into conscious philosopliy of life, it was
necessary that such philosopliy should he shewn to be con-
sonant with the old ideals and current standards. And when
' education ' began it was inevitable that the ancient poets
should be the basis of education. So the professors of educa-
tion, the philosophers and ' sophists ', were obliged to base their
teaching on Homer, to preach their own sermons from his texts,
and to draw their own meanings from them ; so that he became
a support to them instead of being a rival. " In the childhood
of the world, men, like children, had to be taught by tales " —
and Homer was regarded as telling tales with a moral purpose.
The developing forms of ethics, physics, metaphysics, all accord-
ingly appeal to Homer ; all claim to be the deductions from his
writings ; and as the essential interval between them, between
the new and the old conceptions, grew wider, the reconciliation
was found in the exegetical method by which a meaning was
detected beneath the surface of a record or representation of
actions. In this way a narrative of actions, no less than the
actions themselves, might be symbolical and contain a hidden
meaning ; and thus the break with current reverence for the old
authority and belief in its validity would be avoided.

It is not true that this method was never challenged ; but it
had a very strong hold on the Greek mind. It underlay the
whole theology of the Stoical schools; it was largely current
among the scholars and critics of the early empire ; and it sur-
vived as a literary habit long after its original pm-pose had failed.

The same difficulty which had been felt on a large scale in
the Greek world was equally felt by Jews who had become
students of Greek pliilosophy in regard to their own sacred
books. By adopting the method which was practised in the case
of the Homeric writings, they could reconcile their philosophy to
their religion and be in a position to give an account of their
faith to the educated Greeks among whom they dwelt. Of this
mode of interpretation far the most considerable monument is to
be found in the works of Thilo, which are based throughout on
the supposititfn of a hidden meaning in the sacred scriptures,
metaphysical and spiritual. They are always patient of sym-
bolical interpretation. Every passage has a double sense, the
literal and the deeper. In every narrative there is a moral.

As an instance of this method may be cited Thilo's treatment

THE SOURCES OF DOCTRINE 51

of the narrative of Jacob's dream — " He took the stones of that
place and put them under his head ", from which he extracts the
moral, and also support for his own peculiar philosophical ideas.
*' The words ", he says/ " are wonderful, not only because of their
allegorical and physical meaning, but also because of their literal
teaching of trouble and endurance. The writer does not think
that a student of virtue should have a delicate and luxurious life,
imitating those who are called fortunate . . . men, who after
spending their days in doing injuries to others return to their
homes and upset them (I mean not the houses they live in, but
the body which is the home of the soul) by immoderate eating
and drinking, and at night lie down in soft and costly beds.
Such men are not disciples of the sacred Word. Its disciples
are real men, lovers of temperance and sobriety and modesty,
who make self-restraint and contentment and endiu^ance the
corner-stones, as it were, of their lives : who rise superior to
money and pleasure and fame ; who are ready for the sake of
acquiring virtue to endure hunger and thirst, heat and cold ;
whose costly couch is a soft turf, whose bedding is grass and
leaves, whose pillow is a heap of stones or a hillock rising a little
above the ground. Of such men Jacob is an example : he put
a stone for his pillow ... he is tlie archetype of a soul that
disciplines itself, who is at war with every kind of effeminacy.
. . . But the passage has a further meaning, which is conveyed
in symbol. You must know that the divine place and the holy
ground is full of incorporeal Intelligences, who are immortal
souJs. It is one of these that Jacob takes and puts close to his
mind, which is, as it were, the head of the combined person,
body and soul. He does so under the pretext of going to sleep,
but in reality to find repose in the Intelligence which he lias
chosen, and to place all the burden of his life u])on it."

So when Christians came to the interpretation of their Scrip-
tures, under this sense of their inspiration (whether articulated
clearly or not), they had a twofold aim before them. Filled, on the
one hand, with the conviction of the wealth of knowledge stored
in them, they were bound, for practical as well as for speculative
purposes, to explore as fully as possible the d('[)tli8 behind the
obvious surface-meaning ; and, on the other hand, they were bound
to exi)lain away all that, when taken in its literal sense, was
ofiensive to human reason or seemed unwf)rthy of the Deity
• Philo de Somnxia i 20 on Gen. 28"— Hatch I.e.

52 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Modern conceptions of cureful scholarly interpretation and of the
need of investigation into the exact sense of words, in connexion
with the circumstances in which they were first used, were in
those days unknown. The inspired Scriptures were separated by
a wide chasm from all other books and writings — the heavenly
from the earthly ; and so the superficial meaning was the furthest
from the real meaning. To the uninitiated Scripture was as a
hieroglyph which needed a key that few possessed to decipher its
enigmas. So from the first the method of typical and allegorical
interpretation was practised. It was the way which some at
least of the writers of the New Testament adopted in dealing
with the Old, and understood that Christ himself had sanctioned.^
And the author of the Epistle to Barnabas ^ carried on the same
method in an elaborate application to Christ and to men of the
imagery of the Day of Atonement.

It was never supposed that writings, because inspired, must
be easily understood by every one ; but it was not till the time
of Origeu that a definite theory was framed which excludes from
consideration the obvious literal sense of many passages.

Irenaeus was content to believe that there was nothing in
Scripture which did not serve some purpose of instruction and
yet to acquiesce in failure to explain all passages. There is
nothing undesigned, nothing which does not carry with it some
suggestion or some proof. But we are unable to understand all
mysteries ; and " we need not wonder that this is our experience
in spiritual and heavenly matters and things which have to be
revealed to us, when many of the things which lie at our feet
. . . and are handled by our hands . . . elude our knowledge,
and even those we have to resign to God ".^ And he cannot
see why it should be felt as a difficulty that when the Scriptures
in their entirety are spiritual some of the questions dealt with in
them we are able by the grace of God to solve, but others have
to be referred to God Himself : and so it is always God who is
teaching and man who is learning all through from God.* The
typical and allegorical method he condemns as used by the
Gnostics, but he does not shrink from adopting it at times himself.^

» E.g. as to Elias— Matt. 17^"", Mark 9""; cf. E2yistle to the Hebrews aWilwongh. ;
and St Paul, e.g. Gal. 4»«.

^ Ep. Bam. i 7. * Adv. Haer. ii 41— Harvey vol. i p. 350.

* Ptid. p. 3.51. See further, Harnack DO. Eng. tr. vol. ii p. 251.

• The allegorical method was universally accepted, and it was only the extravagant
employment of it \<y the Gnostics in support of their wildest conceptions to which

THE SOURCES OF DOCTRINE 53

In this he is at one with most of the early Fathers, of whom it
has been said that since they knew nothing, thought of nothing,
felt nothing but Christ, it is not surprising that they met him
everywhere. Their great object was to shew the connexion
between the Old and New Covenants — that the New was the
spiritual fulfilment of the Old.

So Tertullian ^ could say that the form of prophetical utter-
ance was " not always and not In all things " allegorical and
figurative, and he refused to admit limitations of time in things
connected with the revelation of God.^ And Clement of Alex-
andria found rich meaning in the candlestick with its seven
lights.'

It is in Clement that we first find a definite theory of a
threefold sense of Scripture.* " The Saviour taught the Apostles",
he says, " first of all in typical and mystic fashion, and then by
parable and enigma, and thirdly when they were alone with
him clearly wiiliout disguise", — the concealment which he
practised leading men on to further enquiries.

Origen further developed this theory.^ According to his
teaching the Holy Scriptures are the only source from which
knowledge of the truth can be obtained, and they convey a three-
fold sense which corresponds to the tripartite division of man
into body, soul, and spirit. First, there is the grammatical or
historical meaning, which corresponds to the body and may be
called the bodily sense. And, secondly, there is the moral or
anagogical meaning, which corresponds to the soul and may be
called the psychic sense. And, thirdly, there is the mystical or
allegorical meaning, which corresponds to the spirit and may be
called the spiritual sense. " The individual ought ", he writes,"
" to pourtray the ideas of Holy Scripture in a threefold manner

exception could be taken. Far-fetched as the interpretations of some of the Fathers
seem to a modem scliolar, they were sane and commonplace in comparison witli
the meanings which Gnostic ingenuity discovered in plain and simple passiigcs of
Scripture.

' De liesurrcdione Camis 20 ad fin.

• Cf. ' Noil hahet tcmjms Aeternitas' adv. Mare, iii 5, i 8.

• Clem. Al. Strom, v 6.

• Slrom. i 28 q.v. and fragment 66. " The sense of the law is to bo taken in three
ways— eitlier as exhibiting a symbol <jr laying down n jnecept for lij^ht coiKhict, or
as uttering a prophecy." Here is the triple sense of Scripture— mystic, moral, pro-
jtlietic. Cf. >S'Crom. vi 15.

• See esp. dr. I'rincip. iv §§ 1-27, esp. § 11.

• De Princip. \v S 11, Tr. A. N.C. Library.

54 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

upon his soul : in order that the simple man may he edified by the
' tlesh ', as it were, of the Scripture, for so we name the obvious
sense ; while he who has ascended a certain way [may be edified]
by the ' soul ', as it were. The perfect man, again, and he who
resembles those spoken of by the apostle, when he says * We
speak wisdom among them that are perfect . . .' [may receive
edification] from tlie spiritual law, which has a shadow of good
things to come. For as man consists of body, soul, and spirit,
80 in the same way does Scripture, which has been arranged to
be given by God for the salvation of men." This nietliod of
interpretation, Origen points out, is recognized in Holy Scripture
— Christ distinguished between the first and second in the
Sermon on the Mount and on other occasions ; and the allegorical
and mystical senses were utilized in the arguments of the Epistles
to the Galatians and to the Hebrews.^ The literal sense, how-
ever, was not always possible.^ Instances of things which have
no religious bearing (such as genealogies), or are repulsive to
morality, or unworthy of God, or opposed to the law of nature
or of reason, must be spiritualized by allegorical interpretation.
They do not instruct us if taken literally, and are designed to
call men to the spiritual explanation. So with regard to contra-
dictions in the narratives of the evangelists,^ he argues that the
truth does not consist in the ' bodily characters ' (the literal
sense). His treatment of such cases goes far to justify the
description of his method as ' biblical alchemy '. It is applied by
him to the New Testament as well as to the Old. The Tempta-
tion, for example, is not regarded as simple history, and precepts
sucli as Take no purse * and Turn the other cheek ^ are not to
have their literal sense attributed to them. So too in respect
of the miracles, he finds their most precious significance in the
allegory which they include. He lays great stress on the need
of study, which such a method obviously demands, and of attention
and purity and reverence.*

» Orignn cites Gal. i^, 1 Cor. 10«-", Heb. 4'-».

' Jhid. § 12 ; cf. Horn, ii iu Gen. 6. • Cf. Hom. x in Joh.

* Luke 10*. » Matt, ."i^**, and so 1 Cor. 7''.

• Cf. Athanasius dc Incarnatione Verhi, ad fin. "For the investigation and
trae knowledge of the Scnjiturcs there is need of a good life and a pure soid and
Christian virtue. ... He wlio wishos to understand the mind of the divines must
previously wash and cleanse his soul by his life. . . ."

THE SOURCES OF DOCTRINE 65

The same method of exegesis was followed, to a large extent at all
events, by the later Eastern Fathers, especially by the Cappadocians.
See e.g. Gregory of Xyssa de comm. Not. p. 181 Migne, Or. Cat. 32, in
Cant. Cant, p, 756 ]\Iigne, c. Eunom. vii p. 744 Migne.

After Oiigen the first attempt at a formal statement of the principles
of interpretation that calls for notice was that of Tyconius, an African
Donatist (c. 370-420). He drew up seven rules of interpretation which
Augustine a little later discussed and, with some reservations, recom-
mended as useful though incomplete. (See the edition of F. C. Burkitt
Texts and Sttidies vol. iii no. 1, and Augustine de Doct. Christ, iii
chs. xxx-xxxvii. On Augustine as Interpreter, see W. Cunningham
Hulsean Lectures — ' St Austin ' .) Methods very different from Origen's
were followed by the chief leaders of the school of Antioch, but they
were not systematized as his were. (See e.g. Theodore of Mopsuestia
ed. Swete Introd. and Chrysostom — "W. R. W. Stephens, p. 421 and ff.)
In the West also, on the whole, a more literal and meagre method of
interpretation prevailed, at least until the time of Ambrose, who brought
back under the influence of the writings of Origen and Basil a richer
and more varied treatment of the Scriptures.

The Place of Tradition in the Interpretation of Scripture f

As long as such methods were accepted it is obvious that a
great variety of interpretations was possible, and that Scripture
by itself could hardly be considered a sufficient guide. It could
be claimed by both sides on most questions. Hence in con-
troversy, and particularly in controversy with the Gnostics, there
originated the definite assertion that it can only be correctly
understood in close connexion with the tradition of the Church.
Such a claim was quite accordant with the primitive conception
of tradition, not as an independent source of doctrine but as
essentially herrneneutic, forming with the written words one
river of knowledge.

Of the nature of this tradition somewhat different views were
held, according as the security for its truth was found rather in
the living personal voice of individuals (the continuous historical
episcopate), passing on to one another from the earliest days the
word of knowledge, or in the unbroken continuity of teaching
which external descent of jdace guaranteed (the rule of faith).
The latter offered, ol)viou8ly, the cas'er test, and the highest
importance was attached to it.

Irenaeus la the first to argue out the matter. He puts the

56 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

question — Supposing, as might have happened, that we had
no Scriptures, to wliat should we have to make our appeal ?
" Should we not have to go back to the most ancient Churches,
in which the Apostles lived, and take from them . . . what
is fixed and ascertained ? What else could we do ? If the
Apostles themselves had not left us writings, should we not be
obliged to depend on the teaching of the tradition which they
bequeathed to those to whose care they left the Churches ? " ^
We must go back to the most ancient Churches — it is here, in
the consent of Churclies, that Ireuaeus sees the guarantee of truth.
He takes for granted that the Apostles are the ultimate authority,
and when the question of the meaning of the Christian revelation
is disputed it is to them that all men would agree to make
appeal. To the Apostles themselves, in person, appeal is no
longer possible ; but their representatives and successors are
still to be found in every Church. The bisliops, or the presbyters
(for Irenaeus uses either word for the heads or governing bodies
of Churches), were appointed at first and taught by them ; and
they in turn, generation by generation, in unbroken succession,
have handed on to their successors the same tradition. Irenaeus
seems to have in mind the possibility that in a particular case
there might be some flaw in this traditional teaching — so he
appeals to the general consensus of many such Churches. That
in which you find the Churches of apostolic foundation agreeing,
scattered as they are over many regions of the world — that, at
all events, you may be sure is part of the genuine apostolic
tradition. As an instance he points to the one Church in the
West which was supposed to be able to claim apostolic foundation
— the Church of Home. The prestige which attached to it, from
its central position in the world's metropolis, made it the most
convenient and conspicuous test.^ Christians from all lands
were continually coming and going, and therefore any departure
from the tradition would be most easily detected. The Church
of Eome was, in this way, always before the eyes of the world
and under the judgement of other Churches, so that no innovation

^ Iren. adv. Hacr. lii 4. 1 — Harvey vol. ii pp. 15, 16. It will be noted that though
priority is claimed for the tradition, yet it is appealed to not as an independent
source of doctrine hut as a means of determining the true sense of the Scriptures.

* Such no doubt is the meaning of the phrase 'propter potentiorem principali-
tafem ' — 'on account of its more influential jire-eminence ', i.e. its prominence and
influence {ihid. iii 3. 1 — Harvey vol. ii jip. 8, 9). See also the note on ' jirincipalia
eicle.>>ia' in Abp. Ijenson's Cyprian, p. 637.

THE SOURCES OF DOCTRINE 67

there had any chance of escaping notice and criticism. The
tradition preserved at Eome might therefore be regarded as
having the tacit sanction of all the other Churches, and by
reference to it any one in doubt might easily convince himself of
the oneness of the apostolic tradition of the whole Church, And
80 he could say that " the tradition of the Apostles, made manifest
as it is through all the world, can be recognized in every Church
by all who wish to know the truth " ; ^ and to the pretended
secret doctrine of heretics he opposes the public preaching of the
faith of the apostolic Churches ; against the mutability and end-
less varieties of their explanations he sets the unity of the
teaching of the Church ; against their novelty, her antiquity ;
against their countless subdivisions into schools and parties, the
uniformity and universality of her traditional witness.- It is
this which he regards as the chief instrument in the conversion
of the nations, in conjunction with the Holy Spirit in their
hearts.

A similar estimate of the authority of ecclesiastical tradition
in the interpretation of Scripture was maintained by Tertullian,
though he gives it different characteristic expression. In dealing
with heretics he conceives them as arraigned before a tribunal as
defendants in a suit which the Church as plaintiff brings against
them. He does not take their many false interpretations one
by one and proceed to prove them wrong, though he was ready
to do this vigorously on occasion ; but he exercises the right,
allowed by Koman law to plaintiffs in an action, to limit the
enquiry to a single point ; and the point he chooses is the
legitimacy of the heretics' appeal to Holy Scripture. He aims,
that is, at shewing cause why the interpretations of any one
outside the Church should be dismissed without examination,
apart from any consideration of their intrinsic merit. If he
establishes this point tlie heretics are at once ruled out of court,
as having no locus standi ; while, if he fails, it is still open to
him, according to tlie principles of Koman law, to take fresh
action on all the other points excluded from the suit. ]Ie
insists,* accordingly, on this limitation of the question, and asks,

' Iren. adv. Uucr. iii 3. 1.

* See ftirtlier Lipsius, Art. " Ircimeus" in D.C.B.

' De Praescriptione JIn/'.reliroriim — " Concern iiif; the Limitation of tlin Suit ag.iin.sl
the Heretics", cap. §§ 15, 19, ed. T. H. Bindley, who rejects the coniinon expla-
nation of praescriptio as meaning the 'preliminary jilea' or ol.jiction loil}.'i d a»
the commencement of a suit, which — if maintained— dispensed with the need o'

58 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

" Whose are the Scriptures ? By whom and through whose
means and when and to whom was the discipline (tlie teaching
or system) handed down whicli makes men Christians ? Wher-
ever you find the true Chiistian discipline and faith, there will
be the truth of the Christian Scriptures and expositions and all
traditions." It is the Church which is the keeper and guardian
of all these possessions, and therefore it is the Church and the
Church only which can determine the truth. Heretics have no
right to use Scripture in argument against the orthodox, who
alone are able to decide what is its meaning.

Clement of Alexandria goes so far as to say that he who
spurns the ecclesiastical tradition ceases to be a man of God.^

And Origen, for all his elaborate system of interpretation,
declares, in the Prologue to the work in which it is expressed,
the necessity of holding fast to the ecclesiastical preaching
which has been handed down by the Apostles in orderly suc-
cession from one to another, and has continued in the Churches
right down to the present time. " That alone ought to be
believed to be truth which differs in no respect from the
ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition."*

It is still the consent of Churches that is the test of truth
Athanasius seems to be the first to quote the ' Fathers ' as
witnesses to the faith ,2 but more particularly as guaranteeing its
antiquity than as being themselves invested with personal
authority as interpreters. So Cyril of Jerusalem, who strongly
asserts the importance of Scripture, recognizes the authority of
the Church at its back. It is from the Church that the cate-
chumen must learn what are the books to which he must go.*
And Augustine was only expressing the common sentiment
when he declared that he would not believe the Gospel if it
were not for the authority of the Catholic Church.^

entering into any discussion of the merits of a case. Praescriptio technically meant
a clause prefixed to the intentio of ?l formula for the purpose of limiting the scope of
an enquiry (excluding points which would otherwise have been left ojjen for discus-
sion before the jvdex), and at the time when Tertullian wrote it was used only of
the plaintiff. ' Demurrer ' is thus technically wrong, and somewhat misleading as a
title of the treatise.

' Strom, vii 16. ' D& Princip. Proem 1.

» See his letter on the Dated Creed in Socrates H.E. ii 37, and the Ep.
Eneycl. 1.
>, * Cat. iv 33.

' ' Ego vero evangelic non crederem, nisi me oatholicae ecclesiae commoveret
anctorilas ' (c. Ep. Manich. 6).

THE SOURCES OF DOCTRINE 59

The most elaborate, as the most famous, statement of the
case for tradition was not drawn up till towards the middle of
the fifth century, when Vincent of Lerinum was roused by the
apparent novelty of Augustine's doctrines of Grace and Pre-
destination to expound the principles by which the Faith of the
Church miG;ht be determined.^ The two foundations which he
lays down are still the divine law (or Holy Scripture) and the
tradition of the Catliolic Church. The first is sufficient by
itself, if it could be rightly imderstood, but it cannot be under-
stood without the guidance of the tradition, which shews what
has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. Q^lod ubique,
quod semper, quod ah omnibus — tins is the great principle on
which Vincent takes his stand. But he recognizes that it is
not always easy of application, and he has to support it by the
testimony of majorities either of the Church as a whole or of
teachers as against minorities, antiquity as against novelty,
general Councils as against individual or local errors. If part
of the Church separates itself from the common body, it is the
larger society that must be followed ; if a false doctrine arises
and threatens the Church, the best test is antiquity, which can
no longer be misled ; if in antiquity itself particular teachers or
localities have erred, the decision of a general Council is decisive,
if a general Council has pronounced upon the matter ; if not, the
Christian must examine and compare the writings of the recog-
nized teachers, and hold fast by what all alike in one and the
same sense have clearly, frequently, and consistently upheld.
All innovations are really wickedness and mental aberration : in
them ignorance puts on the cloak of knowledge, weak-mindedness
of ' educidation ', darkness of light. Pure knowledge is given
only in the universal, ancient, unanimous tradition. It is
antiquity that is the really decisive criterion of truth.

Assertions such as these might seem to be prohibitive of any
kind of growth or progress in lieligion ; but Vincent was much

' Adrfrxux jirofanax omniam lun^ilcdes harrrlicnrum Commonitorium, written
abnilt 4.34, attnntion liuviiig Ikjcti aroiisi'ij in tlie West to tlic qiu-stion of tradition
by tlic. Donatist ami Pi'lai^ian controversies. Vincinnt seems to have udmitid some
of Aiipiistine'B ruIcH, tlionj^li he wonhi use thorn afjainst him. He was a member
of the famous monastory on tlie i^land near <'annes, now known as I/ile Saint
Ilonorat, from IIc/iioratiiH the fouiifler. A f;oo<l aiialysi.s of the (Jowmoiiilarium will
be fr.iiiid in Harnaek lid. ii *, j.]). lOC-108 (Eng. tr. vol. iii pp. 230-232) ; handy
oditiuns in vol. iz of llnrtcr'a .S'. Palrum Opvscula Selecla, and in the Samvilung
QuellenschrifUn ad. KrUgar.

60 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

too scholarly and sound a thinker to commit himself to such a
negation. When the argument brings him to the question, ' la
there in the Church of Christ a progress in lleligion ? ' he
answers, Yes ; there has been great progress. And he shews
by the images of the increase of a child and of a plant the
nature of tiie progress. It is an organic growth, which consists
in deepening rather than in change. No innovation comes in,
for a single innovation would destroy all. Eeligion is strength-
ened with years and widened with time, and built up more
elegantly with age ; but all remains fundamentally the same.
Wliat the Church has always had in view has been the
explanation and strengthening of doctrine already believed ;
greater plainness, more exact precision of statement, finer dis-
crimination of sense. Aroused by the novelties of heretics, she
has, by decrees of Councils, confirmed for posterity the tradition
received from her ancestors ; for the sake of enlightenment and
better understanding she has embraced in a few letters a mass
of things, and by a new term sealed the sense of the faith which
was not new.

Yet in spite of this high estimate of the value of tradition,
Vincent is obliged in some cases to fall back upon Scripture.
Heresies which are already widely extended and deep-rooted
cannot, he sees, be disproved by the appeal to the unanimity of
teachers : so many of them could be cited in support of erroneous
views. Old heresies, never quite destroyed, had had opportunity
in the long course of time to steal away the truth, and tlieir
adherents to falsify the writings of the Fathers. In such cases
we must depend on the authority of Scripture only.

It is hardly true to say that this admission involves the
bankruptcy of tradition.^ It may rather be taken as shewing
the fair balance of the author's mind. He does not profess to
give an easy road to truth. He lays down criteria, almost all of
which demand for their use no little research and patience. He
believes that the great majority of teachers have rightly inter-
preted the Christian revelation from the first, but where their
consensus is not obvious he would decide the ambiguity by
appeal to the Book which embodies the traditional interpretation
of the earliest ages. He is really, in this, referring back to the
standard tradition. And there never was in those days a time
when the leaders of Christian opinion were not prepared to

* As Harnack I.e.

THE SOURCES OF DOCTRINE 61

make a similar reference of disputed ([uestions to that court,
and to check by the authority of Holy Scripture too great
freedom in reading into Christianity ideas that were foreign to
its spirit. So staunch a champion of tradition as Cyprian could
say that " custom without truth is the antiquity of error ",^ and
that " we ought not to allow custom to determine, but reason to
prevail " ; ^ even as Tertullian had insisted " Our Lord Christ
called himself the truth, not the custom. . . . You may be sure
that whatever savours not of truth is heresy, even though it be
ancient custom ".^

Such then were the principles which prevailed during the
period with which we are concerned, in which the Creeds were
framed and most of the great doctrines formulated. By such
principles the partial and misleading explanations and theories
were tested and banished from the Church as heresies, and the
fuller and more adequate interpretations were worked out. It
is the course of this progress that we have to trace.

It was, as we have seen, from Gentile quarters that the
chief stimulus to the actual formulation of doctrines came, and
it is with attempts at interpretation which spring from Gentile
conceptions that we shall be most concerned. But first of all
must be noted certain peculiar readings of the revelation in
Christ, and of the relations in which the Gospel stands to the
revelation given in Judaism, which are characteristic of Jewish
rather than of Gentile thought.

> Rp. 74 § 9. » Ep. 71 § 8. • Tert. de Firg. Vel. § 1.

CHAPTER V

Jewish Attempts at Interpretation — Ebionism

Characteristic Jewish Conceptions

Rooted in Jewish thought were two ideas, from the obvious
significance of which the dominant conceptions of the Christian
revelation seemed to be drifting further and further. Charac-
teristic of Judaism were its strong monotheism and its belief in
the eternal validity of the Mosaic Law. There was one God
and only one, a God of righteousness, far removed from the
world ; and the ' divinity ' of Christ seemed to be a kind of
idolatry, and to have more in common with the polytheistic
notions of the heathen than with the truth revealed of old to
the Israelites. And again, the Law was given by God : it was a
divine revelation ; and therefore it must have the characteristics
of the divine, and be eternal, unchanging, and final. And
therefore the mission of Jesus of Nazareth, if from God, was a
mission to purify and revive the old revelation, and the Gospel
does not supersede but only elucidates the Law.

For views such as these it is clear some support could be
found in primitive Christian teaching before the full force of the
revelation in Christ was widely felt. In the teaching of Christ
himself, as recorded in the Gospels, there is no antagonism to
the Law : the traditions of men which were a pernicious growth
round it are brushed aside, but the Law is treated with reverence
and its teaching developed rather than superseded. Disregard
of the Law by Christians of Jewish birth, at any rate, might
seem to lack all primitive authority ; and we need not wonder if
such Christians lagged behind the progress to a purely spiritual
interpretation of the Jewish ordinances, which was so largely
stimulated by the constantly increasing preponderance of Gentile
over Jewish influence in the Churcli.^ And the fear lest the

* It is clear from the Epistle of Clement that by the end of the first centnry all
traces of the controversy between Pauline and Judaistic Christianity had vanisher'
at Rome and at Corinth.

JEWISH ATTEMPTS AT INTERPRETATION 63

doctrine of the divinity of Christ might endanger the truth that
God is one was, as a matter of fact, amply justified by the
difficulty that was experienced in finding any satisfactory expres-
sion to account for all the facts.

Ebionism

These two ideas were the source of what are called the
Judaizing heresies,^ the representatives of which are known as
Ebionites.2 We have no record of their origin as a distinct and
separate body.^ It is as schools of thought within the Church
that Justin, our earliest informant, seems to regard them.* He
speaks of some Christians who still keep the Law, and maintain
that it is necessary to salvation, and would enforce it on all
members of the Church, and of others who only observe the
ordinances of the Law themselves without desiring to impose
them upon all. With the former he does not agree, and he thinks
they ought to be excluded from Christian communion ; with the
latter he has no quarrel, they are still brothers, though some
Christians refused communion to them.* He also speaks of
some who regard Jesus as Christ, the Messiah, yet pronounce
him a man born of men, but he does not shew whether these
were identical with the intolerant observers of the Law or not.
The one distinction which is clear is based on the attitude to
the Law, milder or stricter.*

* ' Judaizin;:;' may not be the most accurate designation for whnt j eihayis is only
in origin an archaic form of inter[)retation, hut relatively to the Catholic interpreta-
tion of the Person and Gospel of Christ it expresses the facts sufficiently exactly.

' Heb. Ebionim, " poor men " : i.e. men who taught a beggarly doctrine. Cf. the
bad sense at first attaching to the name ' Christiani ', ' Messiah-men ' ; and cf. Origen
de Princip. iv 1. 22 : 'Efiiwvaioi, rrji ttu>xv^ otavoia^ iiruvvfioi' 'E/Sitov yap 6 xrwx^s
irap 'Kppalots dvofid^trai.

' Dr. Hort supposed they might have come into existence through the sc.-ittcriiig
of the old Jerusalem Church by Hadrian's edict. Some, like Hcgcsippus, who main-
tained the trailition of St Jariics, when once detached from the Holy City would in
a gi-ncration or two become merged in the greater Church without. Others would
be driven into antagonism to the Gentile Church of Asia and become Judaistic in
princifile as well as in practice, being isolated and therefore less receptive of the
influence of other Churches. (It should be noted that such Judaistic C;hristian8 are
heard of only in the neightiourhood of Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor.)

* Justin Dial. e. Trijjih. 47 and 48.— See Hort Jiidaiittic Christianity p. 196,
on whose discission the following statimont of the facts is ba.sed.

* See Hort — the two lines, dfVflopemcnt and supersrssion of the Law, in tlie
teaching of Clirist himself (itid. 'Christ and the Law', Led. II).

* Before the time of Justin, IpnatiiiB had had to denounce some Judaizing Chris-

64 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

On their teacliiiig as to the person of Christ more stress is
laid hy Irenaeus/ who is the first to nauio them Ebionaeans, aud
describes them as holding a view like that of Cerinthus and
Carpocrates, referring no doubt to denial of the divinity rather
than to any ' Gnostic ' conceptions. All such are condemned by
him as heretics.

Origen^ distinguishes two classes, and says that both rejected
St Paul's Epistles (no doubt because of their views as to the Law).

And Eusebius^ after him, more precisely, makes the dilfereucc
to consist in higher and lower conceptions of the person of Christ,
both classes insisting on the observance of the Law. One class
held a natural birth and the superior virtue of a plain and ordinary
man as a sufficient explanation : the others accepted the super-
natural birth, but denied his pre-existence as the "Word and
Wisdom of God (did not, that is, accept the eternal Sonship and
the doctrine of the Logos) ; they rejected the Pauline writings
and used only the Gospel according to the Hebrews, while they
still observed the Sabbath and other Jewish customs, but also
the Lord's Day in memory of the Resurrection.

Later still Epiphanius * could assign different names to the
two schools, regarding them as separate sects — Nazaraeans and
Ebionaeans. But Epiphanius probably erred in this precision.
There seems to be no evidence that there were two distinct com-
munities with different designations. It is probable that ' Nazar-
aeans ' was the title used by the Jewish Christians of Syria as a
description of themselves in the fourth century and before,^ while
' Ebionaeans ', an equally genuine popular term,^ had become the
traditional name in ecclesiastical literature.

That these schools of thought died hard is shewn by the
judgement passed on them by Jerome,^ who prefaces his reference
by the words " What am I to say of the Ebionites who pretend
to be Christians ? ", and then goes on to speak of some who in
his own times were spread over the East, commonly known as

tians who were lagging behind the revelation of Christ, refusing credence to anything
which could not be i)roved from tlie Old Testament and anxious still to maintain the
old associations intact. See Philad. viii ; Magn. viii-xi, and infra Gnosticism
p. 80 note 2.

> Iren. adv. Ilaer. i 22— Harvey vol. i p. 212, and iv 52. 1, v 1. 3— Harvey vol.
ii pp. 259, 316.

» Cmtra Cels. v 01, 65. ' Euseb. Jlist. Eccl. iii 27.

*Epiph. adv. Hatr. xxix and xxx. ' Cf. Acts 24'.

•Cr. Matt. 5». ^Ep. 112 §13.

JEWISH ATTEMPTS AT INTERPRETATION 65

Nazaraeaus, who believed in Christ, the Son of God, born of the
Virgin Mary, and say that he suffered under Poutius Pilate and
rose again, ' in whom ', he says, ' we also believe ' ; but yet, he
avers, they only pretend to be Christians, and while they want
to be at one and the same time both Jews and Christians, they
succeed in being neither Jews nor Christians.

These words of Jerome plainly shew that the belief in the
eternal validity of the Law and in the need for observance of its
ordinances survived as anachronisms in some circles, claiming the
name of Christian, in which the ' orthodox ' explanation of the
nature and person of Christ was accepted.

Cerinthus and his School

Of all the Ebionites one individual only is known to fame,
Cerinthus — and he had almost as much in common with the
' Gnostics ' as with them. Really he stands with his followers
as a separate school, distinct from both. The most trustworthy
evidence as to the time at which he lived is furnished by the tale '
of his meeting with St John in one of the public baths at
Ephesus, wlien St John espying him rushed out, saying he was
afraid the walls of the bath might fall and crush them, since
Cerinthus the enemy of trutli was there.

The province of Asia was ])robably the scene of his activity,
though Hippolytus, without mentioning Asia, says he was trained
in P^gyptian lore. In his teaching, side by side with the
' Judaiziug ' elements, such as have been noticed (Jesus, the Son
of Mary and Joseph, born as other men ; circumcision and the
observance of the Sabbath ol)liguLory ; rejection of the writings
of St Paul, the Acts, and all the Gos])el8, except the Gospel of
St Matthew in Hebrew, or more probably the ' Gospel according
to the Hebrews '), there stand quite different and fresh ideas,
which arc akin to the concei)tions of the ' Gnostics '. These have
to do with the relations between the world and (Jod, and between
the human and the divine in the person and work of the Lord.

' Reported by Ircnaeus iii 3, 4 — Hurvey vol. ii p. 13 ; luni twice quotcil by
Eu.sebiiiH (Hint. Eccl. iii 28, iv 14). Ircnaeus also says (iii 11. 7— Harvey vol. ii
p. 40) that the Gosjiel of St John was directed ii^'.iin.st Ceiiiitlins {f.g. the doctrine
of Creation by tlie Logcs). Cf. Itobert I'.rowning A Death in the Desert.
Ej)i|)haniu8 (;.c.)8ay8 he was the ringleader of St Paul's Judaizing antagonists at
Jerusaleni. Hegesippua does not stem to have mentioned hini, no: does Justin,
nor Clement, nor Tertullian.

66 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

The creation, he taught, was not efToeted by God Himself, but by
angels — powers distinct from (Jlod — one of whom was the God
of the Jews and the giver of the Law. As to the person of the
Redeemer, he held that his Sonship to God could only be due
to his ethical merits, which qualified him for a special gift of
grace and spiritual power. God might not arbitrarily make a
person holy. So the man Jesus was first tested in early life,
and then at his baptism there descended upon liim, in the form
of a dove, the Spirit of God, the power from above, the Christ
(regarded evidently as a pre-existent personality ^), who revealed
to him the Father, and enabled him to do his miraculous works,
and before the Passion parted from him and returned to the
place from whence he came.^ Furthermore, he taught that the
Eesurrection of Jesus was still future. There was thus only a
conjunction between the divine and the human in him, no real
union of the Christ and Jesus. The principal object of the
mission was educational rather than redemptive, fulfilling the
prophetic office of Messiah ; the sufferings were human only, and
the revelation was of doctrine. Another object, corresponding
to the kingly office of Messiah, was the introduction of the
millennial reign, although its realization was still future. Of the
millennium, the thousand years' reign of Christ upon earth,
during which his followers would be rewarded for their loyalty,
he held most sensual and material views ; ^ but millenarianism
was too widely accepted in the Church to be characteristic of any
particular school of thought.*

The Clementines

Besides the Cerinthians we have knowledge of another set of
Ebionites, who certainly worked out a peculiar system of doctrine
and usage — the men of the ' Clementines '. Their teaching is
embodied in the writings that have come down to us under the
name of Clement, entitled The Homilies (extant in Greek), and
The Recognitions (in the Latin translation of Rufinus and also
partly in Syriac) ; which are probably independent abridgements
of a voluminous book called the Travels of Peter, which was

* There is no evidence that he used the Gnostic term ' Aeon ' of the Christ.

'Cf. the 'Gospel of Peter'. "My power, my power, thou hast deserted me !"
This is the only docetic element in the teaching of Cerinthus.

' Eu8ebiu8, the determined opponent of ' Chiliasm ', speaks specially of this {I.e.),

* See infra p. 68, Note on Chiliasm.

JEWISH ATTEMPTS AT INTERPRETATION 67

current early in the third century.^ This book was of the nature
of a historical novel composed with a controversial purpose, pro-
fessing to narrate the circumstances in which Clement became
the travelling companion of the Apostle Peter, and to give an
account of Peter's teaching. It originated among the sect of
Elchasaites (Helxaites), who held the book Elchasai (Helxai) ^
sacred. These were probably Essenes of Eastern Palestine, who,
after the destruction of the Temple and the abolition of the
system of the Temple services and sacrifices, were brought to re-
cognise Jesus as a true prophet, though regarding the idea of his
divinity as a delusion. With this and other usual notes of
Ebionism they combined some Essene tenets as to sacrifice and
repeated purificatory washings and abstinence from the use of
flesh and ascetic practices, speculations about angels and a form
of ' emanation ' theory ; but they were free from Gnostic notions
of cieation and docetism.^ Most characteristic, perhaps, is their
conception of the Cfirist (identical with the Son of God) as the
eternal Prophet of Truth, who appears from time to time incar-
nate in perfect men. P)y virtue of their inward spirit men are
akin to the divine, the highest order of existence in the created
world ; but they have also in them earthly desire, which tends
to lower them to earth ; and so their state becomes one of
alienation from God, as the earth-spirit exerts its irresistible
attraction. Therefore, to save men from utter deterioration
must the Christ appear in successive incarnations. Wherever
the idea of man apjiears perfectly in an individual, there is a
form of the appearance of Christ — the created idea of man. His
appearance shews God's image for the age in which it happens.
Such incarnations were recognized in Adam, Enoch, Noah,
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Jesus. The manifestation in
Jesus is regarded as the last, after which the Christ has ])er-
manent repose. To his death and resurrection no signilicance

' Ilort Judaistic Christianity p. 201. See also iJ.C.B. Ait. ' Cloinentiiie
Literature', and Dorner.

* See lli|ip<)l. licfut. Ilaer. ix 13. They professed to liave olitaiiicd tliis book
from the St^reH, a I'iirtliian trihe (a inythioal race like the Ilypcrliorcaiis ol (Ireok
]c;.;tnd), wlio were jierfi'ctly piiic aiifi theiefore perfectly hnjijjy, the recipient.s of a
revelation which had been lirat made in the third year of Trajan (100 A.l). ). Helxai
(Elchasai) — an Aratiiaic word meaning 'the liiddcn power' — was both the name of
the divine messenger, who inii>arted the revelation, and the title of the book in
which it waa recorded. The book appears to have been a long time in Becrot
circulation before it became known to the orthodox teachers of the Church.

• See infra p. 75.

08 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

appears to bu aikiched. His mission has an educational purpose
only, to exhibit to men a kind of object-lesson.

Other details of the system represented in the ' Clementine '
books (as well as the supposed attack on St Paul under the name of
Simon Magus and the twisting of ' texts ' of Scripture to support
the views described) call for no further treatment here. It is
enough to notice that it exhibits " the Judaizing principle, fur-
nished with all the means of culture whicli the age supplied,
gathering itself for its last stroke ", and the failure of Judaism,
reinforced by ascetic and other speculations selected from various
philosophies, in its attempt to capture Christianity.

A similar endeavour from anotiier ([uarter, doomed to like
failure, comes before us next in Gnosticism.

CniLIASM

From the earliest times no doubt the Christian conception of
salvation centred round two main ideas, one of which was the more
intellectual or spiritual, and the other the more practical and material.
The one was based on the conviction that in the person of the Christ
there was given a full revelation of God — he was the Truth — and so
salvation consisted essentially in the knowledge of God, as contrasted
with the errors of heathendom and the defective conceptions of even the
chosen people ; a knowledge which included the gift of eternal life and
all the privileges and joys of the highest spiritual illumination.^ This is
obviously an idea which requires for its full appreciation more cultiva-
tion of the mind and the spiritual faculties than the masses of men
possess. More widely attmctive was the other idea whifh saw in salva-
tion membership of the glorious kingdom which Christ was about to
establish on earth on his return, when a new order of things would be
inaugurated, and for a thousand years his disciples would share the
blessedness of human life under the happiest conditions. In this con-
nexion the highest importance was attached to the doctrine of the
resurrection of the body.^ This conception of the reign upon earth of
the Christ differed little from the common Jewish expectation, only the
kingdom would be composed of Christians instead of the nation of
Israel : and the Christian hopes in regard to it were largely derived from
the Jewish apocalyptic writings, as were their conceptions of the fate of

' For this idea chief support was to be got from the Gospel according to St John.

' Probably the earliest indication of this i.s to be found in the case of the
Thessalonians, some of whom feared tliat their relations and friends who had already
died since they became Cliristians could have no share in the Messianic kiugdom
on earth

JEWISH ATTEMPTS AT INTERPRETATION 69

the enemies of their Lord and all ^vho rejected his claims.^ The
imagination pictured, and hopes were fixed on, a fairyland of ease and
pleasure and delight. This was ' the great inheritance which the
Gentile Christian communities received from Judaism, along with the
monotheism assured by revelation and belief in providence ', and though
it was destined to be gradually dissipated — partly through the anti-
judaistic spirit of the Greek and Reman communities, and partly through
the growth of higher moral and spiritual conceptions — it was for a long
time enjoyed and tenaciously held in wide and influential circles of
Christian life. The second coming, in glory, involving the resurrection
of the dead, judgement of living and dead, was probably deemed immi-
nent by the great mass of early Christians, and the hope of it was their
stay in persecution, and must have greatly aided them to bear their
suflerings, whether associated with the further belief in the thousand
years' reign upon earth or not. (It was equally foretold as the first
coming in dishonour and suffering; cf. Justin Apol. i 52, and Iren.
i 10, who distinguishes it as irapova-La from the first fAcuo-ts.) This
belief (so far as it was Christian rather than Jewish in origin) was based
on sayings of Christ such as those in which he speaks of drinking with
his disciples in his Father's kingdom (Matt. 26^*), and promises that
those who now hunger and thirst shall hereafter be satisfied (Matt. 5*),
and that faithful service shall be rewarded by rule over many cities
(I^ke IQ^"'^^), — sayings which received a literal material interpretation.'^
And the definite assignment of a thousand years as the extent of the
duration of the kingdom was made by the author of the Apocalypse
^201-10). For a thousand years the devil would be imprisoned, and martyrs
and all who had not worshipped the beast and were free from hie mark
would come to life again and reign with Christ. This was ' the first
resurrection ', and only these — it apj)cars — would have a share in the
millennial kingdom, of which apparently Jerusalem 'the beloved city'
was to be the centre. Among earlier writers * the belief was held by the
authors of the Epistle of Barnabas,* the Shepherd, the second Epistle of
Clement, by Papias, Justin, and by some of the Ebionitea, and Cerinthus,
according to the accounts of the Roman presbyter Caius in his treatise
against the Montanists, quoted by Eusel^ius {H.E. iii 28). Of these
Papias is one of the chief landmarks. Because of his belief in the
millennium, Eusebius passed a disparaging criticism on his sense :' "I
suppose he got tliose ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic

' E.g. the Apocalypses of Esra, Enocli, Banich, Moses. Cf. the Apocalypse of Peter.

' Against this interpretation see Origen de Princip. ii 11 § 2.

* Tliere is no reference to tlie niillonni.il lu'lief in Clement of Rome, Ignatius,
Polycarp, Tatiin, Athonagoras, Theophilus. But wo are not justilied in arguing
from their sileuca that they did not hold iL

« Ep. Bam. i, 15. • See Euaeb. E.E. iii 89.

70 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

accounts, not perceiving that the tilings said by them were spoken
mystically in figures. For he appears to have been of a very limited
understanding, as one can see from his discourses." The materialistic
character of their expectations is illustrated by the famous parable which
he gives: "The days will come when vines shall grow, each having ten
thousand branches, and in each branch ten thousand twigs, and in each twig
ten thousand slioots, and in every one of the shoots ten thovisand grapes,
and every grape when j^ressed will give five-and-twenty measures of wine."

Justin shews the belief in exacter form. The Lord, Jesus Christ,
was to return to Jerusalem, Avhich was to be rebuilt, and there to eat
and drink with his disciples,^ and the Christian people were to be
gathered together tliere and live in happiness with him and with the
patriarchs and prophets.^ This belief is not regarded by Justin as an
essential part of the Christian faith (he acknowledges that many genuine
Christians do not hold it), but he suggests that many who reject it
reject also the resurrection of the dead {i.e. of the body), which is
essential. For a thousand years the kingdom at Jerusalem would last
for all believers in Christ, and then would take place the universal and
eternal resurrection of all together and the judgement.^ In support of
the belief he cites the prophet Isaiah* and the apostle John,'' and
applies the imagery of the prophet Micah ® to describe the happiness of
the time when heaven and earth will be renewed,^ but it will still bo
the same earth, and all who have faith set on Christ and know the
truth expressed in his and his prophets' words will inherit in it eternal
and imperishable blessings.^

These hopes were fully shared by Irenaeus (who derived them from
Papias direct perhaps),' Melito.^o Hippolytus,^i Tertullian,!^ and
Lactantius.*'

* JoBtin Dial. e. Tryph. 51.

* Ibid. 80. Thifl would be the first resurrection.

' Pnd. 81. Justin thus recognizes a twofold resurrection, as Irenaeus does.
Apoc. XX WM so understood. Tertullian seems to teach an immediate resurrection
of those who are fitted for it, and a deferred resurrection of the more guilty, who
mnst make amends by a longer course of purification in the under-world. See de
Anima 58, where the suggestive thouglit is expressed that, as the soul must suffer,
when disembodied, for the evil done in and by the flesh, so it may have refreshment
on aooorint of the pious and benevolent thoughts in which the flesh had no part.
See also de Res. Cam. 42, and cf. Robert Browning Itahhi Ben Ezra.

« Isa. 65"-». • Apoc. 20<-«. « Mic. 41-^ {Dial. 109, 110),

■'Dial.UZ. '^Jhid.Ud.

* It is Irenaeus to whom we owe the parable of Papias quoted supra (see Iren.
V 33-35). The letter from the Churches of Lugdunum and Vienna also shews
Chiliastic ideas (Euseb. E.K v 1 ff.).

'" See Polycrates in Euseb. H.E. v 24. " See e.g. in Dan. iv 23.

" See esp. adv. Marc, iii and de lies. Cam,
" Inst. Div. vii § 11 ff'. (esp. § 24).

JEWISH ATTEMPTS AT INTERPRETATION 71

The Gnostics were the first to reject such conceptions (Marcion re-
ferred them to the prompting of the God of the Jews — the only resur-
rection possible was spiritual, partial here in this world, and in perfection
hereafter). The Gnostics were followed by ' Caius ' and by Origen, who
condemns the views as most absurd ; ^ but the most formidable assault
upon Chiliastic teaching was made by Dionysius of Alexandria in his
treatise On the Promises, rejecting the apostolic origin of the Apocalypse,
which was the strongest support of all Chiliastic ideas. To this work he
was roused by one Nepos,'^ a bishop in the district of Arsinoe, who in
the Chiliastic interest had written against the allegorical interpretation
of the Apocalypse, insisting that it must be taken literally.^ The opposi-
tion of Dionysius seems to have been widely influential and effective in
banishing all such materialistic expectations from the common faith of
the Church.* The Alexandrian theology made them impossible. By
the middle of the fourth century they had come to be considered
heretical, and a final blow was struck by Augustine, who taught that
the millennium was the present reign of Christ, beginning with the
Resurrection,^ and destined to last a thousand years.

1 See de Princip. ii 11 § 2. ' See Euseb. H.E. vii 24.

• The Refutation of Allegorists — probably aimed at Origen. (Eiiseb. I.e.)

• They died liard, however, among the monks of Egypt, as is shewn by the
survival iu Coptic and Ethiopic of materialistic Apocalypses which ceased to circu-
late elsewhere among Christiiins. So Harnack DG. Eng. tr. vol. ii p. 30.

• See e.g. de Civ. Dei xx. " Even now the Church is the kingiioni of Christ
. . . even now his saints reign with him." At an earlier time Augustine had
conceived of a corporeal ' fust ' resurrection of the saints, succeuded by a millennial
rest upon earth, the delights of it being spiritual enjoyment of the presence of the
Lord.

CHAPTER VI

Gentile Attempts at Interpretation

Characteristics of Oriental Religious Thought

Though it was to Jews that the earliest attempts at interpre-
tation of the revelation in Christ were committed, and to Jews
accordingly that the earliest explanations of the person and
work of Jesus are due, it was not long before the Gentiles came
in to take their share in the developement of Christian doctrine.
The first great movement which they originated came rather
from the East than from the West ; for the ditference between
the contemporary religious thought of the East and of the
AVest was very marked.^ The most fundamental feature of
Oriental thought is probably ' the schism and unrest of the
human mind, in view of the limitations of human nature, with
uncontrolled longings after the infinite and absorption into God';^
but Hellenism found in the world so much of beauty and of
pleasure that its aspirations after the unseen were much less
real Both had in view, no doubt, the same end — the unity of
the divine and the human ; but Orientalism sought it by the
annihilation of the human, while the method pursued by
Hellenism certainly tended to annihilate the divine. The dis-
tinction between the two was not maintained. Characteristic
of Oriental religions are frequent incarnations (or emanations)
of God in the most perfect form available, to teach men know-
ledf^e of truth and conduct them to heaven ; but all are transi-
tory, there is no permanency about them and no true assumption
of humanity : the human is to be absorbed in the divine. The
Greeks, on the other hand, began from below ; by virtue and
valour men must for themselves mount up to the heights of
Olympus and attain to the life divine, becoming as gods — the
apotheosis of man. The divinity, such as it was, was dis-

' E.g. Imlian and Persian comjjared with Greek.
» Neander IJist. of Docl. vol. i i>. 6 (Bohn), cf. Church Hid. vol. iL

GENTILE ATTEMPTS AT INTERPRETATION 73

tributed through the powers of nature, in many gods with
limitations, Fate — a mysterious power — at the back of all
(polytheism) ; or else it was regarded as the soul of the universe,
diffused through all things, and not to be separated from the
world, having no existence outside it (pantheism). In either
case there is no God, as Jews and Christians conceived of God.

Tlie ProUem of Evil

The distinction between the religious thought of the East
and of the West is readily seen in the different answers which
were given to the question of the origin of evil, which was the
great religious question. For the Jews no answer was provided
in their sacred writings : they were only taught that the source
of evil was not matter, that it was not inherent in the visible
material universe (which God, who made it, saw ' was very
good ') ; they were taught that its essence was the assertion of
the individual will against the will of God, or selfishness ; and
that God permitted its existence, being represented even in
dramatic fashion sometimes as the cause of that which he per-
mitted. By the writers of the New Testament no solution of
the problem was attempted. But the Greek and Oriental
philosophies had their answers ready.

The metaphysical schools of Greek philosophy hardly
grappled with the problem.^ It is the Stoics who represent the
Greek solution, and their main object was to reconcile the fact
of the existence of evil with the supposed perfection of the
universe. The conclusions wbich they reached are expressed
in the following theses. The imperfection of the part is neces-
sary to the perfection of the whole : some things which appear
evil are not really evil ; ^ and again, on the other hand, evil is
necessary to the existence of good, inasmuch as one of two
contraries cannot exist without the other (so the existence of

' Tlie Elcatics assert the dogma that the One alone exists, plurality and change
have no real iKJiig (if. the Parmenidra). Plato did not elaborate any systematic
treatment of the qiiestion, though npjiarcntly reganling matter as the source of
evil— t6 /j.i] 6v c<.nlni.Htcii with rb tv (which is idcinifiid with ib a-ya06i>, e.g. in tlie
Timaeus). This conccjitioii wiia adopted by the NcopJatonistB, e.g. Plotinus, and
iu(lueiiced Origen and other Christian thinkers. Aristotle deals with evil simply as
(I fact of exjieric.nce. See further Mansel Tlu Gnostic Heresies p. 23.

' This is illustrated by a saying of Seneca {Ep. 8.1. 30)— Grief (or pain) and
poverty do not make a man worse ; therefore they are not evils.

74 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

good connotes the existence of evil, the idea of the one being
necessary to the idea of the otlier). These theses, it is
rightly pointed out,^ are not philosopliical explanations of the
origin of evil in the world, but examinations of the difficulties
which its existence involves in relation to other facts or doctrines.
The answer, such as it is, is negative rather than positive : evil
is an unripe form of good, or the absence of good. It is the
pantheistic solufcioji, with the mark of somewhat liimsy optimism ^
on it : the unity of nature is preserved, but the reality of evil
and of sin is sacrificed.^ It was in keeping with the temper of
the Greek, who worshipped nature ' naked and not ashamed ',
who was least of all men disposed to look on the gloomy side of
the visible world, whose feelings opened out to all that was
bright and beautiful and beneHcial in nature.* The Hellenic
mind was never much impressed by the sense of evil ; and con-
sequently Hellenic ethics had little influence in the earlier times
on Christian doctrine. The inliuence of Hebraism was too strong.

The religious thought of the East, on the other hand, was
much more deeply imbued with the sense of evil. Two principal
theories characteristic of Persian and of Hindoo thought
respectively stand out. The first is dualistic, based on the
hypothesis of the existence of two eternal principles of good
and of evil, between whom an original and perpetual struggle is
maintained. The second supposes one original existence absol-
utely pure, the primitive source of good, from which by con-
tinuous descents (emanations) proceed successive degrees of
lower and less perfect being, a gradual deterioration steadily
taking place, till the final result is readied in evil, the form of
being farthest removed from the primitive source of all existence.

Corresponding to these two theories of existence are two

^ Mansel I.e.

' With it may be compared the position of Shaftesbury as represented by Pope,
from which easily follows the complete subordination of the individual and the nega-
tion of personal religion, the natural transition to atheism —

" Whatever wrong we call
May, must be, right as relative to alL
Discord is harmony not understood,
All j)artial evil universal good."

* Hebraism, with one jierfect God of righteousness outside the world, could
realize sin. Hellenism, with no idea of perfection about its gods, had no place for
sin in its thought : to break law, not to live in accordance with nature, was folly,
not sin.

* Mansel I.e.

GENTILE ATTEMPTS AT INTERPRETATION 75

different views of evil. The first is embodied in the Zoroastrian
system, according to which the material world was in the first
place created by the power of good (Ormuzd) in the space
between light and darkness, — first the heavens, then water, then
in succession the earth, the trees, cattle, men : and so far all
was good. But the power of evil (Ahriman) obtained a footing
upon earth and attempted to counteract the work that had been
done by creating animals and plants of a contrary kind, and
inflicting upon men the evils of hunger, weariness that calls for
sleep, age, disease, and death, while leading them away from
their allegiance to the power of good. And so the struggle
goes on, and man alone has the power of choosing on which
side he will fight, and so of partaking of good or evil.
According to this (the Persian or dualistic) theory of the uni-
verse, matter is the production of a beneficent being and not
essentially evil ; the source of evil is spiritual, and evil is a
terrible reality.

Quite different is the view which follows from the Hindoo
theory of existence. The higliest and truest mode of being is
pure spirit, and entirely good ; the lowest form of being is matter,
and entirely evil — it is indeed not properly to be called ' being '
at all : the only reality is spirit, and matter is — to speak ac-
curately — a mere appearance and illusion, inasmuch as it lacks
true being. Yet for practical purposes matter is synonymous
with evil, and the great aim of all religion is to free men from
its contamination, even at the cost of their annihilation.

Oriental Ideas applied to the Christian Revelation

Matter is essentially evil — this was the dominant principle
of Oriental religious thought to which its converts to Chris-
tianity clung most strenuously, though it was in flagrant ojiposi-
tion to the early Christian tradition. If matter is evil, the
Supreme God (who is good) cannot have created the world, and
the Kedeemer (who is divine) cannot have come in tlie flesh.
The creator of the world, the ])emiurge, must be distinct from
the Supreme God — either an eternal power confronting him or a
rebellious servant. And the body of Christ was not real, but
only seemed to be (Uocctism) ; and so either the sufferings were
only apparent, or else the Iledeemer who could not suffer was
separate from the man in whom he appeared.

76 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

The Gnostics —their Aims and Classification^

The ' Gnostics ' were thinkers who, starting from Oriental
principles such as these, and feeHng the need of redemption by
a special divine revelation, believed that Jesus of Nazareth was
the Kedeemer sent to save sinners, and tried to work out this
belief and these principles into a philosophical theory of the
universe. It is this conviction of the need of Redemption, and
the recognition of the person and work of Christ (in however
perverted a form), which distinguish Gnosticism in all its schools
as a real attempt at interpretation {i.e. a religious heresy) from a
mere philosophical extravagance.^ " Tlie time is gone by ", wrote
one of the soundest and soberest of modern scholars,^ " when the
Gnostic theories could be regarded as the mere ravings of re-
ligious lunatics. The problems which taxed the powers of a
Basilides and a Valentinus are felt to be amongst the most pro-
found and difficult which can occupy the human mind. . . .
It is only by the study of Gnostic aberrations that the true
import of the teaching of Catholic Christianity, in its moral as
well as in its theological bearings, can be fully appreciated."
They tried to find answers to such questions as. How can the
absolute give birth to the relative ? unity to plurality ? good to
evil ? There is no doubt that they made ' the first comprehen-
sive attempt to construct a philosophy of Christianity ', and they
have even been called the first Christian theologians.

They were schools of thought in the Church, esoteric philo-
sophers, rather than sects, still looking to find in the Gospel
the key to the enigmas of life, with no wish to withdraw from
communion ; asking only for freedom of speculation, and finding
no fault with the popular modes of presenting the Christian
faith for the people.^ But they drew a distinction between the
popular simple faith, which was founded on authority and

* So Bigg {Christian PlaUmista of Alexandria p. 28) insists that "the interest,
the meaning, of Gnosticism rests entirely upon its ethical motive. It was an attempt,
a serious attempt, to fathom the dread mystery of sorrow and pain, to answer that
spectral doubt which is mostly crushed down by force— Can the world as we know it
have been made by God ?" He says ''it is a mistake to approach the Gnostics on
the metajihysical side ",

* Lightfoot — Preface to Hansel's Gnostic Heresies.

* Yet at least, when their teaching was repudiated by the official heads of the
Church, they became rival Churches, and were obviously regarded as competitors
by their 'orthodox' opponents (cf. Tert. adv. Marc, iv 5). They claimed to have
all that the Church had, and more besides.

GENTILE ATTEMPTS AT INTERPRETATION 77

tradition, and the real knowledge — the Gnosis — which they them-
selves possessed. The former they regarded as merely the shell of
the Christian theory of life, while they claimed a secret tradition
of their own as the basis of the ' Gnosis ', and jealously guarded
it as a mystery from all but the chosen few.^ No canons of
interpretation, no theory of inspiration, had as yet been framed ;
and the open tradition and standards of the Church fell short of
the aim they set before themselves — the apprehension of the
spiritual contents of the Gospel in a si)iritual manner in relation
to aspects of life which seemed to be ignored.^ In this way they
constituted themselves an intellectual aristocracy, for whom alone
salvation in the full sense of the word was reserved ; and they
were therefore labelled ' Gnostics ' (knowing ones) by those w4io
were not willing to admit the claim. The label seems to have
been affixed with little exact discrimination. At all events it
is used to cover very various forms of teaching, to some of which
it scarcely applies at all ; and no satisfactory classification of the
Gnostics can be made. A classification may be attempted based
on two opposing views of the religion of the Jews. By some
it was regarded as an imperfect preparation for a Christian
philosophy, which Christianity should complete and so supersede.
By others it was regarded as a system fundamentally hostile to
Christianity, which Christianity was to combat and overthrow.
So Christ was differently regarded by different Gnostic schools as
coming either to complete an imperfect revelation or to deliver
the world from bondage to an evil creator and governour; and
correspondingly diverse views of the Demiurge were held. Another
classification rests upon a broad distinction that was early

' From this point of view they have been called 'the first Fi eeniasoiis ' rather
than the first thc-ologians, though a closer analogy might be found in the practice
of the Greek niysterit^s.

' Loofs (})]). 70, 73) cli.stiiigiii.slioH the chief variations of Gnosticism from (n) the
Christian tradition {i.e. the pojmlar croed) and (6) the Christian ecclesiastical philo-
sophy. He notes (a) the separation between the highest God and the Creator of
the world (sometimes regarded as the God of the Jews in the Old Testament)— the
emanations or aeries of aeons— docetic i onception of the person of Christ — cosmical
origin of evil and coiresponding conception of Redemption — abandonment of early
Christian eachatology ; and (h) salvation dnpeiidcnt on secret knowledge, or at least
the Gnosis has promise of liiglier bliss than Faith alone can attain — a syncretic
system in which the Christian elements are overpowered by foreign elements,
Babylonian and Hellenic, which it continnally took to itself in increasing volume—
supfTsrssion of the genuine a])<)stolic tradition through unlimited allegorical exegesis
and its secret 'a|)ostolic' tra<iition.

For fragment* of Gnoatio writings see especially Stieren'a edition of Ireiiacus.

78 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

noted — a moral difTerence ; some of the Gnostics being ascetic,
and some, it was said, licentious. The charge of immorality
has always been brought against religious opponents in all ages
and must never be received without examination ; but in this
case it appears to be justified, some of the Gnostics indeed
making it a principle. If matter was essentially evil and
antithetical to spirit, and yet man in his human life could not
escape from it, two courses in regard to it were open to him.
He might pursue a policy of rigorous abstinence, aiming at
freeing his soul as much as possible from bondage to the
material elements by which it was surrounded, and so of course
refusing to marry and enthral new souls in the prison of the
body : and thus he would win by ignoring, till he became
unconscious of, the body. Or else he might adopt a ' superior '
attitude to all that was material, and abandon all attempts to
purify the hopelessly corrupt. Deeds of the body could not
aifect the soul — ' to the pure all things are pure ' : it was even
a duty to put the body to shame and set at nought the restric-
tions which had been imposed by commands of the malevolent
being who shut up the souls of men in matter — ' Give to the
flesh the things of the flesh and to the spirit the things of the
spirit '.^ So they would keep the spirit pure, and triumph over
the body by putting it to the most licentious uses.

But none of the classifications suggested ^ (Judaizing, anti-
Judaistic, Hellenizing, ascetic, licentious) are more than partial
descriptions of these chameleon forms of thought, of which
neither the history nor the geography can be given,^ older forms
maintaining themselves side by side with later developements, and
representative teachers and writers of the most diverse kinds

' Iren. i 1. 11, 12, rA aapKiKk roh ffapKiKoii koX to, wvev/naTiKii t«<i ir¥tvfiaTiKoU
iiroSioocrffai \^yovcn. Cf. Clem. Al. Strom, iii 5.

' Westcott (Introduction to the Study of the Gosfds ch. iv) points out the
relation of the difTerent Gnostic schools to the different modes of apprehension of
Christian principles to which the New Testament bears witness. Cerinthus and the
Ebionites exhibit an exaggeration of the Jewish sympathies of Matthew and James ;
the Docetae of the Petrine view rc[iresented by Mark (cf. Peter's refusal to face the
possibility of the sufferings of Christ) ; Marcion of Pauline teaching if pushed to
extreme consequences ; while Valentinus shews the terminology of John if not the
spirit.

* Loofs, p. 71. The greatest mixture of Eastern and Western religious and philo-
sophical thought prevailed in Mesopotamia and Syria ; and it is probable that
Jewish and Christian conceptions working on this 'syncretic' soil produced in one
direction the Judaizing heresies which have been already considered, and in the
other these minifold forms of the Gnosis. Both have the same birthplace.

GENTILE ATTEMPTS AT INTERPRETATION 79

finding their way to the smaller communities as well as the
greater centres of intercourse.

We must be content to take, as examples, particular teachers
and schools, without examining too closely their origin and
mutual relations, and to frame, from accounts which are often
defective and inconsistent with one another, such a statement of
the case as the evidence allows.

The Earlier Representatives of Gnostic Conceptions

The early Fathers almost unanimously trace the origin of
Gnosticism to Simon Magus, the chief of the Powers (emanations)
of God ; ^ Hippolytus gives an account of a work attributed to
him, called ' The Great Announcement '? and Menander is named
as his pupil and successor. So too the Nicolaitans of the
Apocalypse were usually considered Gnostics,^ and the Gospel
of St John was supposed to have been written to oppose the
Gnostic views. Irenaeus cites the saying of St Paul, * knowledge
(Gnosis) puffeth up but love edifieth ',* as a condemnation of the
Gnosis; but it is extremely improbable that the word has any
such associations here or elsewhere in the New Testament, nor
does the term ' aeon ' occur in the Gnostic sense of ' emanation '}
In the false teaching opposed in the Epistle to the Colossians,
and perhaps in the Epistles to Timothy, the seeds of something
like the Gnostic conceptions may be detected,^ but tliey are
probably of Jewish rather than ' Gnostic' origin.

The docetic view of the person of Christ, however, is
certainly under consideration in the reference in the First Epistle
of St. John ^ to " Jesus Christ come in flesh " and the condemna-
tion of those who do not ' confess Jesus '. Such as do not rccofinize
the humanity of the divine Kedecmer — this is what the expres-
sion means — are not ' of God ' ; nay, they are Antichrist. It is

' Acts 8»- '•. » 'H ' ATr6<f>a(Tts MeV'iX'?— Hippol. Hc/ut. Ilacr. vi 9 ff.

• Iren. iii 11. 7, Hays they were foicriinner.s of Cerinthus.

• 1 Cor. 8'. Cf. 13», and contrast 2 Cor. 11«.

• Probably not till its use by Valentinus. Similarly n^pu/xa (Eiili. P* 4'*) has
no technical senHe, though its use in Col. 1'* 2" of the totality of tlio divine
attributes approximates towards thf GnoHtic conception.

• B.g. the higher knowledge, Col. 2»- '«, 1 Tim. 6**; the idea of the Demiurge,
Col. l'«- "; an'^'el-worship, Col. 2"; a-sccticiain, Col. 2*'-^ 3'-» ; incipient Docetiam,
Col. 2* ('boilily ') ; and the evil of matter, 2 Tim. 2"'''" (matter being evil could not
be eternal, so the resurrection would be spiritual only).

' 1 John 4'^- ». Cf 2 John 7.

80 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

not enough to acknowledge his divinity; that he was also 'very
Man ' is of the essence of the faith. He who tries to distinguish
the man Jesus from the Christ is far from the truth.^

And it is a similar docetic view, which made the human
nature and the sufferings of the Lord unreal, that roused the
strenuous opposition of Ignatius.^ " He verily suffered, as also
he verily raised himself again : not as some unbelievers say, who
talk of his seeming to suifer, while it is they themselves who
are the * seemers ' ; and as they think, so it shall happen to
them, bodyless and spectral as they are."^ Ihey who would
make of Christ's humanity nothing but a spectre are themselves
but spectral men. And again — with a personal appeal to his
own experiences on his way to martyrdom, which were in vain
if Christ had not by a real Passion won for men a real salvation
— he insists " He was really crucified and died. . . . Why, if it
were as some godless ones (that is, unbelievers) assert, who say
that he only seemed to suffer, while it is they who are the
' seemers ' — Why am I in chains ? " * It was indeed as man he
was made manifest, though he was God.^ He must be recog-
nised as one person, though having the twofold experiences of the
human and the divine natures. " There is one Physician in flesh
and in spirit (i.e. human and divine), generate and ingenerate (or
originate and unoriginate), God in man (i.e. in human form) . . .
fiust capable of suffering and then incapable of suffering." *

To docetic thinkers the divinity of Christ presented no

> 1 John 2«.

' The ' Judaistic ' and the ' docetic ' heresies, which are combated by Ignatius,
seem to be distinct. In the letter here cited there is no reference to any Judaistic
form of error. There are only two cases in which tliere is even apparent conjunction
of Judaistic and docetic conceptions, and in both it is only apparent, namely, the
Epistles to the Magnesians and to the Philadclphians. In both cases he passes at
once from argument against the Judaizers to the supreme argument which the facts
of the Gospel hifttory furnish, and in this connexion lays stress on the reality of
those facts. [Philcul. viii to those who said "unless I find it foretold in the Old
Testament (the 'archives') I do not believe it", he replies " my archives are the
actual facts " ; and Magn. viii-xi in warning against /j.vd£v/j.ara rb. iraXaid (we
cannot go back, that would be to confess that we had not got grace under our
present system, — with which compare St Paul's aru'umcnt that if salvation can be
got in tiie Law, then the death of Christ was gratuitoup) he turns them to the
present. Look at the actual facts, from which our present grace is derived.] If
there had been docetic teaching in those two Churfhcs it is inconceivable that he
would not have expressed himself plainly and strongly in regard to it. As it is, it
is not the reality of the humanity of the Lord to wliich he refers, but the reality
of the f'.ospel itself— the very facts which speak for themselves.

» Hmyrn. 2. * Trull. 9, 10. » -t>/t. 18. « Ej>h. 7.

GENTILE ATTEMPTS AT INTERPRETATION 81

difficulties. It was the humanity (with its close relation to
matter) that they could not acknowledge. It was only the
channel by which he came into the world. " Jesus ", they said,
" passed through Mary as water through a tube." ^ He was
' through ' or 'by means of ' but not * of ' Mary ; that is to
say, he derived from her no part of his being. " For just as
water passes through a pipe without receiving any addition from
the pipe, so too the Word passed through Mary but was not
derived from Mary." ^ The humanity was only the organ of
revelation, the momentary vehicle for the introduction into the
world of the eternal truth, and when the end was attained it
was allowed to perish. Such denial of the fundamental idea of
the Incarnation naturally aroused the most vigorous opposition
wherever it was found.

The first of the heads of schools whose names have come
down to us is Saturninus (or Saturnilus), a Syrian (of Antioch),
in the reign of Hadrian (117-138 A.D.). He seems to have
believed in the malignity of matter and in the existence of au
active principle of evil. God the Father was unknowable, he
held ; without origin, body, or form ; and He had never appeared
to men. He created the angels, and seven of the angels created
the world and man. The God of the Jews was only one of
the angels, who kept men under his control ; and Christ came
to abolish his power and lead men buck to the triitli.

Cerdo, also a Syrian, who came to Eome a little later, carried
out further still the distinction between the God of the Old Testa-
ment and the God of the New Testament: the former was 'just'
and could be known, the latter was 'good' and unknowable.^ It
was perhaps from Cerdo that Marcion derived his leading thought.

Marcion and his Fullowcrs %

Marcion * is perbaps liardly to be classed with other Gnostics.

lie bad no emanation theories and no sucli extravagant alle-

' Iren. hi 11. 8.

' [Origon] Dial. adv. Gnosticon iv p. 121 (Kufinus v 9). Cf. Tert. de Came
atristi 20 (Halin» j). 10) ; Tlicdoict 7i>>. Hli (Mi;,'iic J'.G. Ixxxiii 1380H).

* Views Himilar to tliose of Sutuniinus and Cerdo seem to havo boon adoptod late
in lilt' by Tatinn. I>iirilesan('.s, aiidthrir Syiinn, at tliu end of tlio Hecnud ctMitury
(whoMi- liyniiis were in use by tlm Syrian Clirintians till the time of Ejiliraeiu two
centuries later), bad more in common with Valcntinus.

* Tiie Bon of a bishop of Sinojw in Pontus (said to have been expelled from the

82 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

gorizing as they indulged in ; and while all the rest regard the
redemptive work of Christ as consisting in his doctrine, whether
treated mainly from the theoretic or from the ethical point of
view, he laid due stress on the Passion and Death, as shewing
the highest proof of love, and on faith rather than on knowledge.
In this respect, at least, he was imraeasureahly nearer the
Catholic standpoint than they : his interest was predominantly
soteriological. But he and his followers were commonly reckoned
Gnostics by their opponents, and the instinct of such men as
Irenaeus and Tertullian was probably not much in error. It is
at any rate certain that the dualism of the Gnostics, which was
always felt to be destructive of all true interpretation of the
Gospel, was carried out in some respects more thoroughly by
Marcion than by any others. Starting from the conviction of
the antagonism between the Law and the Gospel, he could not
believe them both to have been given by one God : the teaching
of the God of the Jews and the teaching of Christ were too
different for both to have come from the same source ; and he
wrote a book to point out the contradictions between the Old
Testament and the Gospel. So the practical antagonism to the
Jewish law, which some of the writings of St Paul exhibited,
became with him theological too ; and he conceived two Gods.
One was the God of the Jews, who made this world ; the author
of evil works, bloodthirsty, changeable — far from perfect, and
ignorant of the highest things, concerned with his own peculiar
people only, and keeping them in subjection by means of the Law
and the terror of breaking it. The other was the God of love
and of Christ, the creator of the immaterial universe above our
world. The God of the Jews might be said to be just, inasmuch
as he carried out scrupulously all the provisions of the Law :
' An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth ' — ' Thou shalt
love him that loveth thee, and hate thine enemy This might
be just, but it was not good. Goodness was the attribute of
the God who bade men, if smitten on one cheek, to turn the
other also, to love their enemies and to pray for their perse-
cutors ; and this conception of God was new and peculiar to
the Gospel of Christ. Things in which evil is found could not
proceed from the good God, and the Christian dispensation
could have nothing in common with the Jewish. Most charac-

Church by his own father, but this is probably a libel— Epiph. adv. Haer. xlii 1),
who came to Rome in the first half, towards the middle, of the second century.

GENTILE ATTEMPTS AT INTERPRETATION 83

teristic of Marcion was this idea of the absolute newness and
grandeur of Christianity as separate from all that had gone
before ; and his absolute rejection of Judaism and of all the
historical circumstances and setting of Christianity. Of evolution
or developement in religion, of a progress in the self-revelation
of God adapted to the age, he had no notion. So, naturally, his
conception of Jesus corresponded to his other theories. Jesus
appears suddenly on the earth with no preliminary preparation,
sent down by the Supreme God the Father from the higher
regions where he dwelt.^ With a material body he could have
nothing to do, nor with a birth ; ^ but a body in some sense
capable of suffering he had, assumed for the special purpose of
his mission — to reveal to men the God of Love and to abrogate
the law and the prophets ^ and all the works of the God who
had created and ruled their world. This God — the Demiurge
— he conquered and cast into hell, but his influence remained,
and it is against him that the struggle for men still lies. For
victory in this conflict he urged the need of an ascetic and
celibate life, that the kingdom of the Demiurge might not be
increased. The earthly body and its desires must be kept in
check ; it was doomed in any case to perish ; the soul only
could attain to blessedness, and the way to it lay through
virtue.

The practical character of the Marcionite school no doubt
contributed largely to its growth. In this and in its opj)osition
to Judaism* its strength undoubtedly lay. It could not have
been on moral gi-ounds tliat Pulycarp professed to recognize
in Marcion " Satan's firstborn ".^ It is recorded of one of

* It is not clear in what relation Iw held Clirist to stand to the Supreme
God : jxTliajis he m.ide no distinction hetwecn Father and Son — the Sujircme God
Himself ai>i><Niring without any mediator in the world. (So a kind of Modalism,
see infra y. 97).

' The liirtli and infancy and the genealogy he excised from the only Gospel
which he admitted (viz. our Go8j»el according to St Luke amended to harmonize with
his viows). Aj^airist tliis 'docetic' concciilion of Mmcion see TcrtuUian dc, CiLnie.
Christi, who maintains lliat Christ was as regards his flesli and hody altogctiier one
with us (concarnatio and conviscernHo).

* Clirist was not tlie Mfissiah of whom the projihets conceived. Their Christ was
a warrior king come to save Israel, ours was (M'lir.ifirMl to save the world.

* They regarded the Church as still in the chains of the Law — 'sunk in
Judaism'. See T<Tt. (ulv. Marc, i 20 — "Tlicy say tliat Marcion hy his soiniration
between the Law and the Gosjml did not so much introduce a new rule of faitli as
restore the old rule when it had been falsified."

'The tale is told by Irenacus (iii 3. 4). Marcion had known Polycar]) in tiie

84 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Afarcion's most distinguished followers ^ that he maintained that
those who had their hope set on the Crucified would be saved,
only if they were found doers of good works. His teaching
proved extraordinarily attractive. Justin declared it was
diffused through every race of men.* TertuUian compared the
Marcionites, who had " churches " with bishops and presbyters
and songs and martyrs of their own, to swarms of wasps
buildincr combs in imitation of the bees.^ As well as their
own churches and organization, they had their own Canon of
Scripture, based on the conviction that Paul alone had under-
stood the teaching of Jesus ; * and some of their alterations and
corrections exerted a disturbing influence on the text which
was current outside the Marcionite communities.^ The popul-
arity and permanence of the movement (there were Marcionite
churches in existence till the seventh century) is of great
significance in the history of the interpretation of the Christian
revelation, although the interpretation which was championed
at the time by Justin and Irenaeus and TertuUian prevailed.*

Carpocrates and his Followers

Another of the ' Gnostics ' who really stands in some
respects alone is Carpocrates,^ a Platonic philosopher at Alex-

Eiast ; but Polycarp passed him wlien they met at Rome. " Do you not know me I"
cried Marcioii. " I know [you to be] Satan's firstborn " was Polycarp's unconipro-
niising answer.

' Apelles (with his companion Philuniene, a ' prophetess ')— opposed by
Rhodon (see Euseb. Hist. Ecd. v 13), llippolytus, and TertuUian {de Carne Christi
6,8).

* Ap. i 26.

' I.e. the Catholics (Tert. adv. Mare, iv 5).

* Their Bible had no Old Testament, and only a mutilated edition of the Gospel
according to St Luke and of the ten Epistles of St Paul (Gal., 1, 2 Cor., Rom., 1, 2
Thess., Eph., Col., Phm., Phil.), the Pastoral Epistles being rejected. Marcion's
own book, the 'A.i/ri.diafi'!, was also standard.

' See Rendel Harris Codex Bczae, p. 232.

' The writings of Irenaeus and TertuUian only are extant, though Justin
Dialofjve 80 describes the Gnostic schools. Eusebius mentions also works by
Theojihilus of Antioch, Philip of Gortyna, Dionysius of Corinth, Bardesanes,
Rhodon, and Hippolytus.

"< Mentioned in the list of Hegesi])pns (Euseb. H.E. iv 22). Our chief authority is
Irenaeus i 20 ; ii 48— ZT. vol. i pp. 204 ff., 369 f ; cf. Clem. Al. Strom, iii 2. Dorner
calls him ' a religious genius'. Apart from the usual Gnostic notions of a special
secret doctrine and of emanations of angels and powers, the lowest of whom had
created the world, the theory of Carpocrates derived its special character from an

GENTILE ATTEMPTS AT INTERPRETATION 85

andria, early in the second century : the sect which he founded
being still active at Kome in the time of Irenaeus, who took
elaborate pains in his refutation of their teaching. In common
with Marcion he held the view that redemption was only possible
for him who had the sense to despise Judaism, and that it was
to be found in escape from the control of the powers who ruled
the material world. Not through any obedience to their laws,
but through faith and love would man be saved. Works were
' indifferent ' — having no moral value — good or bad in human
opinion only ; that is to say, the human standard is untrustworthy.
This antinomianism seems with Carpocrates to have remained
theoretic, and he inculcated a life of perfect purity (the
reproach of licentiousness is not supported by the oldest
sources of information). But his followers carried out the
principle into practice, and became proverbial for deliberate
immorality, indulged in without scruple.^ Indeed it was the
Gnostic's duty to enlarge his experiences of every kind of life
to the utmost. So taught his son Epiphanes, and the Cain-
ites, who got their name from taking the murderer of Abel as
their hero. They and the Ophites ^ absolutely inverted the
commonly accepted notions of good and evil, and of the Old
Testament all through. The creator of the world being regarded

adaptation of the Platonic conception of Recollection (AvdnvT]ffis) expressed in the
great Phaedrus myth (Plato Phaedrus 246 If.). The souls of men had been carried
round the immaterial heavens, and in their course had been granted vision of tho
Buprasensual Idea.s (Truth, Beauty, Virtue, and the like, as they really, i.e. spiritu-
ally, exist). To thoir recollection of what they then saw, the souls, when joined to
bodies, ewe all their knowledge of higher than niuudano things. Those that are
able to reach the Ideas receive from above a spiritual ' Power ' which renders them
superior to the powers of the world. Such a jwwer was received by Homer and
Pythagoras, and Plato and Aristotle, and Peter and Paul, as well as pre-eminently
by Je«U8 — the perfect man ; and every soul which like Jesus was able to despise
the ])ower8 of the world would receive the same power. With this conception went
also that of Transmigration of souls: — ho who has lived in perfect purity goes on
death to God ; but nil other souls must expiate their faults by passing successively
into various bodies, till at last they are saved and reach communion with God.

' Sf-e p. 78 supra.

^ 0[phiani (Clem., Orig. ), Ophit^ii (Hippol., Epiph.) — i.e. worshippers of the
serpent ; or Naassencs (the Hebrew form of the «ime word) (see Iren. i 28. 8 — H.
vol. i p. 232). Hippolytns says they were the first to assnnio the name ' Gnostics ',
asserting that they alon<; knew the deep tUin;;s (v 6). No names of individual
are recorded. The use of the serpent as a religious emblem (a relic of Totemism)
was common in countries which were specially rccfptive of Gnosticism {e.g. among
the I'hoenicians and Egyptians). The sorpi'ut represented the vital principle of
nature ; and the figure of a circle with a snake in the middle (like the Greek letter
9) symbolized the world. It w>is said that the Ophites allowed tame snakes to
8

86 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

as an evil power, acting in hostility to the Supreme God, the
Fall became the emancipation of man from the authority of a
malevolent being : the serpent was the symbol of true wisdom
and freedom, wishing to be man's friend against the jealous
Jehovah ; and so the usual reading of the Old Testament was
reversed — the bad characters becoming good, oppressed by the
servants of Jehovah.

Of sects with these general principles there were many
varieties and degrees. In principle probably, and in practice
certainly, they are the furthest removed of all the Gnostic
schools from the Catholic view of the purport of the Christian
revelation, and exhibit the greatest admixture of foreign ele-
ments.^

The School of Basilides

For the finest representatives of the Gnostic philosophy of
life we must turn to v<«ry dif'i'erent men — Basilides and Valen-
tinus.

Basilides was probably of Syrian origin, but taught at
Alexandria in the second quarter of the second century. Of
his system very different accounts are given : ^ for the present
the following may be taken as a general description.

The Supreme God, the unbegotten Father, could only be
described by negations. To reach to knowledge of Him it was
necessary to ascend through a long series of grades of spiritual
being which had emanated from Him. Of these the highest
— the first emanations from Him — were a group of eight (the
first Ogdoad), comprising in descending order Mind (or Keason

crawl about and 'sanctify' the Eucharistic bread ; and their teaching and actions
no doubt encouraged the belief of the heathen in the tales of debauchery practised
at the Christian love-feasts.

^ One of the chief Gnostic works that is extant seems to belong to this Ophite
school (though there are in it no signs of its immoral practices). It is entitled
Pistis Sophia, i.e. Sophia penitent and believing, and is extant in a Coptic version,
though incomplete. It is thought to have been written originally in Greek
c. 200 A.D. The work is composed in the fomi of a dialogue in which the
disciples, male and female, put questions to Jesus and elicit answers giving ex-
pression to Gnostic conce]itions. There is a Latin translation by Schwartze, and
an English translation published by tlie Theosophical Publishing Society.

* The Basilides of Irenaeus is described as an emanationist and dualist ; the
Basilides of Hippolytus as an evolutionist and pantheist (Stoic and monistic). So
Bigg (p. 27) says the aeons have no place at all in his system, following the
account of Hi{)polytus Refut. Haer. His teaching was probably understood, or
developed by his followers, in different ways.

GENTILE ATTEMPTS AT INTERPRETATION 87

in itself), Eeason or Word or Speech (the expressiou of Mind),
Understanding (or practical Wisdom), Wisdom, Power, Virtues,
Chiefs, and Angels.^ These made or comprised the first heaven,
the highest region or grade in the spiritual world; and from
them as source proceeded, in succession, each in turn from the
one immediately preceding it, a series of emanations and
heavens, till there were in all no fewer than three hundred and
sixty-five gradations of spiritual being.^ The lowest of these
heavens is the one which is seen by us. Its angels made and
rule the terrestrial world we know. Their chief is the God of
the Jews (the Euler), who wished to make all nations subject
to his, but the other heavenly powers arrayed themselves
against him, as the other nations arrayed themselves against his
nation. But for the redemption of man there was needed the
entrance of some superior power from the higher worlds into
the lower terrestrial world ; and the Father, seized with com-
passion, sent forth his first-born ' Mind ' (the first of the
emanations), who is Christ, to deliver all who believe in him
from the powers that rule the world. He appeared in human
form, uniting himself with the man Jesus at his baptism : the
man Jesus not being the Kedeemer, but merely the instrument
selected by the redeeming God for the purpose of revealing
hintself to men. It was only in appearance that he was sub-
jected to death upon the Cross, and those who believe in the
Crucified One are still under the dominion of the rulers of the
world. The body must needs perish, the soul only is immortal;
and for this reason Christ suflered his bodily nature to perish
and be resolved into formlessness, while the constituents of the
higher nature ascended to their own region." So all who are
capable of redemption are gradually illuminated by the divine
light of knowledge, and purified, and enabled to ascend on high :
and when all who are capalile are redeemed the rest will be
involved in utter ignorance of aH that is above them, so that
they have no sense of deficiency or of unsatisfied desire, and
thus the restoration of all things will be ellected. The ethical

' NoGj, Kbr/os, <^po«'7)(7lt, 'Zo(pla, Avvapnf, 'Aperal.

' Tlie wliolo 8j)iritual world, the totality of spiritual existence, is thm expressed
by the mystical watchword often found on Gnostic gems, 'Abraxas' (the Sun-
God), which stands for 36.1 according to the Greek reckoning by letters of the
alphabet (a = l, /3 = 2, p = ]00, { = 60, v=.2O0).

' It waa also said that hu did not sutler himself to be crucified, but substituted
SimoD of Cyreue in his stead.

88 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

work of man is the extirpation of all traces of the low grade of
life which cling to him, as appendages which must be torn away.^
The strength and the weakness of the system of Basilides
has been well appraised when it is said that of all the Gnostic
systems it " least recognizes any break or distinction between
the Christian revelation and the other religions of the world.
Hfe leading thought is the continuity of the world's develop-
ment — its gradual purification and enlightenment by a pro-
gressive series of movements succeeding one another by a
fixed law of evolution. But while the system thus gains in
philosophical unity, it loses in moral and religious significance.
No place is left for the special providence of God, nor for the
freewill of man : there is almost a Stoical pantheism, quite a
Stoical fatalism. . , . The Supreme God is impersonal, capable
of no religious relation to man, introduced ... to give the first
impulse to the mechanical movement of the world's self-
developement. ... As he is elevated to the position of an
absolute first principle, he is stripped of the attributes which
alone can make him the object of moral obedience or religious
worship." *

The Valcntiniatis

Similar to the teaching of Basilides, at least in many of its
chief conceptions, was the system of Valentinus,^ who lived at
Alexandria and in Cyprus till towards the middle of the
second century he came to Eome, and only late in his life, it
is said, seceded from the Church, His system seems to have
been the most comprehensive and the most eclectic of all, but
three leading ideas may be detected. From Plato comes the
conception that the higher existences of the terrestrial world
have their superior and real coimterparts in the celestial
world, the earthly shadows only imperfectly reflecting the
ideal substances. From the pantheistic philosophy of India

* So Isidorus, the son of Basilides, if not Basilides himself.

* Mansel Gnostic Heresies p. 16.5.

* Of the Valentiniaii school there are some literary remains. His disciple
Heracleou is the earliest commentator on the gospels, — fragments of his work on
St John's Gospel are extant (see the edition of A. E. Brooke Texts and Studies vol. i
no. 4). A letter by Ptolemaeus, another disciple, who roused the opposition of
Irenaeus, is given by Ejiiphanius {adv. Ilaer. xxxiii 3-7) ; and also an extract from
an anonymous work (ibid, xxxi 5, 6). Fragments from Valentiuus are in Clem.
Strom, ii 8, 20 ; iii 7, 13 ; vi 6 ; and Hijjpolytus vi 29-37. Irenaeus gives a
detailed account of the system (i 1-21) and a criticism of it (ii).

GENTILE ATTEMPTS AT INTERPRETATION 89

he derived the thought that the origin of material existence
was due to an error or fall or degradation of some higher mode
of being — a transient blot on the perfection of the absolute.
This thought he nevertheless combined with the belief derived
from Judaism that the creation of the world was to be
attributed to the wisdom of God, regarded nearly as a separate
personality as in the later writings of tlie Jews.

The term ' aeons ' seems to have been used first by Valentinus
to denote the personifications of the divine attributes,^ which all
together formed the whole spiritual world to which the name
Pleroma was given (the totality of spiiitual functions and life —
ideal being). Of these aeons, thirty in all, there were three
orders ; the first of eight, the second of ten, the third of twelve.
They proceeded always in pairs,^ male and female ; the first pair
in each successive order from the lowest pair in the order
above it. The first order, the Ogdoad, represent the original
existence of tlie Divine Being, in his absolute nature, inscrutable
and unspeakable, and in his relative nature, manifesting him-
self in operation. The second order, the Decad, represent the
action of the Deity through his attributes in the formation of a
world — ideal, primary, and immaterial. The third order, the
Dodecad, represent the divine operations in nature or graca
All these are of course supra-sensual, immaterial, ideal : the
spiritual types and patterns and realities,^ as it were, of any-
thing that afterwards came within the range of human experi-
ence. In this way all existence is conceived as having its

* Aluives, i)rol)at)ly from Plato's use of the singular 'aeon' to express the ever-
jiresent form of the divine existence prior to time,— so applied by Valentinus to
the m.iiiifestations of this existence.

' Eacli of thfse pairs is tlie consort (<ri5firyos) of the other. Their names are as
follows. The Ogdoad — 'h{>^r)Tos (or Bi;<?6s or IlaxT^p dL-yivvrjTo^) and ^177) (or'Ej'^'oia
or Xiipit) ; N0O5 for Ilarrip or MocoYfj'Tjs) and 'WrjOna. (forming together the highest
tetrad, from which jirocccds a second trtrad) ; A.Lyoz and Ztjvj ; "Aj'^pcoiros and
'E«KXr;£r/o [the ideal man, the most perfect expression of the dirine thought, is the
Gnostic 8[iiritual man, seijaratcd from the icst as the Church ^the ideal society)
U from tlie world]. The Decad — MvOioi and M/^tt ; 'Kyi)pa.To% &i\i\"Kvwai^ ; Auto-
(pvr}i and 'llooj';^ ; 'AKlfijroi and XvyKijaaii ; Mo;'o7e»'7jj and Ma/cop/a. The Do-
decad — llapdK\t]Tot and lliffru ; llarpiKbt and 'EXttI^i ; MiyTpixdi and 'Aydtrr] ;
A/uiciot and i^yvt^u ; 'EKK\7]cna<rTiK6i and MaKaptirTjs, OeXrjrbs and i."o0^a. Tiie term
BvOji (the ahyss) for the fust, great cause, exprcs.scs the infinite fulness of Hfe,
the ideal, where the spirit is lost in contemplation. See Ircnaeus, i 1. 1 (Epiph.
adv. Ifacr. xxxi) ; cf. 1'ert. adv. Vulcnt,

* It is in connexion with this conception, with special reference to the idea
that the crucifixion undi^r I'ontius I'ilate was only of the animal and fleshly
Christ — a delineation of what the higher Christ had ex|)erienced in the higher,

90 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

origin in the self-limitation of the Infinite, and it is of supreme
importaiiec that each form of being should remain within the
limits of its own individuality, keeping its proper place in
the evolution of life. This principle is personified in Horos
(Boundary), the genius of limitation, who fixes the bounds of
individual existence and carefully guards them against dis-
turbance. Even in the spiritual world this function had to
be exercised, for there too there was in idea an archetype of
the fall and redemption of the world. Of all the aeons one
only was, by the will of the Supreme, cognisant of his nature
— Mind, the first of the pair wliich proceeded immediately
from him. In the others arose a desire for the knowledge
which Mind alone enjoyed, and in the youngest of all the
aeons, Sophia (Wisdom), this desire became a passion. Then
Horos came, to fulfil his function, and convinced her that the
Father was incomprehensible by her ; and so she recognized her
limitations and abandoned her design. And in order to prevent
any recurrence of the kind a new pair of aeons issued from
Mind, Christus and the Holy Spirit, who conveyed the same
truth to all the aeons, and they then combined to produce a
new aeon-Christ, ' the most perfect beauty and constellation of
the Pleroma '. This is the prototype of the process of redemp-
tion in the world.

The design which Sophia abandoned was itself personified
and banished to the region outside the Pleroma (or spiritual
world), which is styled the Kenoma (the region void of spiritual
being). As the result of tliis fall of the lower Sophia (or Acha-
moth) in some way or other ^ life is imparted to matter, and
the Demiurge (Jaldabaoth) who creates the lower world we
know is formed, and the first man Adam. In man is deposited,
through the agency of Achamoth, a spiritual seed, and it is to
redeem this spiritual element and draw it back to its proper
spiritual home that the last emanation from the aeons, the
Clirist, by his own wish and with their consent, assumes a
spiritual body * and descends from the Pleroma. As Saviour he

the real, world — that Tertullian styles them Christians in imagination rather than
iu reality. " Ita omnia in imagines urgent, plane et ipsi iniaginarii Christian! "
(adv. Valent. 27 ; cf. Ignatius loc. cit. supra),

^ The accounts differ in details. All that is clear la that r/ k6.tu3 <TO(f>la, as having
been in the Pleroma, has in her something of the spiritual or real existence, and
therefore imparts to the matter into wliicli she falls the seed of life.

' This is what was visible in Jesus. According to Irenaeus (i 1. 13 — IT. vol. i p.

GENTILE ATTEMPTS AT INTERPRETATION 91

awakes the soul of men out of sleep and fans into flame the
spiritual spark within them by virtue of the perfect knowledge
he communicates ; and, as the consort of Achamoth, by the sign
of the cross leads back the souls that he rescues out of the
power of the Denuurge into the region of spiritual life. And
so there is a restoration of the heavenly element in the human
frame struggling to return to its native place, and the material
part is dissolved. But it is not all men who are capable of
such redemption. By Valentinus the nature of man was con-
ceived as threefold : the bodily part (itself twofold, one subtle,
hylic, and one gross, earthy), the soul derived from the Demiurge,
and the spirit derived from Achamoth. And men themselves
fell into three classes according as one or other of these elements
prevailed. The spiritual were only a select few from among men,
and they were certain of salvation ; the bodily were incapable
of salvation ; the others, forming an intermediate class between
the two extremes, might either rise to the higher or sink to the
lower lot. By the introduction of this middle class Valentinus
intended no doubt to soften the hardness of the line of demar-
cation between the Gnostic and all other men. But the principle
remained the same, and the general feeling in regard to it was
fairly expressed by Irenaeus ^ when he declared that it was
" better and more expedient for men to be ignorant and of little
learning, and to draw near to God through love, than to think
themselves very learned and experienced and be found blas-
phemers against their Lord "}

The Influence of Gnosticism on the Developement of Christian

Doctrine

It is not easy to compute exactly the influence of Gnosticism
on the developement of Christian doctrine. It is certain that its

61) the nature of Christ, as conceived by Valentinus, was fourfold: (1) a nvevfia
or 9j)iritual princifile («uf;h as wiis derived from Aclianiotli) ; (2) a \pvxv or animal
soul derived from the Domiurgo ; (3) a 'heavenly' body, formed by a speeial
dispensation, visible, tangible, passible, not of the substance of the Virgin — who
was only the channel by wliich it came into the world ; (4) the pre-existent Saviour
who descended in the form of a dove at the Hai)li.sni and withdrew with the spiritual
principle before the Crucifixion. (There was thus no real humanity or body ; it was
only ai)parent, doeetic.)

' Iren. ii 39— ZT. vol. i p. 34.5.

' Of the school of Valentinus was Theodotus, whose writings were well
known to Clement. See the Excerpta ex Scriptia Theodoli (extracts made perhaps

92 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

triinnph would liave meant the overthrow of Christianity as a
historical religion and the disruption and ruin of the Church.
It is said that its influence was almost entirely negative — in
that it discredited Dualism and the negation of the human free
will and Old Testament criticism, and by its appeal to apostolic
writings and tradition which were not genuine occasioned the
formal establishment of genuine apostolic standards in the
Church.^ If, however, it is ditlicult to point to any definite
positive influence of Gnostic thought on the developement of the
doctrine of the Church (which had, of course, begun and went
on independently); it seems probable that it played an im-
portant part in rousing or stimulating interest in Christianity,
as not only the practical way of salvation but also the trutli and
the way of knowledge in its widest sense ; and that it did much
to introduce studies, literature, and art into the Christian Church,^
and to force the great teachers to shew that in Christianity was
contained the essence of all the truth there was in the pre-
Christian religions.^

To this end, at any rate, some of the greatest devoted their
energy, and in the working out of the doctrine of the Divine Logos,*
and of his Incarnation in Jesus Christ, there was found — as a sub-
stitute for the wild conceptions of the Gnostics — the expression
which seemed to the more philosophical and cultured Christians
to satisfy the unique conditions of the Gospel revelation.^

But there were other difficulties in the way of the accept-
ance of the Logos doctrine, and strong currents of thought and

by Clement for his own use) ; Migue F. O. ix pp. 653-698. An account of his
system in Bigg I.e. p. 31 ff.

1 E.g. Loof's, p. 73.

' See King Gnostic Oems. So Dorner Person of Christ Eng. tr. vol. i p. 254
writes "hardly anyone could wish that the Church miglit have escaped the Gnostic
storms".

» See Ilarnack's account of the results— Z)(7. Eng. tr. vol. ii p. 317.

* Before Gnosticism the term Logos (cf. St John's Gospel) seems to have been little
used and taken rather in the sense of Reason. Christ was more commonly spoken of
in this connexion as the Wisdom (cf. 1 Cor. 1", Col. 2», Matt. U^\ Luke l^* 11«).

* Dorner (i p. 252) points out the witness both of Ebionism and of Gnosticism
to the Chri-stological conceptions of the early Church. Eliionism asserted that the
genuine Church truth held only the humanity of Christ. This clearly shews that
the humanity was universally acknowledged — otherwise Ebionism could not, in
laying stress on this, have claimed a Christian character. Gnosticism, on the other
hand, proposed to find the deeper meaning of Christianity by emphasizing the higher
element in Christ. This presupjjo.ses that the Church recognized this element, but
did not give it adequate expression from attaching weight also to the humanity.

GENTILE ATTEMPTS AT INTERPRETATION 93

feeling to be stemmed before the haven of agreement could be
reached.

MANICHEISM

Manicheism was a school of thought in some of its chief features
closely akin to Gnosticism, aiming at similar ends ; but it is not easy to
give in short compass a satisfactory account of it. A few notes on its
connexion with the history of Christian doctrine must suffice.

(1) The source of nearly all Christian accounts is the Acta Archelai,
which professes to report dialogues between Manes and Archelaus (a
Bishop of Carchar in ^Mesopotamia) in the reign of Probus (supposed to
have been composed in Syriac and translated into Greek, but probably
spurious and composed in Greek in the fourth century — now extant in
a Latin translation from the Greek, long fragments of which are quoted
by Epiphanius adv. Haer. Ixvi 6, 25-31 ; cf. Cyril Cat. vi 27 ff.). More
is to be learnt from Titus, Bishop of Bostra, in Arabia (c. 362-370), who
wrote four books against the Manichaeans (the first two of which are
extant in Greek, and all in a Syriac translation). He derived his infor-
mation from a book of a follower of Manes, but softened down the
doctrines so as not to give offence, and thereby opened the way to mis-
understanding. But most trustworthy is the testimony of Mohammedan
historians of later times (ninth to twelfth centuries), who had better
opportunities of information about the literature (Babylon having been
the birthplace and remaining the centre of the movement till the
tenth century, the head of the sect residing there), while they had
no polemical purpose, being led to their investigations by a genuine
scientific curiosity. For the form which Manicheism assumed in the
West the works of Augustine on the system are the chief authority. J

(2) Manes was born about 215 at Ctesiphon, whither his father had
moved from Pxbatana. Originally an idolater, he had joined the sect
of * Ablutioners' (who also laid special stress on vegetarianism and
abstinence from wine), and Manes was brought up in this sect, and its
essentially ascetic character was the chief mark of the hybrid type of
religion which he conceived. He first came forward as a teacher at a
great festival in March 242, and preached for years in the East of
Babylonia, and in India and China, obtaining favour in high quarters
— from officers of state and the king himself. But between 273 and
276, through the hostility of the Magi, he was put to di'ath as a
heretic, and flayed, and his head was set up over a gate still known by
his name in the eleventh century

(3) The religion was essentially dualistic, based on the contrast
between light and darkness, good anrl evil, conceived in poetical form
(as was usual in the East) as a struggle between personal agents,
and elaborated in a manner somewhat similar to that of the Gnostic

94 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

cosmologies. No distinction was drawn between the physical and the
ethical, and thus " religious knowledge could bo nothing but the know-
ledge of nature and its elements, and redemption consisted exclusively
in a physical deliverance of the fractions of light from darkness. . .
Ethics became a doctrine of abstinence from all elements arising from
the realm of darkness" (Harnack). The powers of darkness or evil
sought to bind men (who always had some share of light) to themselves
through sensuous attractions, error, and false religions (especially that of
Moses and the prophets); while the spirits of light were always trying
to recall to its source the light which was in men, by giving them the
true gnosis as to nature — through prophets and preachers of the truth,
such as Adam, Noah, Abraham, Zoroaster, Buddha, Jesus (in some form),
and Manes himself — who was held to be the last and greatest prophet,
the guide, the ambassador of light, the Paraclete, by whose instrument-
ality the separation of light from darkness is accomplished. Practical
religion thus became a rigorous asceticism, abstaining from all sensuous
enjoyment (the three seals, the signaculum oris, manus, et sinus — the
mouth, the hand, the breast — symbolized the complete abstinence from
everything containing elements of darkness), practising constant fasts (in
all about a quarter of the year) and ablutions and prayers four times a day.
Such an asceticism, however, was only possible for comparatively few,
and a twofold moral standard was permitted, only the 'perfect'
Manichaeans — the elect — fulfilling these strict rules, while the lower
class of secular Manichaeans, catechumens or hearers (auditores), were
only required to avoid idolatry, witchcraft, and sensual vices, and to
kill no living creature. Worship consisted exclusively of prayers and
hymns ; they had no temples, altars, or images.

(4) To the difficult question why Manicheism spread so far and
wide, Harnack gives the answer that its strength was due to the combi-
nation of ancient mythology and a vivid materialistic dualism with an
extremely simple spiritual cultus and a strict morality — supplemented
by the personality of the founder. It retained the mythologies of
the Semitic nature-religions, but substituted a spiritual worship and a
strict morality. It offered revelation, redemption, moral virtue, and im-
mortality and spiritual blessings, on the ground of nature-religion ;
while the learned and the ignorant, the enthusiast and the man of the
world, could all find a welcome. And it presented a simple — apparently
profound and yet easy — solution of the pressing problem of good and
evil.

(5) Why it should have gained recruits among Christians is a
further question. To Western Christians there were great obstacles in
the foreign language and the secret script in which the books were
written, and they must have derived their knowledge from oral sources.
Manes himself seems to have been very little influenced by Christianity;

GENTILE ATTEMPTS AT INTERPRETATION 95

as presented by the Church he must have regarded it as full of errors,
but he probably drew from the forms it had assumed among the followers
of Bardesanes and Marcion. His system had points of contact with
the ancient Babylonian religion^one of the sources of all the gnosis of
Western Asia, transformed by Christian and Persian elements into a
philosophy of the world and of life (Buddhism seems to have made no
contributions). The doctrine of the Incarnation was rejected ; yet the
Western Manichaeans succeeded in giving the system a kind of Christian
colour, while retaining its rigid physical Dualism, its rationalizing
character, and its repudiation of the Old Testament. At its first
appearance in the Roman Empue it was probably as a sect originating in
Persia, an inveterate enemy and object of fear to the Roman government,
that it was denounced by an edict of Diocletian, c. 287 or 308. Eusebius
knew little about them, but by the middle of the fourth century they
had spread widely in the empire, particularly among the monks and
clergy of Egypt and North Africa. Owing to their principle of mystical
acceptance and interpretation of orthodox language, they could hold the
position of Christian bishops or conform outwardly to Mohammedan
rites. Besides the distinction between Electi and Auditores there was
a carefully graduated hierarchy of travelling missionaries, deacons,
presbyters, seventy-two bishops, and twelve apostles — with a thirteenth
(or one of the twelve) representing Manes as head of all. Severe
laws against them were promulgated by Valentinian (372) and Theodosiua
(381), but they were very active in the time of Augustine, who was for
nine years an auditor. They also reached Spain and Gaul, through
Dacia, along the highroad to North Italy (they were feared and
denounced as pseudo-ecclesia by Niceta of Remesiana + c 414 — see his
'Sermon on the Creed' Migne P.L. lii. p. 871); and at Rome
itself their docliinos had a large following. Active measures against
them were taken by Leo, supported by the civil power, and edicts of
Valentinian in and Justinian made banishment, and even death, the
penalty. Yet Manichcism lasted till far on into the Middle Ages in
East and West. [See D.C.B. Art. 'Manichaeans', and Harnack DO.
Eng. tr. vol. iii p. 316 ff. I am also indebted to a lecture by trot
Bevan.] f]

CHAPTER VII

Attempts to Maintain, on ' Monarciiian ' Lines, altkf the
Oneness and Sole Eule of God and the JJivinhy of

CUUIST

MONA ROHIA NISM

It was in conflict with Monarchianism that the doctrine of the
Logos (and of the Trinity) was developed. Against Gnosticism.
with its number of ' aeons ' intermediate between God and
Creation, the champions of tlie primitive Christian faith in the
second century were driven to insist on the sole and independent
and absolute existence and being and rule of God. " On the
Monarchy of God " was the title of a treatise written at this
time, it is said, by Irenaeus to a presbyter of Rome, Florinus, who
had been led to Gnostic views. One God there was, and one God
only, who made and rules the world, and Christians could recog-
nize none other gods but Him : and it was possible to hold this
belief without believing that this one God was the maker
of evil.^

So, in origin, Monarchianism was an * orthodox ' reaction to
an earlier tradition. But it was soon turned against the orthodox
theroselves.^

The doctrine of the divinity of Christ, accepted at first with-
out precision of statement by the consciousness of Christians,
when subjected to closer logical examination, seemed to be
irreconcileable with the belief in the unity of God, and so to
endanger the dominant principle that God is One. Many who

'The full title of the treatise is given by Eusebius H.E. v 20, 'Concerning
Monarchia, or that God is not the Author of Evil Things '. It is clear (though
Eusebius niisundurstood the difficulty of Florinus) that Irenaeus wrote to sliew that
the belief in a single first principle did not necessarily lead to the conclusion that
evil was His work.

* So Tertullian adv. Prax. 1 says that the Devil, who vies with the truth in
various ways, makes himself the champion of the doctrine that God is One, in order
to manufacture heresy out of the word ' one '.

MONARCHIANISM 97

differed in other ways agreed in their dread of undermining this
belief. Tertullian describes them as " simple folk (not to call
them shortsighted and ignorant) of whom the majority of believers
is always composed ", who " since the very Creed itself brings
them over from the many gods of the world to the one true
God, not understanding that He is to be believed as one, but in
connexion with His own ' economy ', are afraid of the divine
' economy '} And so they keep saying that two — yea, three —
gods are preached by us, while they themselves profess to be
worshippers of the one God. We hold fast, they say, to the
Monarchy ". So Hippoly tus described Zephyrinus, on account of
similar fears, as " an ignorant man inexperienced in the defini-
tions of the Church " ; and Origen wrote of the matter as one
" which disturbed many who, while they boasted of their devotion
to God, were anxious to guard against the confession of two
gods ".* Such men accordingly were called ' Monarchians ', and
during the third century the Church had to devote itself to the
attempt to attain a true conception of God, consistent with the
unity of His being, and yet with the divinity of Christ.

To Monarchians two alternatives were open. They might
defend the monarchy by denying the full divinity of Christ, or
reducing it to a quality or force : or else they might maintain
the divinity to the full, but deny it any individual existence
apart from God the Father. So we find two classes of Monarchians,
akin respectively to the Ebionites and to the Gnostics. The one
class (rationalist or dynamic Monarchians^) resolved the divinity
of Christ into a mere power bestowed on him by God, while
admitting his supernatural generation by the Holy Spirit, and
regarded Jesus as attaining the status of Son of God rather than
by essential nature being divine. Of such were the Alogi,
Theodotus, Artomon, and Paul of Samosata. The other class,
merging the divinity of Christ into the essence of the Father,
recognizf'd no indepnndont personality of Christ, regarding the
Incarnation as a mode of the existence or manifestation of the
Father. To this class belong Praxeas, Noctus, Callistus, T5eryllu8,
and Sabellitis. They are known as ' Patripassians ' (see infra

' oUovofda — the providential ordering and government of the world, so the plan
or system of revelation, so especially the Incarnation. Tert. adv. Prax. 8.

' Origon on John 2'.

• Harnaok labels them ' Adoptionist', Imt tlio title docs not seem to bo HjK'cially
appropriate to them, and it belongs peculiarly and by common consent to a mode of
thought of later date. ?I

98 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

p. 103 n. 2), or Sabellians (from the chief exponent of the system
in its most developed form), or ' modalistic ' Monarchians.

The a loo I

The earliest representatives of these Monarchians seem to
have been the ' Alogi ', so called because they rejected not the
Logos doctrine altogether, but the Gospel of St John, which was
its strongest apostolic witness. They believed Cerinthus to have
been the author of it, and based their doctrine on the Synoptic
Gospels only, accepting the supernatural birth, and in some
sense the divinity, but not the developed Logos doctrine, nor the
doctrine of the Holy Spirit. They did not, probably, admit
distinctions within the Godhead ; such deity as resided in Christ
being the deity of the Father, pre-existent therefore, and
brought into peculiar union with the man Jesus, but whether in
that union remaining personal or being a mere force seems not
to be determined. And so the Alogi were possibly the point of
departure for both forms of Monarchian thought ; but very little
is known about them, and it is not clear that they ever existed
as a definite sect at all.^^

(a) 'Dynamic' Monarciiianism

The Theodotians

Theodotus, the first representative of the dynamic Monarch-
ians whose name is recorded, was described by Epiphanius as an
' offshoot of the heresy of the Alogi ', and by the author of the
Little Labyrinth as ' the captain and father of this God-denying
heresy '. In common with the Alogi he laid most stress on the
reality of the human nature and life of Christ and the Synoptists'
record, and while refusing the title God to him believed he was
at baptism endowed with superhuman power.^ He was a

' 'Alogi' is a, nickname coined by Epiphanius adv. Hacr. li. It is uncertain
from what source he derived his information about this school of thinkers, and it is
possible that, with his love for rigid classification, he is mistaken in representing
them as a definite sect. But Irenaeus adv. Uaer. iii 11, H. ii p. 51 (misunderstood
by Harvey of the Montanists) seems to justify his account in this respect.

' He is said by Tertullian de Praescr. 53 to have regarded Christ as a mere man,
though bom of the Virgin. But neither he nor any of the school really held Christ
to be an ordinary man. Their creed was probably : Jesus miraculously bom,

MONARCHIANISM 99

leather-seller of Byzantium who came to Eome, and was excom-
municated by the Bishop Victor (c. 195), himself a 'modalist'.

The same views were held by a second Theodotus, a banker
at Eome, a student of the Peripatetic philosophy and a critic
and interpreter of Scripture^ in the time of Zephyrinus
(199-217).

The Theodotians regarded the Logos as identical with the
Father, having no personal existence of his own, but only the
' circumscription ' ^ of the Father attaching to him from eternity
in which alone we are enabled to know God. That is to say,
the Logos is a ' limitation ' of the Father — the infinitude of God
brought, as it were, within bounds. In effect, the Logos is God
in the aspect of revelation to man. It was the image of the
Logos that Christ bore. In becoming incarnate in him the
Logos took not only flesh but personality from man, and used it
for the purpose of his mission. The person of Christ is thus
entirely human, with the Logos as controlling Spirit. Similar
incarnations had taken place in the prophets.

Artemon

Artemon (al. Artemas), a later member of the school at
Rome, asserted that it was an innovation to designate Clirist
* God ', appealed to Scripture and the Apostles' preaching, and
tried to prove that all the Eoman bishops down to Victor had
been of his opinion. Tliis attempt to claim the authority of
Scripture and tradition for such views was vigorously contested

equipjted by baptism, and prepared for exaltation by the ro.s>irrection (so that the
title God might be givon him when risen) ; stress being laid on his moral devclope-
ment {TTpoKoirrj) and the moral jiroof of his sonship — by growth in character he grew
to be divine.

' On the biblical criticism and textual 'corrections' and dialectic mctliod of the
Theodotians, sec Eusib. I/.K v 28. 13, quoting the Little Labyrinth. The author
of this refutation of their fe-aching charged thorn with falsifying and corrupting
the Scri[)ture3, and with preferring Euclid and Aristotle and Galen to the sacred
writers. The charge may be tnie ; but it is at least jjossilile that tliey were genuine
biblical critics making bondfcU attemjits to secure the true text in an uncritical
age, and to a[iply scientific methods of interpretation. So H.irnack is dispo.scd to
hail them as better .scholars than their opixments {DO. Kng. tr. vol. iii p. 26).
They themselves, in turn, after the time of Zephyrinus, brought a counter-charge
against the Roman f'hurch, accusing it of having reeoined the truth, like forgers,
by omitting tiie word 'One' with 'God' in the \>Tutniiva Cmod {ao Z&hu Apostle^
Creed Eng. tr. p. 35).

* vtpiypaip^ is the word used, see infra p. 1 10 n. 1.

100 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

by the author of the Little Labyrinth,^ who aimed at shewing
that from the earliest times Christians had regarded Christ as
God, and he succeeded so far at least that this form of Mon-
archianism soon passed into obscurity in Kome. The explana-
tion that Christ was supernaturally born, superior in sinlessuess
and virtue to the prophets, and so attaining to unique r'jgnity,
but yet a man, not God — this was felt to be no adequate
interpretation of the power he wielded in his lifetime and ever
since over the minds and hearts of men. Yet in the West it
lingered ; and the hold which it had is shewn by the fact that
Augustine, a little time before his conversion, actually thought it
was the Catholic doctrine. " A man of excellent wisdom, to
whom none other could be compared " he thought a true descrip-
tion of Christ, " especially because he was miraculously born of
a virgin, to set us an example of despising worldly things for the
attainment of immortality ". . . . And he held that he merited
the highest authority as a teacher, " not because he was the
Person of Truth, but by some great excellence and perfection of
this human nature, due to the participation of wisdom

Paul of Samosata ff

Of this dynamic or rationalist Monarchianism the most
influential teacher was a Syrian ; Paul of Samosata, — a man oi
affairs as well as a theologian, for some years Bishop of Antioch
and chancellor to Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra, to whose kingdom
Antioch at this time belonged.^ Following Artemon, and laying
all stress on the unity of God as a single person, he denied any
' hypostasis ' of the wisdom or Logos of God — regarding the
intelligence or reason in the human heart as analogous. The

^ Anonymous, perhaps by Hippolytus (c. 230 or 240) ; extracts in Euseb. H.E.
v28.

' Augustine Confessions, vii 19 [25], ed. Bigg.

' See Euseb. H.E. vii 30. He was appointed bishop in 260, and deposed on
account of his heretical views by the Council held at Antioch in 268 or 269, two
previous synods having proved ineffective. He refused, however, to submit to the
decree of deposition, and would not vacate the episcopal residence, and so became
the cause of the first appeal by the Church to the civil power, technically on a
question of property. After the fall of his protectress Zenobia in 272 Aureiian
decided against him ; the ecclesiastical fabrica were to belong to the bishop who
was recognized as such by the Bishops of Italy and Rome. Political motives, as well
as ecclesiastical, ])robably contributed to this decision. Paul's fall was one of the
e«rly victories of Kome.

MONARCHIANISM 101

Logos therefore could not ever come into personal existence ;
even though he might be called the Son of God, such a title was
only a description of the high nature of the power of the divine
Logos. A real incarnation of the Logos was thus impossible ;
He existed in Jesus not essentially or personally, but only as a
quality.^ The personality of Jesus was entirely human ; ^ it was
not that the Sou of God came down from heaven, but that the
Son of man ascended up on high. The divine power within
him grew greater and greater as the course of his human
developement proceeded, till at last through its medium he
reached divinity.^ Whether this goal was attained after the
Baptism or not till after the Eesurrection is not decided ;
but the union, such as it is, between God the Supreme and
Christ the Son of God is one of disposition and of will —
the only union possible, in the thought of Paul, between two
persons.

He was thus represented as teaching that Jesus Christ was
' from below ', and that the Son was non-existent before the
Nativity ; and the synods which considered his conceptions were
at pains to maintain the distinct individual existence of the
Logos as Son of God before all time, who had himself taken
active personal part in the work of Creation, and was himself
incarnate in Jesus Christ*

His condemnation by no moans disposed of his views.^ If we
caimot say with certainty that he is the direct ancestor of
Arianism, we know that Arius and the chief members of the
Arian party had been pupils of Lucian (a native of the same
city of Samosata), who, while Paul was bishop, was head of the
theological school of Antioch, and seems to have combined the
Monaichian ado])tionism of Paul with conceptions of the person
of Christ derived from Origen " ; while in tlie great theologians of
Antioch, a century later still, a portion of the spirit of Paul of

' ovK ovani)^!^ dXXA Arari woidTijTa.

'■' 80 Kii.sebiuH s.aya "he was caiiglit descriliing Clirist as a man, deemed worthy
in 8iir|>asHiiig measure of divine giace ".

• Cf. Atlianasius de Synodis '2(5, 45, (luntiiig tlin Macrostich, iK TrpoKoirrji reOeo-
voiTJffOai— i^ dvOpwirov yiyove 0(b%. See Halm ^ g ].')9.

* Sru lliihii " § 151. Sec note on Paul's use of bixoovaio^ infra j). 111.

' llarniick jioints to the Ada Archdai §§ 49, 50, as shewing the prevalence of
similar conceptions in the East at the hcginning of the fourth century. The
Council of Nicaca, by ordering the rchuptism of followers of Paul, treated them as
not being Christians at all.

' .See Additional Note on Lucian infra p. 110.
9

102 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Samosata lived again, and in the persons of a Theodore and a
Nebtorius ^ was again condemned.

(h) 'MODALISTIC' MONA?vCinANISM

llie rationalist or ' dynamic ' form of Monarchian teaching
was so obviously destructive of the real divinity of Jesus that it
can scarcely have been a serious danger to the faith in the
Incarnation. Much more likely to attract devout and earnest
thinkers was the ' modalistic ' doctrine. While maintaining the
full divinity of Christ it was safe from the reproach of ditheism,
and free from all connexion with emanation theories and
subordination. The doctrine of an essential or immanent
Trinity (the conception of three eternal hypostases) had not as
yet been realized in full consciousness. The chief concern of
the exponents of Christian doctrine had been to establish the
personal pre-existence of Christ and his essential unity with the
Father (against Ebionism), and so the distinction between him
and the Father might be somewhat blurred ; and though, of
course, opposition to Ebionism was never carried so far as to
ignore the real humanity of Christ, still it would tend to relegate
to the back<4round the evidence for the distinction between the
Father and the Son which is implied in the incarnation. And
to all who felt the infinite value of the atonement elfected by
Christ — the power of the death upon the Cross — the theory
which seemed to represent the Father Himself as suffering would
appear to furnish a more adequate explanation of the facts than
Ebionism had to offer.^ So it is easy to understand the great
impression which was made by the earliest representatives of the
' modalistic ' school of thought, Noetus and Praxeas,^ both of
whom came from Asia Minor (the home of Monarcliian views)
to Kome towards the end of the second century.

^ Paul seems to be differentiated from Nestorius chiefly by the denial of the
personality of the Logos.

" The ' unreflecting faith ' of the Church and the vagueness of its doctrine at
this time is shewn in the phrases used by Irenaeus {e.g. 'niensura PatrLs filius ') and
Clement of Alexandria (e.g. 'the Son is the countenance of the Father') and Melito
(Oebs iritrovBiv vvb 5e|tas lapariXlridos).

* Our knowledge of Noetus conies from Hippolytus (lie/. Haer. ix ad init., x 23
(72), and the syiccial treatise c. Noet.). Hipi)olytU3 does not mention Praxeas,
against whom Tertullian wrote as the originator of the hf-resy, without mentioning
Noetus. Probably Praxeas had founded no school at Kome, and Hippolytus had
no knowledge of him. 5

MONARCHIANISM 103

Praxeas and Noetus

Praxeas, already a ' confessor ' for the faith, was welcomed
in Rome, and with the information he was able to give of the
excesses of the Montanists in the East proved to be a strong
opponent of the new movement which was then threatening the
order of the Church. The ' modalism ' which he represented was
for some time prevalent and popular at Eome, and it appears
that the erroneous character of his teaching was not discovered
till after his departure to Carthage. Early in the third century ^
Tertullian wrote against him (using his name as a label for the
heresy), and in epigrammatic style described him as having done
' two jobs for the Devil at Eome ', — " He drove out prophecy and
introduced heresy : he put to flight the Paraclete and crucified
the Father". In this rhetorical phrase he expressed the infer-
ence which was promptly drawn from the teaching of Praxeas
and Noetus. If it was the case that the one God existed in
two ' modes ', and the Son was identical with the Father, then
the Father Himself had been born, and had suffered and died.
Hence the nickname Patripassians,* which was generally applied
in the West to this school of Mouarchians. In word, at all
events, it was unfair. While denying the existence of any real
distinction in the being of God Himself (which would amount,
they thought, to ' duality ', however disguised), they seem to have
admitted a distinction (dating at least from the Creation) between
the invisible God and God revealed in the universe, in the
theophanies of the Old Testament, and finally in the human
body in Christ ; and the name Father was restricted to the in-
visible God, who in revelation only could be called the Logos or
the Son.

A compromise perhaps was found ^ in tlie theory that the

' The exact date is uncertain — c. 210, Ilarnack.

' Orij;cn explains Palripassiani as those who identify the Father and the Son,
and represent them as one jxTson under two difTirciit names. Tlioy did not them-
selves accept tlie inference ; e.ij. Zciiliyriniis nvowed, " 1 know one God Clirint Jesus,
and besides him no otlier originate and passible", — but also, " It was not the Father
who died, but tlie Son ". In two eascH only that are known to us was tlie Creed
exjianded (to cx<:lude the idea that the F.ilher sutlered) by the addition of the words
'invisibile' aiifl ' imjiassibile ' to the first article : viz. in the Creed of the Church of
Aquili'iii niiilin* J). 42i, and in the Creed of Auxentius, the s-enii-Arian piedcce.sKor
of Atiibrose as bishoji of Milan, whose Creed may be the baptismal Creed of
Cappadocia (Hahn* p. 148).

* Possibly by Callistus, whose modified ' Praxeanism ' Tertullian is thought tti be

104 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Father, unborn, invisible (though as Spirit, as invisible God, He
could not suffer), somehow participated in the suHeriugs of Christ,
the Son who was born — " The Son suffers, the Father however
shares in the suffering " ; tliough really in such a compromise
the essential principle of Modal ism would be lost.*

Noetus, however, when brought face to face with the logical
issue, seems to have scorned all compromise. There was one
God, the Father, invisible or manifesting Himsolf as He pleased,
but whether visible or invisible, begotten or unbegotten, always
the same. The Logos is only a designation of God when He
reveals Himself to the world and to men. The Father, so far
as He deigns to be born, is tlie Son. He is called Son for a
certain time, and in reference to His experiences on earth ; the
Son, or Christ, is therefore the Father veiled in flesh, and it was
the Father Himself who became man and suffered. The dis-
tinction seems accordingly to be not merely nominal, but is
connected with the history and process of redemption, though it
leaves the Incarnation dependent on an act of will. The two
great aims of these Monarchians — to safeguard the unity of God
(against what they regarded as the ditheistic tendencies of tlieir
opponents), and to uphold the divinity of Christ — are curiously
shewn in the two different versions which have come to us of the
answer which Noetus made to his assailants. " Why ! what
harm have I done ? I believe in one God " — so Epiphanius
reports him ; or " Why ! what harm am I doing in glorifying
Christ ? " — as Hippolytus gives his words.*

Scibellius and his Followers

For these two aims so much support could naturally be
obtained, that in spite of excommunication the teaching of
Noetus was carried on by his pupil Epigonus and later by
Cleomenes and Sabellius as heads of the party at Eome. What

attacking under the name of Praxeaa. "Filius patitur, j)ater vero compatitur."
"Compassus est pater filio."

^ It involves a distinction in the person of the Lord between Christ the divine
and Jesus the human — the latter sulFering actually, the former indirectly ; the
latter being the Son (the llesh) and the former the Father (the spirit). Cf. Ircnaeiis,
Hahn* p. 7. Cf. the Ariaii cou'eptimi — the Logos co7njialUur with the liuiiian
which patitur in the person of Christ. See Hahu" § 161 (the Synod of Sirmium
357), and i7i./ru jip. 180, 181 noles.

' tL ovv Ka.Kbv ireirol-qKa ; iva Oebf 5o^6.j^ii) — Epiphanius. rl oZf KaKhv iroiOi, So^dj'w*
■^bv Xpicrrif — Hippolytus.

MONARCHIANISM 105

exactly each contributed we cannot tell : even of Sabellius the
full accounts belong to the fourth century.^ To him the developed
form of the teaching — embracing the whole Trinity — seems to
be due,^ and it is by his name that the champions of the theory
were best known throughout the East (' Patripassians ' or
' Monarchians ' being the usual designation in the West).

God is, according to his teaching, essentially one, and the
Trinity which he recognizes is a Trinity not of essence but of
revelation ; not in the essential relations of the Deity within
itself, but in relation to the world outside and to mankind. The
relations expressed by the three names are co-ordinate, forming
together a complete description of the relations of the one self-
evolving God to all outside Him. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
are simply designations of three different phases under which the
one divine essence reveals itself — three names of one and the same
being.^ He seems to have adopted the language of the Church
80 far as to speak of three ' persons ', using tlie term irpoawira,
but in so difl'erent a sense (meaning parts or rules of manifesta-
tion rather than ' persons ') that the word was altogether dis-
credited in the East. These different parts or functions were
assumed to meet the varying needs of the occasion ; one and
the same God appearing now as Father, now as Son, and
now as Holy Spirit. The account that Basil gives implies a
merely temporary assumption of each part, but it is possible that
Sabellius taught * that God had, rather, put forth His activity in
separate stages : first, in the * person ' of the Fatlier as Creator
and Lawgiver ; secondly, in the ' person ' of the Son as Eedeemer
(in the work of the Incarnation up to the Ascension) ; and
thinlly, after the redemption was effected, in the ' person ' of the
Spirit as giver and preserver of life. In any case it is clear

' He was liy h\\\\\ a Liliyan of Pcnt.apolis in Africa, active at Rome in tlie early
part of tlie tliinl (•cntiity (c. 19S-'J17). Of liis \vritinj,'s, if ho wrote anything,
phra-sca may be extant in \\\Y\yi'>\yi\xs {Ref. Ilufr. ix)an(l in Ath.injisius(r.(7. Or. c. Ar.
iv)— the earliest accounts of liiin. Cf. Jlasil /:'/'/). 210, 21 1, 235 ; Kpiiih. (ulv. Hae.r.
62. It is probable that ideas of which M.ini'lliis was the originator have been
erroneously attributed to him, but Athanasius (I.e. esp. §§ 13, 14, 211) ccrtiinly says
tli.'tt cnn''f'ptiona of expansion and contr.iclinn were taught liy Sabellius, and not,
as some have argued, tli;it their natural consc(|U(:nc('8 were Sabcllian.

' It ia possible that ho went beyond Noetus only in including the Holy Spirit in
his theory.

' He even coined a word vloiriTdyp (Son-Father) to exclude the thought of two
beings.

* As Hamack understands Epiphanius and Athanasius.

106 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

that there is no permanence about such ' personalities '. There is
no real incarnation ; no personal indissoluble union of the God-
head with the Manhood took place in Christ. God only mani-
fested Himself in Christ, and when the part was played and the
curtain fell upon that act in the great drama there ceased to be
a Christ or Son of God. This conception of a merely transitory
personality of Christ ^ (which seems to involve the negation of
an eternal personal life for any one) is essentially pantheistic.
All the Monarchian theories really strike in this way at the
root of the Christian interpretation of life. If God Himself, as
final being, as a whole, so to speak, comes forth in revelation
and nothing is left behind, then God passes over into the world
and becomes the world, and nothing but the world is left.
It is clearly impossible, on any Christian theory of the world
and of the divine economy, that God should exist even for a
moment only in a single mode, or that the Incarnation should be
only a temporary and transient manifestation.

And, further, Sabellianism, in recognizing only a Trinity in
human experience, disregards the fact that such a Trinity of
revelation is only possible if the very being of the Godhead,
which is thus revealed, is itself a Trinity.

Partial SpnjMfhy with Sabellianism at Rome

In Rome, though the fierce opposition of Hippolytus* got
little support, and Callistus ^ at first was favourable to the
modalistic conceptions, Sabellius was condemned and excommuni-
cated, and the Monarchians soon found few followers in the
West,* though, as Ilarnack points out, the hold which they had
had for twenty or thirty years on the Roman Church left a per-
manent mark. It was Rome that condemned Origen, the ally
of Hippolytus. Rome was invoked against Dionysius of Alex-

^ Contrast with it the Catholic interpretation according to which Christ \& the
eternal centre of regenerated humanity.

" See esp. Ref. Haer. bk. ix, and see Additional Note on Hiiipolytus i'nfra p. 108.

* Callistus was bitterlj' attacked by Hippolytus for his protection of the school
of which Epigonus and Cleonienes, and later on Sabellius, had been head. It is
probable tliat Callistus, as Zephyrinus before him, simply wished to 8tx;ure as much
toleration and comprehension as possible, to protect the Church from the rabies
theologorum (as Harnack plirascs it). The compromise which he attempted has
been alluded to above. He was ultimately driven to excommunicate the leaders on
either side, both Sabellius and nij>[)olytus.

* Cyprian could class PaLripaissiani with ' ceterae haereticorum pestes ' {E^. 73. 4).

MONARCHIANISM 107

andria. Eome and the West were chiefly responsible for the
ofiooixTLov formula of Nicaea (so long opposed as Sabellian).
Rome received Marcellus, who carried out the Sabellian prin-
ciples, and rejected r/oet? viroa-Taaei,^ and supported the Eusta-
thians at Antioch. And finally, it was with Eome that
Athanasius was most at one. Indeed, Sabelliauism no doubt
prepared the way for the Niceue theology — the full recognition
of the truth underlying the principles of modalism being a
necessary step in that direction ; though it also led immediately,
on the other hand, to the developement of the Origenistic Christ-
ology in the direction of Arianism. One of the intermediate
stages — the prelude to the Arian struggle — was the controversy
between Dionysius of Alexandria and Dionysius of Kome.

NOVATIAN

That the Sabellian view did not prevail at Rome is seen from the
treatise On the Trinity by Novatian, the most learned of the presbyters
of Rome in the middle of the third century. It is the theology of
Africa — an ' epitome of Tertullian's work ', as Jerome styled it. It pro-
fesses to be an exposition of the Rule of Faith, and as such includes " a
doctrine of God in the sense of the popular philosophy, a doctrine of the
Trinity like Tertullian's (though without all his technical terras), and
the recognition of the true manhood of Christ along with his true God-
head " (Loofs). His doctrine of the Trinity can, however, still be
described as ' economic ' rather than essential. Though he regards the
existence {or generation) of the Son as eternal in the past, he speaks of
the future consummation as though the distinction of persons (Father
and Son) would cease. The idea of communio suhstantiae {pfio-ovdla) is
combined with that of subordination. It is clear that he makes it his
Bj)ccial concern to oppose Sabelliauism, and to maintain the personality
of tlie Son. So he keeps i\\^ per sonar um distinctio, speaks of Christ as
eecunda persona post patrem and of the proprietas personae suae, and
regards the union in its moral aspect as concord. Ho even speaks of the
Son as proceeding from the Father when the Father willed. ]!ut at the
Bame time he insists on the suhsfaidiae comvumio. In respect of the
person of Christ he is concerned to maintfiin both the true deity and the
true liuinanity — the fdius dei and the Jitius hominis. The union is
emj)hasiz('d — the Jilius hominis is made by it the fUus dei — but the
nature of the union is not discussed. The doctrine of the Logos falls
into the background. [The authority of Jerome de Vir. III. c. 70, who
names the treatise as Novatian's, while lie notes that many "who did
not know" thought it was Cyprian's (or Tertullian's) may be accepted.

108 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

in spite of more modem doubts ; cf. Harnack Gesch. der allchristl.
Litteratur i 652-656. The treatise is printed in Migne P.L. iii
885-952. With it may be compared the Tractatus Ori lenis discovered by
Batiilol and ascribed by Weyman to Novatian, though Dom Butler with
greater prob.ibility assigns it to an anonymous writer of the fifth or
sixth century. See J.T.S. vol. ii. pp. 113 ff. and 254 ff., vi 587, x 452.]
This work of Novatian is described by Harnack as creating for the
West a dogmatic vade mecum. See also A. D'Ales Novalien J.T.S.
xxvii 86.

THE THEOLOGY OF HIPPOLYTUS

It is worth while over against the theories of the Noetians and
Sabellians to set the theory of their uncompromising opponent, Hippo-
lytus — whose own theology gave almost equal offence and was charged
with ditheism. It is to be found in his Refutatio Haeresium and in his
sermon against Noetus (which was earlier and less definite, but expresses
the same views, often in the same words). For his Christology, see
especially lief. Huer. x 33, and c. Noet. 10-15. The following is a sum-
mary of DiJllinger's account in bis Hipjmhjtus and CaUistus.

God — one and only — originally was alone, nothing contemporary
with him. All existed potentially in him and he himself was all.

From the first he contained the Logos in himself as his still un-
sounding voice, his not yet spoken word, and together with him the yet
unexpressed idea of the universe which dwelt in him.

This Logos — the intelligence, the wisdom of God — without which
he never was, went out from him according to the counsels of God — i.e.
0T€ T]de\7]a£v, Ktt^ws rjOiXrjo-ev — in the times determined beforehand by
him, as his first begotten — prince and lord of the creation that was to be.
He had within him as a voice the ideas conceived in the Father's being,
and in response to the Father's bidiling thereby created the world in its
unity dpicTKwv 6ew,

The whole is thus the Father, but the Logos is a power proceeding
from the whole — the intelligence of the Father, and therefore his ovaia,
whereas the world was created out of nothing.

There was thus another God by the side of the first, not as if there
were two Gods, but as a light from the Light, water from the Fountain,
the beam from the Sun. He was the perfect, only-begotten Logos of
the Father, but not yet jierfed Son : that he first became when he became
man. Nevertheless God already called him Son because he was to be
born (r. Noet. 15).

Hippolytus thus distinguishes three stages or periods of developement
in the second hyj)Osta.sis — the Logos : —

(1) He is still impersonal — in indistinguishable union with God as
the divine intelligence: potentially as the future personal

MONARCHIANISM 109

Logos — and inherently as the holder of the divine ideas
(patterns after which the universe was to be created).

(2) God becomes Father, by act of will operating upon his being —

i.e. he calls his own intelligence to a separate hypostatic exist-
ence, placing him as Irepos over against himself : yet only in
such wise as a part of a whole which has acquired an exist-
ence of its own — the whole remaining undiminished : as the
beam and the Sun. The Logos has thus become hypostatic
for the purpose of the manifestation of God in creation : and
the third moment ensues.

(3) The Incarnation — in which he first completes himself as the true

and perfect Son ; so that it is also through the Licarnation
that the idea of the divine Fatherhood is first completely
realized.

Objectionable or doubtful points in this view are — (1) the existence of
the Logos as a person is Trpoaiwitos before all time, but not from eternity
ai8io9 ; (2) strict subordination : the Son is merely a force to carry out
the Father's commands ; (3) the Trinitarian relation is not original in the
very being of God, but comes into existence through successive acts of the
divine toill ; (4) his representation of the Logos as the xocr/xos voi/tos —
the centre of the ideas of the universe or the universe conceived ideally,
— which is foreign to primitive Christian tradition, being borrowed from
Philo, — is not really balanced by his maintenance of the substantial
equality of Father and Son.

Specially objectionable is (3) (an idea which was later a main prop of
Arianism), as it leaves open the possibility for the Logos to have re-
mained in his original impersonal condition, and so for the Son never to
have come to any real hypostatic existence, i.e. for God to have remained
without a Son. Hence arose later the fierce contest for or against the
proposition that the Father brought forth the Son by an act of his own
free-will : on which see infra p. 194.

And thus Ilippolytus was viewed with suspicion, although the
Church was wont then to be very tolerant of attempts made by
Christians of philosophic culture to explain the mystery of the Trinity
by the help of Platonic speculations.

I5KRYLLUS

A kind of midway position seems to liave been occupied by thinkers
of whom wo have a representative in lieryllus, ]iishop of Bostra in
Arabia, a learned writer and administrator of high repute. Almost all
that we know of his teaching is exprcs.sed in a sentence of Eusebius
{II. E, vi 33; cf vi 20) recording that "he dared to assert that our

110 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Saviour and Lord did not pre-oxist in an individual existence of liis
own ^ before his coming to reside among men, and that ho did not
possess a divinity of his own, but only that of the Father dwelling in
him". This seems to indicate a semi-Monarch ian or conciliatory
tendency, rejecting the doctrine of the hypostatical existence of the
Logos, but repelled by the hypothesis of an incarnation of God the
Father Himself, and so seeking a solution in the recognition of (1) a dis-
tinct personality after — though not before — the Incarnation, and (2)
an eflflux from the divine essence of the Father rather than whole
deity in Christ. Thus a divine power was, as it were, sunk into the
limitations of human nature and so became a person. Dorner regards
Beryllus as a connecting link between the Patripassians, who allowed
no TTpoatiiTTov side by side with the TrarpiKr] deorrjs, and Sabellius, with
his recognition of a distinct Trpoa-wrrov or 7reptypa<^rJ both of the Logos
and of the Spirit. Origen is said to have convinced him of his error
at a synod held c. 244.

MONARCHIAN EXEGESIS

The Monarchians claimed, of course, to have the authority of
Scripture on their side. Praxeas seems to have depended chiefly on
the texts : — " I am the Lord, and there is none else : beside me there is
no God" (Isa. 455); « i and the Father are one" (John lO^O); "Shew
us the Father . . . Have I been so long with you . . . and dost
thou not know me? I am in the Father, and the Father in me"
(John 148-10). Against his interpretation of such passages, see Ter-
tullian chs. xxi-xxiv. Other texts which Noetus used were Ex. 3^
202, Isa. 44« 45", Bar. 3^^, Kom. 9^ (Christ— God over all)— see Hippo-
lytus contra Noetura.

LUCIAN

Lucian appears, after the deposition of Paul, to have been in a state
of susj)ended communion for some time, but to have been ultimately
reconciled to the bishop. He was a man of deep learning and ascetic
life, held in the highest honour by his pupils, and his death (7th
January 312), as one of the last victims in the persecution begun by
Diocletian, won for his memory universal esteem. For our know-
ledge of his teaching we havo little first-hand evidence. On two vital
points he seems to have been much nearer the Catholic doctrine than
was Paul, recognizing the personality of the Logos and his incarnation

' (car Ibiav ovcla^ iripL^paip-ijv — irepiypatpii primarily 'limit-line*, 'circumscriijtiDn',
so used of {jersonal individual existence, regarded as a 'limitation' of absolut«
existence.

MONARCHIANISM 111

in the historical Christ (in whom he was as soul, having taken to him-
self a human body). But none the less he did not regard the Christ
as essentially one with the eternal God, clinging to the conception of a
perfect human developement (TrpoKOTn/) as the means by which he reached
divinity ; and he seems to have distinguished between the Word or Son
in Christ (the offspring of the Father's will) and the immanent Logos —
the reason of God. So it is said to have been counted a departure from
Lucian's principles to acknowledge the Son as ' the perfect image of the
Father's essence ', though this phrase is used in the Creed of the Council
of Antioch (341), which was believed to have been based on Lucian's
teaching, if not his very composition. (See Sozomen H.E. iii 5 and
vi 12 ; but possibly it was the fourth Creed, in which there is no such
clause, that was Lucian's, and not the second. So Kattenbusch, see
Hahn3p. 187.)f

He is probably fairly described as * the Arius before Arius '
(Harnack DG. ii p. 182), and among his pupils were, besides Arius him-
self, Asterius, the first Arian writer, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis
of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, and Athanasius of Anazarba. His
activity in textual criticism and exegesis is certain, whether there was
actually produced in his famous academy a revision of the text of the
New Testament (the ' Syrian ' Text) or not (see Westcott and Hort
Introduction to the New Testament pp. 138, 182).

PAUL OF SAMOSATA AND THE TERM 5/ioouo-ios f

The Council which condemned Paul condemned also the use of the
word Horaoousios to express the relation between Christ and God the
Father. Lut whether it was that Paul had used the word himself, or
that lie was able to produce ingenious arguments against it, must remain
uncertain. The accounts of Athanasius, Hilary, and Basil are at
variance.

Athanasius {de Syn. § 45), having said that he has not himself seen
the bishops' letter, accepts the statement of the Senii-Arians that it
was rejected because it was taken in a material sense, and Paul used
the sophi-stical reasoning that "if Christ did not become God after start-
ing as man, he is Homoousios with the Father, and there must be
three Ousiai, one principal and the two derived from it", so that to
guard against such a jncce of s()|)liistry they said that Christ was not
Homoousios — the Son not being related to the Father as Paul
imagined.

Hilary {de Syn. §§ 81, 86) implies that the word was used by Paul
liimself to express the idea that the Father and Son were of one single
and solitary being. (But this seems to be more like the teaching of
Sabcllius than the teaching of Paul.)

112 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

It seems possible that objection was taken to Paul's reasoning that
the Logos was one person with God as the reason is one with man, on
the ground that the doctrine of the Church required one God but more
than one irpoa-wTrov, and that to meet this objection he declared that he
recognized such TrpdcrcoTra — God and Christ standing over against each
other as Homoousioi — meaning alike personal (oraia being taken in the
sense of particular, individual being) ; (roBe tl). This would be, in the
•pinion of his opponents, to introduce a human personality into the
Godhead, and so the word would be rejected. (It is of course quite
clear that if outrta were taken in the sense of substance or essence,
Paul could not have accepted the term.)

Basil (Ep. 52 [30]) — so far agreeing with the account that Athanasius
gives — regards Paul as bringing an argument against the word which
was certainly familiar in later times, viz. — that if Christ was not made
God out of (after being) man, but was Homoousios, then there must
have been some common substance (Ousia) of which they both partook,
distinct from and prior to the divine persons themselves, and that out of
it two beings — the Father and the Son — were produced as two coins
are struck out of the same metal.

The term may therefore have been withdrawn as being likely to
perplex weak minds. So Bull Def. N. G. ii 1 and Newman Avians ch. i
suggest. In any case, as Athanasius insists, caring, as always, little for
the words and much for the sense, it was capable of being understood
in different ways, and it was rejected in one sense by those who con-
demned the Samosatene and championed in another sense by those who
resisted the Arian heresy. " It is unbecoming to make the one conflict
with the others, for all are fathers ; nor is it pious to determine that
the one spoke well and the others ill, for all of them fell asleep in
Christ" {de Stjn. § 43). "Yes, surely each Council has a sufficient
reason for its own language."

[The tradition that the use of the term 6/Aoovcrtos was considered
and disapproved by the Council of Antioch has recently been questioned
by Dr. Strong in the Journal of Theological Studies vol. iii p. 292.
There does not seem, however, to be sufficient reason to doubt what
Athanasius, Hilary, and Basil accepted as an awkward fact which they
had to explain as best they could, though the Acts of the Council con-
tain no reference to the matter, and the positive evidence for it comes to
us from Arian sources.]

CHAPTER VIII

The Correspondence between the Dionysii

The result of the struggle with the Monarchian tendency, which
emphasized unduly the unity of the Trinity, was to mark more
precisely the distinctions and gradations, so that in some cases a
pronounced system of subordination ensued. In the West, as
we have seen, the conviction of the unity of essence was too
strong for other elements to overpower it ; but in the East the
fear of Sabellianism and the loss of the personal distinctions
which it involved led to the use of phrases which were hardly
consistent with the equality of the persons and unity of essence.
A conspicuous example of this tendency we have in Diony-
sius 'the Great', Bishop of Alexandria (247-265 a.d.), who
was equally distinguished as a ruler and as a theologian.^ In
controverting Sabellianism he used expressions which later on
became the watchwords of the Arian party. In his anxiety to
maintain the personality of the Son and his distinction from
the Father, he said the Sou did not exist before he was begotten
(or came into being) ; that there was a time when he did not
exist ; and he styled him with reference to the Father a thing
made (or work), and different (or foreign) in being (ovaia), and
80 not of the same being with the Father (homoousion). Jesus
hinisulf had said " I am the vine, my Fatlier is the husband-
man ", and so it was right to describe the relation between
him and the Father as analogous to tliat f)F the vine to the

' He took a Inadinj; part in all tlio fontroversio.s of tlie tiniR, conccniiiig the
lapsed, re-l>a]iti.sin, Ivistcr, Paul of Saiiiosata, Sa)j(!lliaiiisin, and tlio aiiLliorshii) of
thoApocalyji.se. Many of his h-ttcr.s, festal {^wKTroKal iopraaTiKal) a.vd others, are
montioni'ii by Euseliius and J(!i'onie (the sixth and seventh books of the histoiy of
Eusi'biuH are mainly based on tlieni), lint nearly all are lost. Only fragments are
extant, e.g. of a treati.se rrtpl <f>v<T€(t)% — a n^fiitation of materialism and the theory
of atoms, of the Trepi lirayy(\iuiv — a thoriiUfj;h ri'Jcction of milli'iinial ox])ectations
an<l a vin<liiMtii>n of the allfgrnical inturpretJition of the proiiliclic dciscriptions of
the MeH.sianic kingdom (and incidental denial of the Johauuino authorship of the
Apocalypse).

118

114 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

husbandman, or that of the boat to the shipbuilder. He insisted
on the fact that there were three distinct hypostases in the
Godhead, and for these and other similar expressions he was
charged with error by some members of the Alexandrian Church,
and the judgement of the Bishop of Eome, his namesake (Bp.
259-268), was invoked. A ^nod, accordingly, was held at
Rome,^ which condemned the views reported to it, proclaiming
the verbally simple creed that the Father, Son, and Spirit exist,
and that the three are at the same time one ; and a letter was
written by the bishop* expressing the sentiments of the synod,
exposing the erroneous nature of the arguments on which
other views depended, and asking for an explanation of the
charges. In reply Dionysius of Alexandria composed four books
of ' Refutation and Defence ' against the accusation made by his
assailants and in justification of the doctrine he had taught.
He carefully explained that the phrases used by him, to which
objection had been taken, were only illustrations, to be interpreted
in close connexion with their context. He gave them, he says, as
examples cursorily, and then dwelt on more apposite and suit-
able comparisons. " For I gave the example of human birth,

' So Athanasius implies, de Syn. 43 ; but cf Art. ' Dionysius of Alexandria '
D.C.B.

* Athanasius de Deer. Nic. 26 gives an extract from it. What more there was
can only be inferred from the reply of Dionysius of Alexandria, of which considerable
quotations of the most important passages are preserved in Athanasius de Senten-
tia Dionysii (cf. de Synodis 44 and de Deer. Nic. 25), who was at pains to prove the
orthodoxy of the great bishop whose authority the Arians claimed. The teachers
condemned by the Bishop of Rome are "those who divide and cut in pieces and
destroy the most sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the Monarchy, dividing it
into tliree powers (as it were) and partitive ' hyitostases ' and three godheads, . . .
and preach in some sense three gods, dividing the holy Monad into three hypostases
foreign to each other and utterly separated ". The faith which he maintains is "in
God the Fatht'r all-sovereign, and in Christ Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Spirit,
aad that the Logos is united with the God of the universe ; ... for it must needs
be that the divine Logos is united with the God of the universe, and the Holy Spirit
must be contained (repose) and dwell in God ; and further, it is absolutely necessary
that the divine Triad be summed up and gathered together into one, as into a
summit, I mean the all-sovereign God of the universe" (Ath. de Deer. 26). It
sliould be noted that Dionysius of Alexandria in the passage quoted uses the words
bixoyevqi (and avyyevrit) and bixorpvrjs as tliough they were near equivalents to oix.oo'uaLoi.
This usage is significant. It sliev.s, at least when regarded in connexion with the
whole discussion of the question at issue, that he had not fully grasped the concep-
tion, which was traditional in the West, of the one substantia of Godhead existing in
thxtt persrmae. He thought more naturally of the three personae of the same genus
and nature ; that is to say, lie was more ready to acknowledge the generic than the
essential oneness of the Godhead. See further in/ra p. 236, Note on inrbaravts.

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE DIONYSII 115

evidently as being homogeneous, saying that the parents were
only other than their children in that they were not them-
selves the children, . . . and I said that a plant sprung from a
seed or root was other than that from which it sprang, and
at the same time entirely of one nature with it; ana that a
stream flowing from a well receives another form and name —
for the well is not called a river, nor the river a well — and that
both existed, and the well was as it were a father, while the
river was water from the well. But they pretend not to see
these and the like written statements, . . . and try to pelt me
with two unconnected expressions like stones from a distance,
not knowing that in matters unknown and needing preparation
for their apprehension, frequently not only foreign but even con-
trary proofs serve to make the subjects of investigation plain." ^
The word ' homoousios ' he could not find in the Scriptures, but
the sense, as expounded by the Bishop of Eome, he could find
and accepted. The word ' made ' he insisted was applicable to
some relations between the Father and the Son, but when he
said the Father created all things he did not reduce the Son to
the rank of a creature, for the word Father was to be under-
stood to be of significance in relation to the divine nature itself :
that is to say, it includes the Son in the creative power ; and
when he has said Father he has already implied the Son even
before he nanies him — the idea of Father connotes the idea of
Son. He also shews his meaning by speaking of the genera-
tion of the Son as ' life from life ', and uses, to express the
relation between the Son and tlie Father, the image of a bright
light kindled from an unquenchable light. The life, the light, is
one and the same. To the charge of tritheism, and of dividing
the divine ' substance ' into three portions, he answers that " if,
because there are three hypostases, any say that they are parti-
tive (divided into portions), three there are though they like it
not, or they must utterly destroy the divine Trinity ". - So, he
ooncludes, " we extend the Monad indivisibly into tlie Triad, anil
conversely gather together tlie Triad without diminution into tlie
Monad ".

It is obvious that the diflcrence between the two bishops
was a diflerence in the use of terms rather than in doctrine.'

' Ath. de SerU. Dion. 18. 2 Ba-sil de Spirilu S. 72.

* Dionysiiis of Rome contented himself with shoxving the false consequencea of
the teaching attributed to Diouyaiufl of Alexandria. Atliauasius at a later date,

116 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

The fact that the one was accustomed to speak and think in
Greek and the other in Latin is almost enough in itself to
account for the misunderstanding.

Ovaia — Being, Existence, Essence — was used in two senses,
particular and general. In the first sense it meant a particular
being or existence or essence, and so in such connexions as this
was almost equivalent to our word individual or ' person '. To say
that the Son was of the same ovaia as the Father would, in this
sense of the word, be saying that they were one person, — and
80 plunging straightway into all the errors of Sabellius ; and
these were the very errors against which the Alexandrine was con-
tending. But ovaia was also used in the more general sense of
the being or essence which several particular things or persons
might share in common. This was the sense in which the
Roman understood substantia, the Latin equivalent of the term,
and in this sense Dionysius of Alexandria (though much more
willing to declare unity of nature, i.e. much less than substantia
meant) was induced to agree to proclaim the Son of one ovaia
with the Father.

Again, the word V7r6araai<; — hypostasis — could bear two
different meanings. I'rimarily it was that which underlay a
thing, which gave it reality and made it what it was. It was
generally used by Greeks as almost equivalent to ovaia in the
general sense of underlying principle or essence or being, and
the two words are interchangeable as synonyms long after the
time at which the Dionysii discussed the matter. But * hypo-
stasis ' (as ovaia) could also be used of the underlying character
of a particular thing — of a particular essence or being — of
individual rather than of general attributes and properties, and
80 it might bear the sense of ' person '. In the general sense the
Trinity was of course one hypostasis — one God ; there could be
only one existence or essence that could be called divine. But
in the more limited and particular significance of the term the
Christian faith required that three ' hypostases ' should be con-
fessed, three modes of the one being, three ' persons ' making
UD the one divine existence — a Trinity within the Unity.

The matter was still further complicated as regards tlie
terminology of East and West by the unfortunate translation
of the Greek terms into Latin. Abstract terms (as abstract

with fuller knowledge, vindicates the perfect orthodoxy of his predecessor, whether
his language might be misunderstood or not.

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE DIONYSII 117

thought) found little favour with the concrete practical Eoman.
The proper rendering of ovaia was ' essentia ' (' being ', ' exist-
ence ' in the general sense), but though a philosopher here or
there (as Cicero) might use the word, it never got acclimatized
at Rome,^ and the more concrete term ' substantia ' (substance)
— with some suggestion of material existence — usurped its
]ilace. But this was the very word tliat was the natural equi-
valent of the Greek 'hypostasis'. Wlieu Dionysius of Eome
was told that his brother-bishop spoke of ' three hypostases ', he
could not fail to think he meant three ' substances ', so dividing
up the essence of the Godhead and making three separate Gods,
whereas he only meant to express the triune personality. A
Latin would of course have said three ' personae ' (persons), bufe
the Greek irpoawrrov had (as we have seen) too bad a history,
— the Sabellian use of it suggesting merely temporary roles
assumed and played by one and the same person, as he pleased.

It was long before Greek-writing theologians themselves
came to agreement to use the word ' hypostasis ' always of the
special characteristics and individual existence of each ' person '
in the Trinity, and to keep ovaia to express the very being (or
the essence of the nature) of the Godhead. Till this was done,
and the Latins realized that by ' hypostasis ' the Greeks meant
what they meant by 'persona', and by ovaia what they meant
by ' substantia', there remained a constant danger of misunder-
standing and suspicion between the East and the West.

The correspondence between the Diunysii rather exposed
this danger than removed it. It was only a few years later, in
spite of it, as we have seen, that a council of bishops at Antioch
withdrew the word 6/j,oovaio<; from use. Tlie groat inHuence of
Origen in the East 8ui)ported the tendency to emphasize the
distinction of persons even at tlie cost of their unity, so that at
Alexandria itself Picrius, his successor, taught that the Father
and the Logos were two ovaiai and two natures, and that the
Holy Spirit was a third, subordinate to tlie Son ; and Thcognostus,
in the time of Diocletian, worked outstill furtlier the subordination-
elements in his tlieory. Picrius was th(! teacher of Paniphilus,

' Seneca {Ep. C8. 6) apologizes for using tlic word and shields him.self nnder
Cicero's name, wlio also used indoloria, saying, "licet enim novis rebus nova nomina
iiiil>onpie" (see F'orr-ellini) ; and t^uintili.ui (ii 11. 1, 2) speaks of it and «ii!/a together
with f/ratriria (to rey)rw!ont prjTopiKri) iia equally hor.sli translations, hut defonsihlo on
the ground of the poverty of language resulting from the baniahineut of terms formed
from the Greek.

!->

118 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

the presbyter of Cacsarea, wliose great collection of books and
devotion to the memory of Origen were inherited by Eusebius,
— the spokesman and loader of the great majority of Eastern
bishops in the controversy which, during the following century,
seemed to threaten the very foundations of the Christian faith.
That they did not more quickly appreciate the issues — the
inevitable results of Arianism and the necessity of a precise
and definite terminology to exclude it — was due to their theo-
logical lineage : men of whose orthodoxy they had no doubt,
whose teaching they revered, whose children they were, had used
some of the very terms in which Arius clothed his explanation
of the person of Christ.

Before, however, we pass on to the Arian controversy we
must retrace our steps in order to review the course of the
developement of the doctrine of the Logos which had been in
progress all through the IMonarchian teaching.

CHAPTER IX

The Logos Doctrine f

In tracing the developement of the Logos doctrine we are at once
confronted by the statements in the preface to the Gospel
according to St John/ which in untechnical and simple language
seem to cover — and if their authority be accepted to decide —
all the vexed questions which Monarchianism raised. The
eternal pre-existence, the personality, the deity — all are stated
in the first three clauses which describe the Logos in his divine
relations in eternity before Creation. The second stage, if we
may say so, is then set before us — the Logos in relation to
Creation and to man, before the Incarnation : in which he is
declared the universal life, the light of mankind — in continuous
process coming into the world, though unrecognised by men.
And thirdly, the same personal, eternal, and divine being is pro-
claimed as having become flesh and thereby in his Incarnation re-
vealed himself and God to men. In this connexion the derivative
character of his being and deity is first suggested: — it is the highest
form of derived being, that of an only Son of his Father — whose
being is at once derivative and yet the very same as that from
which it is derived, equal in deity, on a level with its source.

Wherever the Gospel according to St John was current,
there was witness borne that should have precluded all notions
of imperfect deity or separate nature or external being of the
Logos in relation to the Father, while at the same time his
individual personality was clearly marked. The language used
to express the eternity of the jicrsonal distniction is jjcrhaps
less obviously decisive, and misunderstanding might mure easily
arise in this than in other respects.

That the doctrine was not fully realized, even by well-
instructed leaders of Christian thought, is obvious ; and its full
application to the interpretation of the person of Jesus was not
easily made. Now to one as})cct and now to another pro-

' See Westcott Oosjiel according to St John.
11»

120 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

miuence is given. Now one relation, now another, is emi^hasizeil
by dilVereut writers. The Hniitations of human thought and
experience are such that we are perhaps justified in saying in
such cases that only the particular aspect, the particular relation,
was grasped by the writer or thinker in question. But such an
inference — in view of the scanty character of the material avail-
able for our consideration — is at least always precarious ; and it
is often far too readily assumed (in the case of early Christian
writers) that the particular aspect of the question which is
presented was the only one with which the writer was familiar.
It would probably be nearer the truth, as it would certainly be
more scientific in method, to regard as typical and comple-
mentary, rather than as mutually exclusive, the following few-
representative points of view of the doctrine of the Logos.

In every case the historical Jesus Christ is identified with the
Logos. The chief induction is this : Jesus was the Logos, or at
least the Logos was in Jesus. That is the primary explanation
of his person which is implied, whatever else is said. But
inasmuch as the title Logos readily suggested the idea of reason
ruling in the universe, when it was treated as the chief expree
sion for the person of Christ there was great risk of too close
or exclusive connexion with the universe, and so of the divine
power of life in Christ being regarded as a cosmic force.^ This,
and failure to distinguish precisely the individual personality of
the Logos, were the chief difficulties in the way of the application
of the induction. But it is surely going astray to reproach the
writers of this period — or at least the apologists — with transform-
ing the genuine gospel of Christ into natural theology. They
were anxious, of course, to find what common ground they could
with the Greeks or liomans whose hostility they desired to dis-
arm, and 80 they naturally presented the doctrine of the Logos
to them in the form in which they would most readily receive
it. And, broadly speaking, the doctrines which are common to
' natural theology ' and to Christianity were those which it was
most necessary for them to set forward, pointing as they did to
Clirist as the centre of all, and to the confirmation of these
doctrines, and the new sanctions in support of them, which the
coming of Christ into the world supplied.^

» To this effect Harnack BG. Eng. tr. vol. i p. 330.

* See further on this point J. Orr Tht Progress of Dogma pp. 24, 48, 49 flf.,
against Hamack's view {DG. Eng. tr. vol. ii pp. 169-230).

THE LOGOS DOCTRINE 121

The Ignatian Epistles

In the epistles of Ignatius references to tlie doctrine are
only incidental. Jesus Christ is the Logos " who came forth
from silence " ^ — the only utterance of God ; " the unlying
mouth by which the Father spake truly " ; ^ he is " God made
manifest in human wise ".^ The one God " manifested Himself
through Jesus Christ His Son ".* It cannot be said that these
phrases, which Ignatius has used in the few hastily written
letters which are all we have, give evidence of any clear con-
ception of distinct personal relations between the eternal Son and
the Father.^ The central idea of Ignatius is the conquest of
sin and Satan and of death, the renovation of man, in Christ, by
virtue of his divinity in union with his manhood — the beginner
of a new humanity: but he is content to insist on both divinity
and humanity without attempting to distinguish the relation of
the divine to the human. In the chief passage in which he
makes reference to this relation he uses language which in a
later age would have been judged heretical, as it might be
understood to mean that the distinct personality dated from the
Incarnation only.

" There is ", he writes,' " one Physician, fleshly and spiritual,
begotten and unbegotten, God in man, true life in death, both
of Mary and of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus
Christ our Lord." And " Our God Jesus the Christ was borne
in the womb by Mary according to the dispensation of God, of
the seed of iJavid, yet of Llie Holy Spirit: who was begotten
and was baptized."^ It seems that these sentences could not
have been written by one who had clearly formed in his mind
the conception of the eternal generation of the Son, or even
perhaps of his prc-existence in the personal relation of sonship
to the Father (n.&., first passible, and then impassible). Un-
begotten the Logos, the Son, never was in his relation to God
the Father — which is the relation of whicli the word is used.
Yet Ignatius was obviously not really of opinion that the
Logos first became a person at tiie Incarnation. He speaks
of Jesus Christ " who was before the ages with the Father
and in the end appeared ".^ And the explanation is to be found

' Ma<jn. 8. " Pumi. 8. » Eph. 19. * Afa^,. 8.

» Tliere is some justilication for the deacri].tion of hia theology aa 'niodulistic.'
• AV/i. 7. 7 Jbui. 18. <• J/ayw. 6.

122 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

pai'oly iu a laxity in tho use of terms due to some indistinct-
ness (rather than inaccuracy) of theological conception ; and
partly also in the close similarity in the Greek of the words
ingenerate or unbegotten and unorigiuate or without origin.
The doubling of a single letter changes the latter into the
former, which Ignatius wrote, though he really meant the latter.
By classical writers the distinction was always observed, but in
Christian writings the one word used by Ignatius seems to have
sometimes done duty for both.^ We may feel sure that Ignatius
did not intend to deny the existence of the Son in eternity,
although the generation of which he speaks is that in time of
the Virgin.

The chief effect of his mission is to bring to men knowledge
of God, but that knowledge gives incorruptibility to those who
become " imitators of the Lord ", and " in all chastity and
temperance abide in Jesus Christ both in the flesh and in the
spirit "^ breaking the one bread " which is a medicine that
gives immortality — a remedy against death — giving life in Jesus
Christ for ever ".

^ Cf. Justin Dial. c. Tnjph. 5 and 8. The words in question are i.'^ivttTos and
iy^vvTjTos. Against tlie argument that the interchange of the words is due to clerical
error in the manuscripts — the v being wrongly repeated or omitted, see Lightfoot
Ignatius vol. ii j>. 90. Lightfoot points to the discussion by Athanasius in 359 (de
Syn. 46, 47 on the meaning of oyuooi/o-tos) of the twofold sense of dyiwijTos —(1) that
which exists but was not generated and has no originating cause, and (2) that which
is uncreate. In the latter sense the word is applicalile to the Son, in the former it
is not ; and so he says both uses are found in the Fathers, and therefore apparently
contradictory language may be ortliodoK, a different sense of the word being in-
tended. [In the other passages referred to by Lightfoot, de Deer. 28 and Or. c. Ar.
i 30 (written earlier c. 350-355 and c. 357-358), it seems certain, as he implies, that
the word under discussion is dyevrjTov. So Robertson insists that in the later passage
(de Srjn. 46, written in 359) Athanasius wrote dyevr^ros, not dyevvriros. See his
note 'Athanasius' N. and P-N.F. p. 475.] Properly dyivi)TOi denies origin, and so
maintains eternal existence ; while dyevvr)Tos denies generation or parentage and
thereby the ontological relation of Father and Son in the Godhead, whether in time
or in eternity. The Arian controversy cleared up any uncertainty there was ; and
the Son was declared to be yiw-qTb^, but not yev-rjTb's ("begotten, not having come
into being") ; and when the Arians tried to confuse the issue, saying the two words
were the same, they were told that tliis was so only in the case of creatures, not in
regard to God (Ejiiph. adv. Ilacr. Ixiv 8). In this way the Father only was dyivvtiToi,
but the orthodox had no liking for the phrase and were disposed to retort upon the
Arians that it was unscriptural (Epiph. adv. Haer. Ixxii 19). When, however, the
fear of Arianism had jiasscd, it b(^came a convenient term by which to express the
relation between tlie Father {dyivv-qTOi) and the Son [yevv-qTbi, but not yev7p^6%) —
Lightfoot I.e.

* Ejih. 10, 20.

THE LOGOS DOCTRINE 123

Tf*i' Letter to J)ioq'*\etv

The writer of the letter to Diognetus ^ declares the Logos to
be no servant or angel or prince, but the Artificer and Creator
Himself to whom all things are placed in subjection, sent by the
Almighty in consideration and gentle compassion, as a king
sends his son, himself a king — so God sent him as God and as
man to men, with a view to his saving them, yet by persuasion
not by constraint. The purpose of his mission was to reveal
God to men, since till he came no man had really known God.
It was His own only Son that He sent in His great mercy and
loving-kindness and long-suffering, the incorruptible, the im-
mortal, the Saviour able to save. That he distinguished the
Logos as a person seems obvious from such expressions, though
in almost the same breath he says that God (the Father) " Him-
self revealed Himself ", and " Himself in His mercy took upon
Himself our sins " — phrases which shew at least how close, in
his thought, was the union between the Father and the Son.
And the function of the Logos previously to the Incarnation
seems to be conceived particularly in relation to the world —
it was the very Lord and Eulcr of the universe who was sent,
" by whom He created the heavens, by whom He enclosed the
sea in its own bounds, whose secrets all the elements faitlifully
keep, from whom the sun received the measure of the courses
of the day to keep, whose bidding to give light by niglit fehe
moon obeys, whom the stars obey as they follow tlie course of
the moon, from whom all things received their order and limits
and laws (to whom they are subject), the heavens and the things
in the heavens, tlie earth and the things in the earth, the sea
and the things in tlie sea, fire, air, the void, the things in the
heights, the tilings in the depths, the things in the space be-
tween. Him it was He despatched to them."

We probably ought, however, to recognize in such a ])a8sage
as this, addressed to a licathen, a Stoic philosoplier, an eloquent
amplification of the majesty of the messenger and of his intimate
connexion with the eternal universe rather than evidence that
the writer was not familiar with the conception of the inmuinent
relations of the Logos and tlio Fatlier in the inner being of the
Godhead-

* Ep. ad Diognetum vii-x.

124 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Justin Martyr

A rnach more systematic treatment of the doctrine is found
in the writings of tlie Greek Apologists. Justin Alartyr, in the
Dialogue with Trypho^ gives deliberate expression to the chief
conceptions in clear view of the objections to them from the
monotheistic standpoint.

He insists that Christians really hold monotheism inviolate
and yet recognize true deity in Christ. Some of his phrases
imply that the Logos existed with God before the creation
potentially only, coming to actuality when the world was made ;
but he also speaks of him in relation to God before creation as
" numerically other " (or distinct), and as " being with the
Father "^ — i.e. as an individual person. All his highest titles,
Glory of the Lord, Son, Wisdom, Messenger, God, Lord, Word,
are his by virtue of his serving the Father's purpose and being
born ^ by the Father's will. Yet he is not the absolute God,
who is unoriginate.^ The Logos has come into being. It might
thus appear that there was a time when he was not, that his
coming into being depended on the Fatlier's will, and that the
being of God was in some way impaired by the separate (or dis-
tinct) existence of the Son. To exclude tliis inference the analogy
of human experience is cited. When we put forth Logos (reason
or speech) we generate Logos, not, however, by a process of
curtailment in such a way that the Logos within us is impaired
or diminished when we put it forth. And again, in the instance
of fire being kindled from fire, the original fire remains the
same unimpaired, and the fire which is kindled from it is self-
existent, without diminishing that from which it was kindled.
No argument, accordingly, can be brought against this inter-
pretation of the person of Jesus — that he is indeed the Logos
who was with God from the beginning and was His vehicle of
creation and of revelation through the old dispensation — on the
ground that such a conception detracts from the unity and
fulness of being of the Godhead.

■' P'"". epp, ch. P1 — Off.o's edition

* This when arguing that it was to him personally that the words " Let us make
man' \Tere addressed.

- It is uncertain here and frequently thioughout the Dialogue whether Justin
w"ote the word meaning 'come into being' or the word 'be bom' {i.e. ytvrjrSi or
yevi>T}T6s), even if he discriminated between them at all, though in some cases the con-
text is decisive as to the particular sense intended. See supra on Ignatius p. 122 n. 1.

THE LOGOS DOCTRINE 125

But though Justin, with the other Greek Apologists, may be
said to start from the cosmological aspect of the problem, yet
the ethical interest — the soteriological aspect of the question —
is really very strong with him. The one chief mission of the
Logos in all ages has been to interpret the Father to men. He
it was who appeared in all the instances recorded in the history
of the Jews. In him every race of men has had a share ; ^ he
was present among them from the first, disseminated as seed
scattered among them ,2 and those who, before his birth as the
Christ in the time of Cyrenius and his teaching in the time of
Pontius Pilate, lived in accordance with his promptings (i.e. with
Logos) were Christians, even though they were deemed godless;^
and those who lived otherwise (without Logos) were hostile to
Christ and to God. It is because they all partook of the Logos
that they are all responsible. It was because through dis-
obedience to his guiding they had received corruption so deeply
into their nature as to be unable to recover that the Logos at
lencth assumed flesh.* The essential life was united with that
which was liable to corruption, in order that the corruption
might be overpowered and cast out and man elevated to im-
mortality.'' In Christ, and in Christ only, tlie whole Logos
appeared, and fully revealed the Father so that all might know
Him. It is in this fact tbat the newness and the greatness of
the revelation in Christ are seen. And so Clirist, the first-born
of all creation, has become also the beginning (the principle) of

' See Apol. i 46. The Logos (Reason) is the divine element in all men — the
Reason within them (almost tlie conscience).

' Cf. Apol. ii 13 : 6 (TirtpiuniKhi duoi X6705. It was the seed of the implanted
word that enabled them to see clearly realities (cf. ii 8).

• He names among others Socrates and Ileiarkitus and Abraham and Elijah.

* That Justin fully recognized the humanity of Christ, and asserted it strongly
against Docetio tendencies, is i^atent. The Logos was made man {Dial. c. Tryph.
102, \&yoi AvopuOfh). The question has, however, been raisid— Did lie recognize a
liunian soul in Clirist ? There is no doubt he sj.caks of au>/ia, 'K6yoi, and fi'X') (I'ocly.
Logos, soul) as the constituents of his person, and he uses fvxTli in the sense of fvx-fi
&\oyo%, tlie animal princijile,— so tliat it miglit be inferred from tins phrase that
he regarded the Logos as taking tlie place of the human (rational) soul or spirit or
mind. But he may have nsed the popular division of man into 'body and soul'
rather than the more jirccise and technical threefold division into (rw^a, i^vx^<
irveuna. There is, however, nothing to shew tliat the question had iver jireacnted
itwlf to Justin's thought. All that can certainly be maintained is that he regarded
the manhood of Christ as comtiI«te and would not '.laT "onsciously used expn-ssiona
which were inconsistent therewith.

» Fragment — Otto vol. ii p. 550 {Corp. Apol. iii p. 256). The genuinoncssi of
the fragment is, however, disputed.

126 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

atiotb.er race, — tlie race which is born again by him through
water aud faith and wood (the tree), which possesses the secret
ot the cross/ Those who are thus prepared beforehand and
repent for their sins will escape (be acquitted in) the judgement
of God wliich is to come.

Tatian

Tatian \^'as, both as his pupil and in thought, closely con-
nected with Justin. In his defence of Christian doctrine To
tlie Grreeks - he is at pains to try to express the relation of the
Logos to the Divine Being (the inner nature and existence of
the Deity) and the manner in which he has a personal distinct
existence without impairing the unity of the divine existence.
He states the matter as follows : — " God was in the beginning
(at the first) ; and the beginning (the first principle),^ we have
been instructed, is the potentiality * of the Logos. For the
Lord of the universe, who is himself the essence^ of the whole,
in so far as the creation had not yet come to be, was alone :
but inasmuch as he was all potentiality,* and himself the
essence of things seen and things unseen, in company with
him were all things. In company with him, through the
potentiality of the Logos, the Logos too, who was in him, himself
essentially was {viriaTr^aev, subsisted). By the simple will of
Gnd the Logos springs forth, and the Logos, proceeding not
without cause, becomes {or comes into being as) the first-born
work of the Father. Him {i.e. the Logos) we know to
be the first principle (beginning) of the world. He came
into being by a process of impartation, not of abscission : for
that which is cut off is separated from that from which it
is cut ; but that which has imparted being, receiving as its
function one of administration,^ has not made him whence he
was taken defective. For just as from one torch there are

1 c. Try ph. 138.

* Oratio ch. v (al. vii and viii). His own title was simply Tanavov irphi
EXXTjvas. The text of Otto is followed (but see ed. Schwartz).

' r) ipX'h — 'beginning', and also first cause or guiding governing principle.

* hvvaiMS. The conception is that the Logos was not actually, but only Doten-
tially, existent (hwi-ixn not ivtpyeiif).

' t; vTr6<TTa(rii — "that which makes things what they are and gives being or
reality to them." See on the Correspondence of the Dionysii p. 116. All things
were jiottntially in Him.

* " Tlie part of oUoi'o/j.la ", administration of the world, revelation.

THE LOGOS DOCTRINE 127

kindled fires many, and the light of the first torch is not
lessened on account of the kindling from it of the many
torches ; so too the Logos, by coming forth from the poCfentiality
of the Father, has not made Him who has begotten him destitute
of Logos. For I myself speak and you hear, and I who con-
verse with you certainly do not become void of speech (Logos) ^
through the passage of my speech from me to you."

The Logos is here regarded mainly in relation to the world,
as the principle on which it was made, and the vehicle of
revelation. Personal existence seems to attach to the Logos
in this connexion only The hypostatic distinction in the
being of God before Creation — and essentially — is not ex-
pressed. The pre-existence is only potential (the only distinc-
tion is that of the Father from His own reason) — God is all m
all ; the Logos is in him, but so are all things, and it is only
when God wills that the Logos proceeds to personal being lov
the work which is assigned him. §

Theophihis

A very similar view to that of Tatian appears to have been
held by Theophilus a little later.^ He was probably the first
to use the actual term Triad (Trinity) * and to apply Philo's
terms ' indwelling ' (or ' immanent ') and ' proceeding ' (or ' pro-
jected ' or * transient ') * to the Logos. Till God willed to
create the world the Logos dwelt in Him, in His inner being,
as counsellor — His mind and intelligence — this is the only
kind of pre-existence which appears to be recognized, and it
is not clear in what way the Logos could be distinguished
from the Father. Before Creation He begat him ' vomiting
him forth ' : — He l)egat him as " proceeding, first-born of all
creation ; not himself being made emi)ty of the Logos, but

' The twofold sense of X6705, reason and the exiiression of it in speech, must be
borne in iniiid ; but the dominant thought in this passage is of the outward
exprcftsion.

' His D«fcnne of Cliristianity ad Autolycum, see esp. ii 10 and 22.

• The Triad named is "(ind and his Word iind liis Wisdom ", of \vhi(:h tho Ihree
days wiiioh passed l)efore tho lighUs in the firmamciit of heaven were created are said
10 be types.

* ivhiaOtTOi and irpotpopiKlii. The use of tliesc terms is of Stoic origin, marking
the two .senses of X670S {ruaxoii and word), so mevltd and uilcrrd or jironmincrd.
As reiircsenting two aspects of the same truth tho uae is recognized, but Deither
term isolated from the other would be accurate.

128 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

begetting Logos and continually consorting with his Logos".'
The Logos is clearly regarded as the medium for the Father's
work in the world and among men. Always with God, he is
the principle of all tilings. The Father Himself cannot be
contained in space — but the Logos can ; and so he assumed iu
the world the part ^ of the Father — the Lord of all.

The Distinction of the Logos from the FatJier cosmic rather

than hyiwstatic

Neither Justin nor Tatian nor Theophilus, accordingly,
would seem to have clearly conceived a hypostatic distinction
in the being of God Himself : — the distinction is found ex-
ternally in relation to the world, and there is danger, on the
one Hand, of the Logos being identified with God. His essence
(ovala), as it were, rests eternally in God — immanent: his
hypostasis is conceived only in the work of revelation. And so,
on the other hand, as a personal existence it may be argued
that the Logos is not really God, but only a manifestation of
Him, and the Christology of the Apologists has thus been said
to fall short of the genuine Christian appreciation of Christ —
inasmuch as " it is not God who reveals Himself in Christ, but
the Logos, the depotentiated God, a God who as God is sub-
ordinate to the highest God " (Loofs). The limits within which
this criticism of the Apologists may fairly be accepted have
been already noted at the outset.^

Ath^nagoras : his fuller recognition of the conditions to he

accounted for

In Athenagoras is found a clearer view of the personal
existence of the Logos (or the Son) before Creation, and a fuller
perception of the problem how to secure the unity and yet
assign its due place to the distinction.

It is the chief concern of Christians, he writes, " to know
God and the Logos who comes from Him : to see what is the
unity of the Son in relation to the Father, what the communion
of the Father with the Son, what the Spirit ; what is the union
(ei'twcTi?) of all these and the distinction (Siatpeo-t?) of the

' This idea of continuous generation has something in common with Origen's
doctrine of the eternal genf ration.

* The word used is irpbauirov. ' See supra p. 120.

THE LOGOS DOCTRINE 129

united — the Spirit, the Son, the Father : ^ — " proclaiming at
the same time their power in unity and a distinction in their
order "?■ This distinction is more clearly conceived of as in-
dependent of the creation of the world than by the other
Greek Apologists. He speaks of the whole divine sphere as
itself a ' perfect world ' (/cocr/109), and God as being in Himself
all to Himself, so that there was no necessity for the world we
know to be created. The distinctions in the being of God are
thus conceived as self-existent, and the part which the Logos
afterwards plays in the work of creation he only plays because
he is already in idea all that was required for the exercise of
the special work of creation. The term ' generated ' (' a thing
begotten '), and the epithet ' first ' in connexion with it, are
applied to him, yet " not as having come into being (for from
the beginning God, since He is eternal Mind, had in Himself the
Logos (reason), since He is eternally possessed of Logos (rational));
but as having proceeded forth as idea and energy {i.e. in exercise
of the idea) "? " God's Son is the Logos of the Father in idea
and in operation." He has thus a previous relation to the
Father, as has the Holy Spirit — and the three names represent
eternally existing distinctions within the being of the Divine
itself. It is in this clear repudiation of the conception that
the Logos first acquired a personal existence in connexion with
the creation of the universe (while he fully recognizes his opera-
tion therein), that Athenagoras seems to furnish a link between
the earlier less precise and the later more exact expressions of
the Christian consciousness. Precision of terminology is first
to be found in Tertullian, but his contemporary Clement, and
Irenaeus before him, make important contributions to the de-
velopement of the doctrine.

Irenaeus
Irenaeus is one of the most conspicuous figures in the history

' L^y. 12 (for Son he writes ira«j). Tlic Last cilition of Atlienagoras is thiit of
E. Schwartz, Leipzig 1891 {Texte und Untersuchunycn iv IJd. 2 Heft).

' Ley. 10. So " who woiilfl not be )icriilexi'(i ", lie writes, " to hi'iir (li>sn-ilir<l as
'atlieists' men who believe in God the Fatiier and God tiie Son and the Holy Spirit,
and declare their power in unity and their distinction in order"; and again, " tlio
Son is in the Father ami the Fatlier in the Son by unity and ])o\vcr of the Spirit''
(the conception cx[)rcHScd )>y the l.'iter term irrpix'^PV'-^t ''cc infra p. '2.2(\ n. 2).

* Ihid. The terms are /Wa and Mpytia — tlie latter being the actualization of the
iuriiier.

130 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

of the early Church. It is unnecessary here to enlarge on the
importance (jf the various })arts he played. His thought was no
douht mainly moulded by his Eastern origin and built up on a
foundation of early traditions and modes of thought current in
Asia Minor,^ though largely developed and determined in opposi-
tion to Gnostic theories.'^

It was Gnosticism that led him to lay such stress on the
eternal coexistence of the Logos with the Father, to repel the
idea that he was ever ' made ', and to discriminate creation from
generation, rejecting anything of the nature of an emanation as
a true expression of the relation between the Logos and the
Father. Nor does he ever tend to identify the divine in Christ
with the world-idea or the creating Word or Eeason of God.
He is familiar with the conception of a twofold generation,^ and
uses the terms Son and Logos alike — interchangeably (the
Logos being always Son). He conceives of the Logos as the
one great and absolute organ of all divine revelations from all
time (so that in them it was not God Himself but the Logos
who appeared), and apparently of some kind of subordination
of the Logos, — but he is prevented by his religious feeling and
his consciousness of the limitations of the human understand-
ing from carrying far his investigations into the nature of the
relations between Father and Son. They are a mystery. The
Father is God revealing Himself; the Son is God revealed.
The Father is the invisible of the Son, while the Son is the

^ E.g. he held to the early millennial expectations [adv. Hacr. v5 and 25 ff.,
ed. Harvey).

''See Ijooh Leitfadcn* p. 91 ff. He points to Asia Minor as the scene of the
greatest spiritual activity in the Church in the second half of the second century
(cf. the Apologists : Melito of Sardis, Apollinarius of Hierapolis, Rhodon— a pupil of
Tatian in Rome, Miltiades, Apollonius, and other Montanist writers, whose names
are unknown), and as the home of a special theology, of which he notes the follow-
ing characteristics : — (o) The clear recognition of the distinction between the Old
and the New Testaments. (6) The concern to make Christ the centre to which the
whole history of the divine oIkovohIo. converges, {c) The appearance of modalism
which resulted from the close connexion of its Christolo;;'y with the popular con-
ception that Christ had brought perfect knowledge of God (the revelation of Christ
—the revL-latiou of God), and (as he styles it) the paradoxical contrasting of the
real death and real humanity of Christ with his immortality and deity, (d) The
connexion of the knowledge of God with the assurance of immortality, based on
the saying, 'This is eternal life, that they should know Thee ' (John 17^); yet an
essentially physical expression of the means of salvation.

3 The generation from eternity, whereby the Godhead exists both as Father and
as Son in itself; and afterwards the generation in time, when the Sou became man,
ti«ing born into the world.

THE LOGOS DOCTRINE 131

visible of the Father. But the personal distinction is strictly
maintained : and he insists that it is one and the same person
- — Jesus Christ — the Logos — the Son of God — who created
the world, was born as man, and suffered and ascended into
heaven, still man as well as God.

The deepest interest of Irenaeus (however) does not seem
to be centred in speculations of this kind, but in the Incarna-
tion as the fulfilment of the eternal purpose of God which
was manifested when He created man in His image after His
likeness. Irenaeus marks the distinction between the image,
which connotes reason and freedom, in which man was made,
and the likeness, which is the capacity for immortality, to which
he was destined to attain. A course of developement was thus
set before men by the Creator, following which they would
become in very truth as He Himself was: but man in the
exercise of his freedom, using the power which the 'image'
gave him, departed from the course assigned him, and by
his transgression (in the Fall) became subject to death and
could no longer reach the goal of immortality. To restore to
him the power of wliich he had been deprived was the purpose
of the Incarnation, so that what had been lost in Adam might
be recovered in Christ Jesus. In him the final predestined
developement was realized, — it had been interrupted, but he
resumed and completed it. It is Irenaeus who first expresses
the thought which others after him delighted to emphasize —
"On account of his infinite love he became what we are, in
order that he might make us what he himself is." He summed
up in himself the whole. race and the whole course of develope-
ment, completing thereby the whole revelation of God to man,
and by passing through all stages of human life consecrated
each and all. In this way in the person of Christ Jesus —
the Person of the Logos become man — the whole race is again
united to God, and becomes capable of attaining to incorrupti-
bility. The possessor of immortality actually united himself
with human nature, so that by adoption he might deify it and
guarantee it the inheritance of life. He thus brought about
the condition which God had ordained from the beginning —
the realisation of which the entrance of sin had cliccked. So
it is that Jesus Christ — he who is God and man — is the real
centre of all history. He is the person who, as man, first
attained the destination set before the race. Special means' of

132 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

reaching this consummation are ofTerod to individuals in the
institution of the Sacraments of lxi[)tism (which gives for-
giveness of sins) and the Lord's Supper (partaking of the
Eucharist our bodies no longer are corruptible but have the
hope of the resurrection), — but there is also the mystic pre-
sentation which is summed up in the pregnant saying, " the
vision of God is the life of man".^ The real life is the
knowledge, the vision, of God. This knowledge, this vision,
the Incarnation of the Word gave to men, and not only to those
who actually saw him in his incarnate life upon earth, but also
to all who afterwards should see him with the eye of faith —
" They wlio see God will partake of life. It was for this reason
that the infinite and incomprehensible and invisible otfered him-
self to be seen and comprehended and contained by the faithful,
so that he might give life to those that contain and see him by
faith." 2 For them too the invisible is made visible, the incom-
preliensible comprehensible, and the impassible passible. But
faith — believing in him — involves the doing of his will ; ^ and it
is, in turn, by the fulfilment of his commands, by obedience to
him, that we learn to know him more completely. For the
knowledge which is possible for man is essentially moral,* the
affinity between man and God is based on character. " Exactly
in proportion as God is in need of nothing, man is in need of
c<jmmunion with God ; for this is man's glory — to persevere and
continue in the service of God." ^

It is his strong hold on the conception of the unity and
continuity of God's purpose and revelations of Himself thus
manifested in the Incarnation as the natural sequence and
culmination of the design of creation, not necessarily conditioned
by the fall of man, that is most characteristic of the thought of
Irenaeus. He was apparently the first of the great church
teachers to follow up the clues which St Paul had given ^ in
this respect.

^ Irenaeus adv. Haer. iv 34. 7 {ed. Harvey). * Rid. iv 34. 6.

' Credere autem ei est facere ejus voluutatem {ibid, iv 11. 3).

* Tbid. I.e. and iv 34.

' Jlid. iv 25. 1 [ed. Harvey). Harnack finds in Irenaeus two main ideas —
(1) The conviction that the Creator of the world and the Supreme God are one and
the same ; (2) the conviction that Christianity is real redemption, and that this
reiiemption was only effected by the appearance of Christ. But these two ideas are
part of the stock — the very root — of all Cliristian thought.

• E.g. in the Epistle to the Ephesiana 1^" 3".

THE LOGOS DOCTRINE 133

The tbouclit and teaching of Clement of Alexandria is in
several ways clusely akin to his, and comparison of the one with
the otfier is instinctive. Clt^ment's travels before he went to
Alexandria had taken him to ground familiar to Irenaens in his
earlier life before he settled down at Lyons, and there was much
in common between the two contemporary teachers of the
Egyptian and the Gallican Churches.

Tfie characteristics of the Alexandrine school are clearly
marked in Clement, one of its chief rejjresentatives. Its love
of learning, its sympathy with intellectual activities, its enthus-
iasm for knowledge of every kind as the only avenue that would
lead to true interpretation of the Gospel ; its no less sincere
recognition of the need of faith and of love in the search after
truth, its desire to bring the whole of human life consciously
under the rule of Christ, and to apply to every domain of
thought and conduct the principles embodied in his life and
teaching : these characteristics shew themselves in the work of
all members of the school, and the result is an interpretation of
the Gospel which is at once inclusive of the best Greek philo-
sophical thought and genuinely Christian.

Clement of Alexandria

It was Clement who elevated " the idea of the Logos, who is
Christ, into the highest principle in the religious explanation of
the world and in the exposition of Christianity".^ "Christianity
is the doctrine of the creation, training, and redemption of man-
kind by the Logos, whose work culminates in the perfect Gnostic."
l)Ut the perfect Gnosticism with Clement is the true knowledge
of God, which is to be reached by disciplined reason. His
' Gnostic ' is no visionary, no mystic. " Though the father of
all mystics, he is no mystic liimself." ^

The doctrine of the Logos is the centre and mainspring of
the whole system of Clement.

He was eternally with the Father, who never was without
him as Son. The being which ho has is the same as the being
of God the Father.^ He is the ultimate beginning (cause or

* C. Bigg T/ie Christian Platoni»t» of Alexandria ch. iii p. 98 f.

■ " One must asmuiio", says Haniack, " thnt the word [Uomooiisios] was really
familiar to Clt-ment as a deaigiiation of the coniriiuiiity of nature both with Cod
and with nicn, [lossesaed by the I,ogiiH." Ho certainly wrote {Ulroin. iv 18) with

134 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

principle) of all things that are, himself without beginning (or
origination). He is author of the world, the source of light and
life, iu a sense himself at the head of the series of created beings,
but, by reason of his divine being, specifically different from
them. He is the interpreter of the Father's attributes, the
manifestation of the truth in person, the educator of the human
racc,^ who at last became man to make men partakers of his
own divine nature.

Tiiat Clement thus held clearly a distinction between the
Logos and the Father need not be argued. The real question
which calls for consideration is whether he did not also so far
distinguish between the Logos as originally existent and the
Logos who was Son of God as to conceive two persons,^ — the
Logos proper who remains unalterably in God (the Logos
immanent), and the Son - Logos who is an emanation of the
immanent reason of God (the Logos proceeding forth in
operation).

He is said to have written,^ " The Son-Logos is spoken of
by the same name as the Father's Logos, bat it is not he who
became flesh, nor yet the Father's Logos, but a certain power of
God, as it were an effluence from the Logos himself, who became
mind and visited continually the hearts of men." This, how-
ever, is the only passage in which such a distinction is obviously
drawn,* and its real meaning is so obscure that apart from the
context (which is not extant) it is impossible to use it in support
of a view which is really contradicted by the whole conception of

reference to the Valentinian doctrine of a peculiar race seut to abolish death, who
were themselves saved by nature, that if this doctrine were true then Christ had not
abolished death unless he too was homoousios with them, and in another place
{Strom, ii 16) that men are not ' part of God and homoousioi with God ' (implying
that the Son was homoousios with God).

^ Of the Greeks through philosophy, of the Jews through the Law, and after-
wards, in Christ, of all who accept his teaching through faith leading up to know-
ledge, through knowledge to love, and through love to 'the inheritance'. See e.g.
Strom, vii 2 and vii 10. "The Greek philosophy, as it were, purges the soul and
prepares it beforehand for the reception of faith " (Strom, vii 3 ; cf. i 13).

* So Hamack (DG. Eug. tr. vol. ii p. 352) says that in many passages he
"expresses himself in such a way that one can scarcely fail to notice a distinction be-
tween the Logos of the Father and that of the Son ". See also Loofs Leitfaden p. 107.

^ In the Hypotyposeis (Harnack DG. Eng. tr. vol. ii p. 352).

* in Strom, v 1 Clement seems to me to be certainly objecting to the term Xo'jos
rpotpopiK6s as ajiplied to the Son, on the ground that it depreciates his dignity, and not
(as Harnack and Zahn take it) himself sanctioning a distinction between the higLtr
X670J ivdiddfTos and the lower X6701 irpo<f>opiK6t.

THE LOGOS DOCTRINE 135

Clement's gi-eat trilogy — the conception of the Logos, one and
the same, from the beginning to the end of things, drawing men
to faith, training them, and at last bringing them to the full
knowledge of God.

Here, as in all similar cases, the only safe canon of criticism
is that which bids us interpret the less known in a sense in
keeping with the more known ; and we must assume that the
doubtful expression was less well said rather than let it subvert
the whole purpose and aim of the mass of its author's work.
The general conception of Clement was certainly that the Logos
— eternally equal with, but distinct from the Father, as His Son
— was manifested all through the world's history, and at last was
incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ. He cannot have in-
tended, by any phrase that the exigencies of any particular line
of argument may have brought to him, to evacuate that main
idea of its proper force and consequences.^

^ The prologue to the Exhortation to the Oreeks is really quite decisive —

The Word is the harmonious, melodious, holy instrument of God {Exhortation

to the Oreeks \).
Inasmuch as the Word was from the first. He was and is the divine source of

all things.
He has now assumed the name of Christ . . . the cause of both our being at

first and of our well-being.
This very Word has appeared as man, H« alone being both, both God and

man.
The Saviour, who existed before, has in recent days appeared — He who is in

Him that truly is — the Word — has appeared ... as our teacher . . .
He pitied us from the beginning . . . but now he accomplished our salvation.
Our ally and helper is one and the same — the Lord, who from the beginning

gave revelations . . . but now jilainly calls to salvation.
The teaclier from whom all instruction comes {ihid. xi).

And Clement puts tlnso words into the mouth of Jesus, the one great High
Priest of the one God his KalluT — an apjical to men, "Come to Me, that you ntaj'
be put , . . under the one God aud the one Word of God ... I confnr on you
botli the Word and the Knowledge of God, my complete sidf. . . . This urn I . • .
this is the Son, thia ia Christ, this the Word of God ... 1 will give you rest "
{ibid, xii ad fin.).

Our Instructor is like His Father God . . . God in the form of man . . . the
Word who is God, who is in the Father {Putd. i 2).

"The good Instructor . . . the Word of the Father, who made man . . . tho
Saviour . . . ' Rise up' he said to the paralytic " (ibid.).

"One alone, tnm, k'^'^''. j"''t, in tlio image and likeness of the Father, His Son
Jesun, the Word of Gol, is our Instructor" {ibid. xi).

"The Word Iliniaolf is the manifest mystery : God in man and the man God.
And the Mediator executt-s his Father's will : for tho Mediator is the Word, who is
comm<jn to both — the Sou of God, the Saviour of men j His Sorvaut, our Teacher"
{ihid. iii 1 ).

13G CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

There are frequent references to the Son being what he is
and exercising the functions he exercises ' by the will ' and
' according to the will ' of the Father, but they are obviously
intended rather to safeguard the authority of the Father than
to limit the power of the Son. Such phrases do not imply
any non-Catholic conception of the subordination or ' inferiority '
of the Son to the Father. They express the complete moral
harmony between the Father and the Son ; they exclude anything
like dualism, anything that would mar the unity of the divine
being ; they certainly do not support any notion of temporal
origin of the Son or of his derivation from any other source
than the very essence of the divine.^

The iniluence of Clement on the developement of doctrine
was, however, not exercised so much directly as through his more
famous pupil Origen, whose greater ability and untiring labours,
continued over fifty years, made him the chief representative of
the Alexandrian school.

Before, however, we pass to him, we must turn our attention
to the great representative of the Church of Africa — in geo-
graphical position situated between Gaul and Egypt, but
separated from each by sea and desert, and no less isolated
by antecedents and character. The differences between the
Churches of Africa on the one hand and Gaul and Egypt on
the other is reflected in the thought and teaching of Tertullian
on the one hand, and Irenaeus and Clement on the other. In
passing from Clement to Tertullian we pass from sentiment and
imagination to practical precision and legal reasoning, from
poetry to prose. Instead of picturesque description we have
attempts at accurate definition. We leave the mystic atmosphere
of the Logos doctrine, with its blended beauties and obscurities,
its lights and its shadows, and come into the region in which it
is overpowered by the doctrine of the Sonship — the doctrine
which is much more obviously in harmony with human analogies
and experience, and by its greater simplicity was found to be
much more easily grasped by the practical Western mind.

' In the Stromateis (vii 2) he definitely calls him the paternal Word, declares
him to be always everywhere, being detained nowhere ; the complete paternal liglit
. . . before the foundation of the world the counsellor of the Father . . . the power
of God as being the Father's most ancient Word before the production of all things
and His wisdom. "The Son is", he says, "so to speak an energy of the Father",
bat this is said to shew that " being the Father's power, he easily prevails in what
be wishes ".

THE LOGOS DOCTRINE 137

From this time forward the explanation of the person of
Christ and of his relation to the Godhead as a whole, which was
furnished by the Logos doctrine, tended more and more to recede
into the backcrround of theological thought. The main ideas had
no doubt in large measure passed into the common stock, but
the name was less and less used, and attention was concentrated
rather on the group of ideas which the title Son suggests. The
more philosophical conception gives way to the one which can
best be brought to the test of conditions with which every one is
familiar.

So the conception of the Sonship occupies the chief place in
the thought and exposition of an Origen no less than in that of
less speculative and more prosaic theologians like Tertullian

CHAPTER X

Tertullian

It is in Tertullian that we first find the accurate definition and
technical terms that passed over into Catholic theology, winning
prompt acceptance in the West and securing — when the time
came — the grudging but certain approval of the East.^ With
his legal rhetorical training and ready application of forensic
analogies to the expression of doctrine, and his genius for terse
and pregnant description, he effectively moulded the Latin
language to the service of ecclesiastical needs, and fashioned the
formulas of the later orthodoxy. The terms seem to come to
him 80 readily that one would suppose them already familiar,
were it not that no earlier traces are found.

It will be remembered that he was a chief opponent of the
modalistie form of Monarchianism, which he understood to
mean that the Father Himself suffered ; and it was under the
provocation of this Monarchian teaching that his own concep-
tions were expressed and probably worked out.

Tertullian was perhaps less a philosopher than a jurist, and
we are helped to understand his theory — his expression of the
Christian doctrine of God and of the Person of Christ — by the
legal use of the terms he employs.^ ' Substance ' {substantia)
meant * property ' — the sense in which we use the word when
we speak of * a man of substance ' — a man's possessions, estates,
fortune, the owner's rights in which were carefully protected by
Roman law from invasion or infringement. ' Person ' {persona)

* See infra p. 166 n. 1, on the influence of the West (through Hosius) in framing
the Nicene formula. It is an ' epitome ' of Tertullian that was made by Novatian,
whose treatise On the Trinity was a dominant influence in the West. So it was Ter-
tullian's doctrine that Dionysius of Rome pressed on his namesake of Alexandria.

' See Harnack DO. ii» p. 285 fl".(Eng. tr. vol. iv pp. 122, 123). But the passages
cited infra shew that the concejitioiis and expressions of Tertullian were by no
moans entirely controlled by legal usage, and the philosophic*! sense of the tcrma
must also be borne in mind.

188

TERTULLIAN 139

meant a being with legal rights, a ' party ', an ' individual ', whose
being as such was recognized by law as one of the facts of which
it took cognizance, a real existence (res) within its own limitations.
Such a person's position or circumstances would be his status, or
condition (status, condicio), — perhaps even his nature (natura or
propridas), when looked at from a more inward point of view, —
and obviously a number of persons might occupy the same status,
or be in the same condition, or have the same nature. So too
there might be various kinds of ' substance ', each marked by
special characteristics or ' properties ' (in the sense of that which
is proper or peculiar to each) or ' nature ' (jprojmetas, natura).

Thus, if these human analogies be apphed to the interpre-
tation of the Christian revelation, one substance is divinity — all
that belongs to the divine existence. This is, as it were, one
piece of property ; but, following still the human analogy, there
is nothing to hinder its being held in joint ownership by three
individuals with the same rights in it on equal terms. And so
the description of the divine existence would be one substance
shared by three persons in one condition {una substantia, tres
personae, in uno statu). But there is also another substance — all
that belongs to human existence, all that is owned by men
qua men. This is another piece of property, and, still from the
point of view of Eoman law, there is nothing to hinder one
and the same person from holding at the same time two quite
different pieces of property. So the two substances, divinity
and humanity, might be owned, and all the rights and privileges
attaching to each exercised and enjoyed, at one and the same
time, by one and the same person, Jesus Christ.^ Thus there is
no contradiction or confusion of thought in speaking as regards
the being of God of one substance and three persons,* and as

* Melito (de Iricam. Christi (Routh Rf.l. i p. 121)) uses ovaia. as Tertullian uses
tv^starUia in this connexion, and speaks iu regard to Christ of rds 5uo ai'/roC
oOalas — the two realities, fiodhead and manhood, wliich were liis.

' Tertullian seems, however, to nvoid the use of the word persoiiue in this
connexion, usint,' tret alone to express 'the three", without adding 'persons' in
the case of th*- Trinity ; just as later Augnsfine, wliile feeliiii; compelh-fl to speak of
three 'jiersons', apologized for the term and threw the nsiiousihility f«ir it on to
the poverty of the language {de Trinilale v 10, vii 7-10; see infra). Tertullian
has the definite expression only when it cannot well he omitted— «.(;. when 8U|ij>ort-
ing the doctrine of the Trinity from the haptismal commissinn, he writes " nam nee
aemel, sed ter, ad singula noniina in personas .singulas tinguimur " {adv. Prax. 26).

On the other hand, he has no scruple ahout using the term perscnia of Jishh
Christ, both man and God — combining in himself the two BitbtCarUiae, but on*

140 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

regards the constitution of the person of Christ of two sub-
stances and one person, he being at once God and man (Dens et
homo).

In this way tlie unity of the GodJiead is strongly marked ;
it is one and the same divinity which all three share alike.
This is " the mystery of the providential order which arranges
the unity in a trinity, setting in their order three — Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit — three, however, not in condition (status)
but in relation (gradus), and not in substance but in mode of
existence (forma), and not in power but in special characteristics
(species) ; yes, rather of one substance and of one status and
power, inasmuch as it is one God from whom these relations and
modes and special characteristics are reckoned in the name of
Father and of Son and of Holy Spirit ", ^

When Tertullian passes from this juristic sense of substance
to the wider philosophical use of the term, and declares that he
always maintains in regard to the Godhead " the substance in
three (persons) who together form the whole ",^ yet it is always
with him something concrete — a particular form of existence.
It has of course a particular character or nature of its own ;
but it is not its nature — rather its nature exists in it, and, in
part at least, in other similar substances. " Substance and
the nature of substance ", he writes,^ " are different things.
Substance is peculiar to each particular thing ; nature, however,
can be shared by others. Take an example : stone and iron are
substances ; the hardness of stone and of iron is the nature of
the two substances. Hardness brings them together, makes them

person. Cf. adv. Prax. 27 " Videmus duplicem statum, nou confusum, sed con-
iunctura in una persona, deum et homineni Jesuiii."

' Adv. Prax. 2. Tres autem non statu sed yradu, nee substantia sed forma, nee
potesla/e sed specie. Apparently by gradus (relation or degree) is meant "the order
whereby the Father exists of Himself, the Son goes forth immediately from the
Father, and the Holy S[iirit proceeds from the Father through the Son ; so that
the Father is rightly designated the first, the Son the second, and the Holy Spirit
the third Person of the Godhead. And by the exjircssions formae and species
(forms and aspects) he seems to have meant to indicate the different modes of
subsistence {rpovovs i/irdp^etus), whereby the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
subsist in the same divine nature" (Bp. Bull Def. N.C. ii, vii).

Between 'species' and 'forma' theie is no percejitible difference, at least
Cicero (Op. 7, cited by Forcellini) says the same thing is signified by species as
\) J forma, which in <ireek is I5ia.

* Unam substantiain in tribus cohaerentibus (adv. Prax, 12).

• I)e Anima 32. Similarly (adv. Prax. 26) he distinguishes letween substantia
and the accidentia or proprietates uniuacuiusque substaiUiae.

TERTULLIAN 141

partners ; substance sets them apart (that is to say, hardness —
their ' nature ' — is what they have in common ; substance is
what is peculiar to each). . . . You mark the likeness of nature
first when you observe the unlikeness of substance," — that is
to say, that you must first recognize that they are two things
(as to substance) before you can compare them (as to nature).
' Substance ' can, accordingly, never have to Tertullian the
meaning ' nature',^ — the thing itself cannot be its properties.
And so, in working out the doctrine of the Person of Christ, by
the expression ' two substances ' he does not mean simply two
natures in any indefinite sense, but that the one person is both
God and man, enjoying the two distinct possessions of deity and
humanity.

It is in describing the nature of the relation between the
Son and the Father that he most loses sight of the legal sense
of the term ' substance ', and employs it to express a particular
form of existence ; which is, however, still regarded as concrete.
" The Son I derive ", he says, " from no other source but from the
substance of the Father "^ where the substance of the Father is
only an exegetical periphrasis for the Father Himself — His own
being : so that he can use the single word, " We say that the
Son is produced (projected) from the Father, but not separated
from Him ".^ He wlio is emitted from the substance of the
Father must of course be of that substance,* and there is no
separation between the two. The Word is " always in the
Father . . . and always with God . . . and never separated
from the Father or ditlerent from the Father ". He speaks, it
i8_true,_of the Father as being ' the whole substance ', while
the Son i s ' a derivation from, and portion of, the whole ', and
80 ' iiiH'li' leys' tliaii the Father;^ but his only purpose is to
mark the diKtinction between tliem as real, and not as in-
volving divorsity between them or division of the one substance.
The relation buLween them may be illustrated by human
analogies. The root j)r<)duces (emits) the shrub, the spring the
stream, and the sun the ray. The former is in each case, as
it were, the parent, and the latter tlie ofFspring : they are two
things, but they are inseparably connected. Tlie being of both
is one and the same. That which proceeds, moreover, is second
to that from which it jirocceds, and when you say 'second'

' SfO furthur Journal uj Theological Studies vol. iii ji. 2^2 and vol. iv ji. 440.
» Adv. Frojc. 4. » Ibid. 8. * Ibid. 7. • Ibid. 9.

142 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

you sav that there are two. It is in order to mark clearly
the distinct personality of the Son that he calls him ' second '.
There is no suggestion or thought of subordination, in any
other sense than in regard to origin, and even that is merged
in the unity of substance. In the case under consideration
there is a third. " The Spirit is third from God and the Son,
just as the fruit which comes from the shrub is third from the
root, and the river which flows from the stream is third from
the spring, and the ' peak ' of the ray third from the sun." ^
There is, moreover, a sense in which the Father is one, and
the Son other, and the Spirit yet other ; as he who generates is
other than he who is generated, and he who sends than he who
is sent. Yet there is no division of the one substance, though
there are three in it, and each of the three is a substantive
(substantial) existence out of the substance of God Himself.^

Seizing the Monarchian watchword, he turns it against
themselves, and insists that no rule or government is so much
the rule of a single person, so much a ' monarchy ', that it
cannot be administered through others appointed to fulfil their
functions by the monarch. The monarchy is not divided, and
does not cease to be a monarchy, if the monarch's son is
associated with him in the rule. The kingdom is still the
king's; its unity is not impaired.'

That God was never really alone (since there was always
Nvith Him the Logos as His reason and word) is shewn by the
analogy of the operation of Imman thought and consciousness,*
and by His very name of Father — which implies the existence
of the Sou ; He had a Son, but He was not Himself His Son —
as well as by numerous passages of the Scriptures. But
between Him and the Son there was no division, though they
were two (and though it would be better to have two divided
gods than the one ' change-coat ' God the Monarchians preached).

The treatise against Praxeas is more technical in phraseology
and definitely theological in purpose than the Apology^ which
was intended for more general reading ; but in the Apology he

' Adv. Prax. 8. Yet it is a 'trinitas unius divinitatis' . See de Pudicitia § 21.

' Adv. Prax. 26, and cf. ihid. 25. " So the connexion of the Father in the Son
and of the Son in the Paraclete produces three coherent one to the other. And
these three are one thing {unum), not one person (unus) ; as it was said, * I and the
Father are One (unum) ', in regard to unity of substance, not in regard to singt larity
of number."

» Adv. Prax. 3. * Ibid. 6. » See Apol. 21.

TERTULLIAN 143

expresses the same thoughts in somewhat different language.
God made the world by His word and reason and power (virtus).
This is what Zeno and Cleanthes also said, using the word Logos
— that is, word and reason — of the artificer of the universe.
The proper substance of the Logos is spirit. He was produced
from God, and by being produced was generated, and is called
Son of God, and God, because his substance is one and the same
as God's. For God too is spirit. As in the case of a ray being
shot forth from the sun, the ray is a portion of the whole sun ;
but the sun is really in the ray, because it is a ray of the sun ;
and the substance of the ray is not separated from the sun ; but
the substance of the sun is extended into the ray : so that which
is produced from spirit is spirit, and from God God, just as
from light is kindled light. So the Logos is God and God's
Son, and both are one. It was, as it were, a ray of God which
glided down into a certain virgin, and in her womb was fashioned
as flesh, and was born man and God blended together.^ The
flesh was built up by the spirit, was nourished, grew to man-
hood, spoke, taught, worked, and was Christ.

The relation between the spirit and the flesh in the consti-
tution of the person of Jesus Christ he discusses in the treatise
against Praxeas.^

It was not that the spirit was transformed {transfiguratus)
when he became flesh, but that he ' put on ' flesh. God, as being
eternal, is unchangeable and incapable of being transformed.
To have been transformed would have been to have ceased to
be God ; but the Logos never ceased to be what he was to
begin with. If the Logos had really become flesh by any
process of transfiguration and change of substance, then Jesus
would have been a new substance formed out of the two
substances flesh and spirit, a kind of mixture, a tertium quid.
liut there was no kind of mixture; each substance remained
distinct in its own characteristics — the Word wfis never any-

* 'Homo deo mixtus.' Tertullian did not moan tliat the two together made
a third thing. He expres.sly rcpiKliates the concej)tion, using tlio illustration of
elfictrum, a cnipound of gold and Kilver, noitlior one nor tlio oth(;r (see adv. Prax.
27) ; and ho eniiiha.Mi/.es the di.siinct i>iirt.s playid hj tlio divinily and the humanity
respectively as clearly as Leo himself (Ep. ad Flav.) more than two hundred yeara
latiT. But hiid he lived in I,<f)'s time he prolmlily would not have u.sud this phrase.
See infra j). '243 n. 3 and p. 217.

* Adv. Prax. 27. Cf. also de Carrui Chrisli, esp. § 18, where he insista on the
(listiiK^t origin of the H]>irit and the fleHh und ilisousses the intorprtitation of John 8*
u spoken by Christ of himself, shewing that each remains what it wan.

144 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

thing but God, the flesh was never anything but man. He who
was Son of God as regards the spirit was man and son of
man. " We see ", he says, " the double status, the two not con-
fused but conjoined in one person, God and man (Jesus). . . ."
This is Christ. " And the peculiar properties of each substance
are preserved intact, so that in him the spirit conducted its own
affaii's, that is, the deeds of power and works and signs, , . .
and the flesh underwent its sufferings, hungering in the instance
of the Devil (the Temptation), thirsting in the instance of the
Samaritan woman, weeping for Lazarus, sorrowful unto death ;
and finally it died." It is clear, he insists, that both substances
e.Kercised their functions each by itself. Qux flesh and man
and son of man, he died ; qua Spirit and Word and Son of God,
he was immortal. " It is not in respect of the divine substance,
but in respect of the human, that we say he died." ^

It may thus be fairly said that the later developed orthodox
doctrine of the Trinity and of the Person of Christ — even
in details — is to be found in Tertullian. Certain crudities of
thought may perhaps be detected,^ but as having developed and
created a series of most important doctrinal formulae which
became part of the general doctrinal system of the Catholic
Church, his importance cannot be overestimated.^

' Adv. Prax. 29, where he argues against the conception that the Father
' sud'ered with ' the Son, on the main ground that in the divine substance (which
was all the Father and the Son had in common) the Son himself did not suffer.
On the parts })layed by the two substances see also de Came Chridi (§ 5),
where the doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum is expressed for the first
time, fl

' Hamack {DG. Eng. tr. vol. iv p. 121) notes as obvious the following: (1) Son
and Spirit proceed from the Father solely in view of the work of creation and revela-
tion ; (2) Son and Spirit do not possess the entire substance of the Godhead, but
are 'portiones'; (3) they are subordinate to the Father; (4) they are transitory
manifestations — the Son at last gives back everything to the Father ; the Father
alone is absolutely invisible, the Son can become visible and can do things which
would be sim])ly unworthy of the Father. But this criticism seems to emphasize
unduly particular expressions in relation to others, and to be corrected by the
excellent summary of the treatise adv. Prax. which follows it (Harnack DG. Eng.
tr. vol. iv p. 122).

» Cf. Harnack DG. Eng. tr. vol. ii p. 235. So Bull could write (Z)e/. N.C. bk. ii
ch. vii, Ox. tr. ), "Read only his single work against Praxeas, in which he treats
fully and professedly of the most holy Trinity ; lie there asserts the consubstanti-
ality of the Son so frequently and so plainly, that you would suppose the author
had written after the time of the Nicene Council."

CHAPTER Xl

Okigen

Origen is one of the great landmarks in the history of doctrine.'
He was the first of the theologians whose work is really known
to us to attempt the scientific systematic ^ exposition of the
Christian interpretation of life. And however much the know-
ledge of previous controversies may have stimulated his own
thought and aided to determine his exposition, he lias the great
advantage over previous theologians that his work was not im-
mediately called forth by apologetic motives and the exigencies
of controversy. He was able to face the problems with the
scholar's and the teacher's aim of clear and simple exposition
only. There is no sign of haste or of heat about his work.
He had not got to ' score ' a victory over dangerous enemies,
within or without the Church : he had not to use argumenta ad
horninem ; he had perhaps some ohiter dicta to recall,^ but his
opinions were quietly formed, and there is little reason to doubt
that even those which were not accepted by his own or later
generations represented his deliberate and reasoned convictions.
His system was built up on Tradition — as embodied in tlie
Scriptures and the custom of the Church — but he put his own
mark upon it all and aimed at giving it liis own expression.

' Harnack says we can clearly distin^'uish in the history of dogma tliree styles
of buildinj,', and names as the masters of these styles, Origen, Augiistine, and the
Reformers {DO. i j.. 10).

'Tliis seems to be the fact, although it is tnie that " iiis writings represent an
as] li ration ratlier than a system, principles of research and hope raliicr tlian
determined fornmlas" (Westcott 'Origoncs' D.C.B., an article of the highest
value. Cf. his Essay on Ori^'en in licliijioiis Thourjhl in the Wed). See also
particularly C. liigg The Christian PlcUonista of Alexandria (Hampton Lectures,
188t;), esp. jip. 15"2-192 ; but for the study of the conceptions of Origen the
most lielpful book is still perliaps that of Redcpenuing, witii its rich quotations
from his writings.

' Cf. the saying of Jerome, that in some of liis earli<T treatises, written in the
immaturity of youth, Origen was 'like a boy jibiying ut dice'. 5

145

14« CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

It is in his great wiiting Trepl ap-^wv {de Principiis) that this
expression is chielly to be found.^

Basing the whole of his work on " the teaching of the
Church transmitted in orderly succession from the Apostles, and
remaining in the Churches to the present day ", he first lays down
a summary of the rule of faith as expressed in the Scriptures,
and declares that every one must make use of elements and
foundations of that kind if he desires to form a connected series
and body of doctrine, following up each point by means of
illustrations and arguments, whether found in holy Scripture or
discovered by a correct method of deduction. He then proceeds,
not without digressions and repetitions, to set out in three
successive books the doctrine of God, of creation and providence,
of man and redemption ; and in conclusion, in the fourth book,
he examines the questions of the inspiration and the interpreta-
tion of the Bible. The book was obviously not written for the
simple believer, but for scholars who were familiar with the
speculations of the Gnostics and of other — non-Chrifctian — philo-
sophers, fj

In his interpretation of the Christian revelation, accordingly,
Origen started from the philosophical conception, to whicli Plato
and the Neo-Platonists had given currency, of the One and the
Many . The One represents the only real existence, the Source
jqI all being: the Many represents the Universe with all its
v;arying forms of apparent being, none of which have any real
existence apart from the One from which they are derived.
They do, however, in various ways pourtray the One, and in
them alone can He be understood : for the One, the self -existent,
the source of all that really is, is a living Person. In His
absolute nature and being He is unknowable by man (or any of
the Many), but He is relatively knowable so far as He is revealed
through the medium of the universe which derives its existence
from Him and in some measure reflects His nature and attributes.
Such relative knowledge as is in this way attainable shews Him
to be not only one, without origin, the cause of all that is, but
also spiritual and eternal, and above all else absolutely good.
His very essence is love. From this ethical conception, which
is at the back of all his theology, Origen argues that He must

^ Besides the de Principiis (228-231), the most important works in which his
theological teaching is set forth are the ComtneiUaries on St John (228-238), the
Contra Celsum (249), and the de OrcUione.

ORIGEN 147

impart Himself. Love cannot be thought of, except as giving.
Goodness desires that all shall share in the highest knowledge.
And so there must be some medium, some channel, by which
He effects the revelation of Himself. As th e required organ He
chose the Logos.^ It is for the very purpose of revealing God
that the Logos exists,^ and for this reason he has a personal
subsistence side by side with the Father,^ and must be (if he is
to reveal Him truly), as regards his being, of one essence with
God. He must be in his own being God, and not only as
sharing in the being of God.* He is thus, as being the perfect
image of God, the reason and wisdom of God, himself too
really God.

His generation as Son is effected as the will proceeds from
the mind, as the brilliance from the light, eternal and everlasting.
It c annot be said that there was any time when the Son was
not. No beginning of this generation can be conceived — it is
a continuous eternal process.^ It is this conception of a con-

' It is only in connexion with the revelation of God that Origen conceives, or
at least expounds, the Trinity. God is goodness — the avrb dyaddv : He must there-
fore reveal Himself. Origen does not, as later on Augustine did, derive the
essential Trinity from this conception of Love as the very being of the Godhead,
80 that a plurality of Pi-rsons was a necessary inference from this main character-
istic. It is only the Trinity of revelation (God in relation to the world) that he
seta forth. See hi/ra pp. 204, 228.

' See e.g. de Princ. i 2. 6.

' Jbid. i 2. 2. " Let no one imagine that we mean anything impersonal. . . .
The only-begott<n Son of God is His wisdom existing as a hypostasis."

* Paniiihilus {Ajiolorjy for Origen c. 5 tr. Kulinus) quotes him as using, in his
Commentary on the Ejdslh to the Hebrews, the very word 6/j.ooi'i<nos to express the
identity of being of the Father and the Son, "And these similitudes . . . shew
most clearly that the Son has communion of essence (substance) with the Father ;
for an effluence (aporrhoea) is evidently homoousios, that is, of one essence (sub-
stance) with tlie body of wliich it is an elllueuce or vajiour." Of. also de Princ.
i 2. 5, "the only one who is by nature a Son, and is therefore termed the Only-
begotten"; ibid, i 2. 10, "in all respects incapable of change or alteration, and
every goo<J qiiality in him being essi^ntial and such as cannot be changed and con-
verted " ; ibid, i 2. 12, "there is no dissimilarity whatever between the Son and the
Father". Cf. the similitude of the iron heated by the fire (ibid, ii 6. 6), and of
the statue (ibid, i 2. 8).

' " Who . . . can supjiose or believe that God the Father ever existed even for a
moment without having generated this Wisdom (which is His only-begotten Son)"
(i 2. 2). "His generation is as eterual and everlasting as the brilliance which is
produced from the sun" (i 2. 4 ; cf. i 2. 9) ; and "No one can be a father without
having a son" (i 2. 10 ; cf. iv 28). Anrl in Jercm. Horn, ix 4, "The Father did
not beget the Son and let him go from the Source of his generation (cl7r6 TTJt
ftviatu)% avrov, i.e. IliniHolf the Father, — or perhajw 'after, or in consequence of,
bis generation '), but lie is always begetting him (de J ■)ftvv(i. aOrltw)."

148 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE:

tinuoiis timeless process tliat brings the k]^.a. of the generation
of the Son, wdich earlier thinkers had expressed, into the Hi<here
of living reality. It ceases to be an act in time, and b'fcomes
an action outsule time — living and nioviujz and real. 1*^ is
Origen's chief permanent contr ibution to the doctrine of the
Person of Christ.

The Son is indeed said to be begotten of or bv the will of
the Father ^ — but within tiie being of the Father no contradiction
could be thought of — His will is of His very essence And so,
though there should be an act of will, there would be aiso an
inner necessity for it, and the Son would be equally truly said
to be begotten of the essence of the Father.^

The function of revelation is also exercised by the Holy
Spirit,^ who is the most exalted of all the bei ngs t hat have
come into existence through the Logos.*

These three existences together constitute the Trinity, which

1 E.g. de Prine. i 2. 6, "who is born of Him, like an act of His will proceeding
from the mind ".

* Loofs {Ldtfaden^ p. 125) sets in antithesis various phrases, extracted from
different contexts, to shew the subordinate rank of the Son in relation to the Father.
The Father alone is a-yiwriTOi {de Priiic. 12. 6 ; in Joh. 2^), the Son in relation to
Him a KTia/xa. [Justinian is the only authority for the assertion that Origen styled
the Son a Krh/j-a. Origen certainly never meant it in any Arian sense.]

The Father is aiW66€Oi and aXijdivbi 0e6s [iii, Joh. 2'), the Son is deirtpos
9ebi (c. Cels. 5. 39) and fi^toi t^s itxjTepevovayfi fierk rbv Oebv tQ>i> S\(i)v rifxiji (ibid.
7. 57).

The Father is iirapaWdKrui 6.-yad6i, the Son is eiKuv ayad6T7]TOi toO deoC, dXV
o6k avToayadSj {de Princ. i 13). [But this antithesis must be corrected by reference
to de Princ. i 2. 10 and ii C. 5, 6.]

The Father is 6 debs, the Son is 6e6s {in Joh. 2^), and prayer should be made to
the Fathei only {de Orat. 15). [But nevertheless the Son is equally with the
Father an oVijoct of worship, Father and Son being two actualities tj vTroa-rdcret,
but one in unanimity and harmony and sameness of purpose (c. Cels. 8. 12). So
worship is offered to Christ as he is in — as he is one with— the Father. And it is
really only the highest form of petition which Origen says is to be addressed to the
Father only in the Son's name. (See Bigg I.e. p. 185.)]

In the case of such a writer as Origen it is peculiarly dangerous to isolate
parti'-ular [ihrases : — it is of course just the error into which the Arians fell. They
must be studied always in their context and in their connexion with contemporary
thought, if their u'eneral scope and proportion is not to be misconceived. (Cf.
Westcott I.e. p. 133.) Any summary statement of his teaching must therefore
be peculiarly precarious.

' De Princ. i 3. 4, "All knowledge of the Father is ootained by reve.anon of
the Son through the Holy Spirit", but "we are not to suppose that tne Spirit
derives his knowledge through revelation from the Son ". He nuv the same know-
ledge and, just like the Son, reveals it to wlioni lie wiii.

* See Coni/ni. in Joh. i 3 and infra \t. 202,

ORIGEN 149

in its real inner being transcends all thought — essentially of
one Godhead, eternal and co-equal.^

But in manifestation to the created universe a difference
between the Persons may be seen, at least as to the extent of
their action. " God the Father, holding all things together,
reaches to each of the things that are, imparting being to each
from His own ; for He is absolutely. Compared with the Father
the Son is less, reaching to rational beings only, for he is second
to the Father. And the Holy Spirit again is inferior, extending
to the saints only. So that in this respect the power of the
Father is greater, in comparison with the Son and the Holy
_ Spirit; a nd the power of the Son more, in comparison with the
Holy Spirit; and again the power of the Holy Spirit more
exceeding, in comparison with all other holy beings." ^

As regards the Son, in particular, it is clear that Origen
maintained his distinct personality,^ his essential Godhead {kut
ovaiav ecrTt 6e6<i), and his co-eternity with the Father {ait
yevvarai 6 acorrjp viro rov Trarpo?) : though he placed him as
an intermediary between God and the universe, and spoke of
the unity of the Father and the Son as moral, and insisted on
the Father's pre-eminence {virepoxn) as the one source and
fountain of Godhead, in such terms as to lead many, who
believed themselves his followers and accepted his authority, to
emphasize unduly the subordination of the Son.*

' See de Princ. i 3. 7, niliil in trinilate majus minusve (though Loofs, op. c. p. 126,
regards Rufinus as responsible for this clause, it seems certainly to express the
conviction of Origen with regard to the mutual relations of the three Persons in
their inner being). See further infra p. 201, on the Holy Spirit ; and on the
impossibility for men of understanding anything but the Trinity in its manifesta-
tions (revelation), see the strong assertions de Princ. i 34 and iv 28.

» De Print, i 3. .""), CV. fr. Cf. Athanasius ad Serap. iv 10, and Origen de
Princ. iv 27 f.

» This (namely, that the Son is not the Father) is certainly the meaning of the
passage de Oralione 15 : frepov kolt oialav Kal inrondfjuvov rod TrarpAs — ovaia. being
used in its primary sense of particular or individual existence.

* p,i^g {op. c. p. 181) insists that to derive the Subordinationism which is a note
of Origen's conceptions from metaphysical considerations is to wrong him. "It is
purely scriptural, and rests wholly and entindy upon the words of Jesus, 'My
Father is greater than I ', ' that thoy may know Tlioo the only true God ', ' None is
Good save One'. The dominant text in Origen's mind was the last. Hence he
limits the relativity to the attribute to which it is limited by Christ himself. The
.•^on ia Very Wisdom, Very Kighteousnes-s, Very Truth, perhaps even Very King;
but not Very Goodness. He is Perfect Image of the Father's Goodness, but not the
Absolute Good, tliough in ro^'ard to us he is the Absolute Good. . . . Where he
pronounces his real thought, the liitference between the Persons ia conceived not aa

150 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

The special attiiiiry in which the Sou stands to rational
beings estabiisiics Ll.o iiLiuvss oi Uie Incarnation, and througli
the human soul ^ the divine Log' )S was imited with the man
Christ Jesus — perfect manhood, subject to the conditions of
natural growtn, and perfect divinity becoming one in him, while
each nature still remains distinct. To describe this unity he
was the first to use the compt)iuid word God-Man (©eai^^pwTro?),
and the relation between the two natures was expressed by the
image of the tire and the iron, when the fire heats and pene-
trates the iron so that it becomes a glowing mass, and yet its
character is not altered — the fire and the metal are one, bu t the
iron is not changed into something else.^

So, through the union of the divine and the human nature
effected in the Incarnation, all human nature was made capable
of being glorified, without the violation of its proper character-
istics. The work of Christ was for all men. It was so revealed
that it could be apprehended according to the several powers
and wants of men — he was ' all things to all men '. His mani-
festation to men is present and continuous. He is ever being
born, and is seen as each believer has the faculty of seeing —
and as each reflects him he becomes himself a Christ — an
anointed one. For the union of man and God accomplished

quantitative nor as qualitative, but as modal simply. The Son qua Son is inferior
to the Father qua Father. ... He could not, he dared not, shrink back where the
Word of God led him on. He could not think that a truth three times at least
pressed upon the Church by Christ himself might safely be ignored. To his
dauntless spirit these words of the Master seemed to be not a scandal but a flash
©flight."

1 See de Frinc. ii 6, 3. It is "impossible for the nature of God to intermingle
with a body without an intermediate instrument", and the soul is "intermediate
between God and the flesh ". The human soul with which the Logos was united was,
according to Origen's conception of the creation of all souls before all worlds at the
beginning of creation, the only soul which had remained absolutely pure, by the
exercise of free choice in its pre-existent state. Irrespective of Origen's peculiar
theory of the origin of the soul, it is to be noted that he was one of the first
Christian thinkers to see the importance of the recognition of the human soul in
Christ. See de Princ. ii 6. 3, 5, where he explains how the nature of his rational
.soul was the same as that of all other souls (which can choose between good and
evil), and yet clung to righteousness so unchangeably and inseparably that it had no
susceptibility for alteration and change. See further on this point in/ra ApoUin-
ftrianism n. 242, and Note p. 247.

=" See de Privc. ii 6. 6. The human soul is the iron, the Word is the fire which
13 constant. The soul placed perpetually in the Word, perpetually in God, is God
in all that it does, feels, and understands . . . and so possesses immutability. Yet
the two natures remain distinct {ibid, i 2. 1 ; ii 6. 8).

ORIGEN 151

absolutely in Clirist is to be fulfilled in due measure in each
Christian as Christ had made it possible. His work is effi-
cacious for the consummation of humanity and of the indi-
vidual — both as a victory over every power of evil and also as
a vicarious sacrifice for sin ; for the whole world, and for
heavenly beings (to whom it may bring advancement in blessed-
ness), and for other orders of being in a manner corresponding
to their natiu'e.^

Origen's doctrine of the Logos and the Sonship was an
attempt to recognize and give due weight to all the conditions
of the problem, so far as a human mind could reaUze them.
Origen himself might see at once the many sides and aspects of
the problem and succeed in maintaining the due proportion ;
but he was obliged to express himself in antithetical statements,
and his followers were not always successful in combining them.
They tended to separate more and more into two parties, a right
wing and a left wing — the former laying more stress on the
assertion of the unity of being of the Trinity (as Gregory Thau-
maturgus), the latter on the distinctness of personality and the
subordination of the persons in regard at least to office.

It appears to have been the ' subordination ' element in the
Christology of Origen — with its safeguard against Sabellianism
and its zeal for personal distinctions in the Godhead — that was
most readily appropriated by his admirers in the East. And many
of his phrases lent themselves at first sight more readily to the
Arian conceptions of a separate essence and a secondary god,
than to the Nicene teaching of identity of essence and eternal
generation from the very being of the Father. Yet it cannot be
doubted that Origen is really explicitly against the chief Arian
theories, and at least implicitly in harmony with the Nicene
doctrine of the Person of the Son.* Nevertheless the sympathies
of his followers in the East — in tho great controversy which

* Westcott (I.e.), vJio refers {for tlio statements in this paragraph) to e. Celt.
iv 3 f., 15 ; vi 68 ; iii 79 ; ii 64 ; iv 16 ; vi 77 ; iii 28 ; iii 17. On his theory of
the atonement see ivfra p. 337.

' ' The matter cannot ho better put tli.in it was by Bp. Bull Def. N.C. ii, iz § 22
(Oxforri transhition) : "In respect of the article of the divinity of the Son and
pven of the Holy Trinity, [Origen] wiis yet really catholic ; although in his mode of
exjilaining this article he -ometimes exf)r('ssed him.self otherwisf than Catholics of the
present day art: wont to do ; but tliia is common to him with nearly all the Father.'*
who lived before the Coum il of Nice." Cf. also Harnack DO. Kng. tr. vol. ii p. 374 :
"To Origen the highest value of Christ's person lies in the fact that the Deity haa
here coudeacended to reveal to us tht whole /uliicss of his essence. . . ."

152 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

broke out early in tlie followiug century — were rather with the
Ariaus than with their opponents.

ORIGENISTIC THEOLOGY AND CONTROVEB.SIKS

Among the special conceptions and theories of Origen, which led at
a. later time to his condemnation as heretical (apart from misconception
of his doctrine of the Trinity), are these. Moral evil is negative, a stato
from which good is absent, rather than a positive active force. All
punishment is disciplinary, designed to effect the reformation of the
sinner. Christ made atonement for the sins of all, and all will in the
end be saved — all created beings, even Satan. There is no break in
the moral continuity of heing. All souls were created — each by a
distinct fiat — at the beginning of Creation as angelic spirits : the souls
of men sinned in their first condition and for their apostasy were trans-
ferred into material bodies, and their mundane existence is a disciplinary
process (pre-existence and fall of the soul). There are more worlds than
ours — the heavenly bodies are inhabited. The resurrection will be
purely spiritual. God is Spirit, and all representation of Him under
human form or attributes is untrue to His real nature.

Conceptions and theories such as these may have contributed to bring
about the condemnation of Origen at Alexandria in his lifetime, though
ecclesiastical irregularities were the pretext.

Some of them were certainly attacked very soon by theologians
who had no prejudice against a philosophic Christianity (as Methodius,
Bishop of Olympus in Lycia, a martyr in the persecution under
Maximin), and abandoned or corrected by * Origenistic ' bishops them-
selves. (Socrates {H.E. vi 13) quite unfairly speaks of them as 'cheap'
critics, who were unable to attain distinction on their own merits and so
endeavoured to attract attention by carping at their betters. He names
^fethodius first, and then Eustathius of Antioch, and Apollinarius, and
Theophilus.)

The attack of course produced defenders. Chief among the champions,
who included his successors Pierius and Theognostus, were Pamphilus
and Eusebius of Caesarea, who together composed an elaborate Defence
of Origen (of which one book only is extant, in the Latin translation
of Rufinus), based on the distinction between speculation and doctrine.
They shewed that on the essential points, on which the teaching of the
Church was certain, Origen was ' orthodox ' ; and that his freedom of
speculation was exercised only in relation to subsidiary questions.

In the Arian controversy many ' Origenistic ' bishops, who were in
great force in Palestine, were to be found on the side of the supporters
of Arianism (Marcellus pointed to him as the originator of the mis-
chievous mixture of philosophical speculations with the doctrines of the

ORIGEN 158

faith — see Zahn Marcellm p. 55 ff.) ; and after a time (though not, it
seems, in the early stages of the struggle) the authority of his great
name was definitely claimed by them; and Athanasius, accordingly,
argued against their inferences, and cited passages from his writings to
prove that he was * Nicene ' rather than Arian, insisting that much that
he had written was only speculative and experimental, and that only
what he definitely declares ought to he taken as the real sentiment of
the 'labour-loving' man (de Deer. 27 ; cf. ad Serap. iv 9fF.), and highly
approving his doctrine of the Trinity. What Basil and Gregory of
Nazianzus thought of him is shewn by their selection from his works,
the Philocalia, which included passages from the de Principiis ; while
Gregory of Nyssa adopted many of his speculations, and at least some
of the Commentaries were translated into Latin — even by Jerome, who
in his earlier days was full of admiration for him.

On the other hand, Epiphanius numbered him among the heretics
and developed and emphasized the charges which Methodius had brought
against him. (See esp. Ancoratus 13, 54, 55, 62, 63, and adv. Haer. Ixiv.)
But it must be remembered that Epiphanius was in sympathy with the
Egyptian monks represented by Pachomius, who were specially repelled
by Origen's repudiation of all anthropomorphic conceptions.

It was Epiphanius who, going to Palestine in 394, convinced Jerome,
in spite of his previous admiration for Origen, of the unorthodox char-
acter of his writings, and stirred up the bitter strife which followed
between him and his former friend Rufinus, and led to the condemna-
tion of Origen by Anastasius, Bishop of Rome (though probably not at
a formal synod), after Rufinus had translated into Latin the Apology of
Pamphilus and the de Principiis. After much wrangling, and a change
of sides by Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, who had supported the
Origenists but was terrorized by the anthropomorphist monks, various
synods condemned Origen and his writings (at Alexandria in 400, in
Cyprus a little later, and at Chalcedon c. 403 in effect — in the person of
Chrysostom, who was attacked because of his sympathies with Origenists).
Still more distrust and suspicion were engendered by the supposed con-
nexion between Origenism and the teaching of the Pelagians (Jerome
regarded the two as closely allied), and his name was bandied about in
the course of the christological controversies of the following years.
Augustine was always opposed to anything that .savoured of his teacliing,
and Leo the Great regarded him as justly condemned, at least for his
doctrine of the pre-exi.stence of the soul. But admiration for him was not
crushed out, and early in the sixth century a revival of enthusiasm for
his teaching led to disturbances among the mnnks of Palestim", and
about the years 541-543 he was again condemned l)y a synod of bishops
held at ConHtantinople (the 'Home' Synod), in obf^dionce to the rescript
of the Emperor Justinian, who had drawn up an elaborate statement

154 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

nf Ixis enrr?, a ref'.'tation of them, and anathemas on all his followers
(Halin' p. 227). Whether this condemnation was or was not renewed at
the Fifth General Council which met in 553 cannot be determined. The
belief that it was has prevailed from an early date, and he is included
among other neretics in the eleventh of the anathemas ascribed to the
Council (Hahu^ p. 168), but there is some reason to think that the name
is a later insertion, and no direct evidence tliat bis opinions were con-
sidered on that occasion. In any case, though the ideas of Origen have
found supporters in all ages, Origenists as a party were effectually stamped
out. [See A. W. W. Dale • Origenistic Controversies' i>.C.if., and C.
Bigg op. c. pp. 273-280.1

See Huetius Onjeniana n eh. iv § 1 fi. ajp. Lommatsch xsdv 1 fi.

CHAPTER XII

The Arian Contkoverst

Introductory

By the beginning of the fourth century it seemed that, though
fixity of theological terminology had not yet been secured,
the lines of interpretation of the person of Jesus Christ
had been safely and firmly laid, and so the developement of
doctrine might quietly proceed, keeping pace with enlarged
experience and able to meet new conditions as they arose. The
old religions and the old philosophies of the world had contri-
buted to the process of interpretation what they could. The
minds which had been trained in the old schools of thought had
been brought to bear upon the Gospel and its claims. Some-
times they had, as it were, laid siege to it and tried to capture
it, and so to lead it in their train. But assaults of this kind
had all been repelled. The Church as a whole, while welcoming,
from whatever sources it came, the light that could be thrown
on the meaning of the revelation in Jesus in its fullest scope,
had preserved tenaciously the traditional explanation and accounts
of his life and of the Gospel history. So it was able to test all
newer explanations by the earliest tradition, and though erron-
eous ones — faulty or partial — might win adherents for a time,
the communis sensus fidclium had rejected in the end any that —
when tested by fuller experience of their significance — were seen
to he inconsistent with the principles which were involved in the
ancient faith and institutions of the Chui'cli.

liut when, at the beginning of the fourth century, persecu-
tion ceased, and the Church won peace and i)rotection from the
State, the ordinary cotn-se of developement was interrupted. The
influence of {jagan concej^tions was felt with fresh force witliin
the Church, and victories which seemed to liave been already
achieved had to be fought for and secured again. No sooner

16»

156 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

liad outward peace from persecution been won than the inward
peace of the Church was shattered by the outbreak of the Ariun
controversy. It was in and round tliis controversy that all the
forces of the old religions and philosophies of the world were
massed in the effort to dictate an interpretation of the Christian
revelation which would have nullified the work of the Church
during previous centuries. The long continuance of the contro-
versy was also due in part to the ambiguities and uncertainties
of much of the teaching which had been prevalent in the East,
which made men doubtful whether the Arian conceptions were
really such innovations on the traditional faith as they seemed
to the few who led the opposition to them. Thanks to the clear
and simple teaching of Tertullian, the Western Church was never
in such doubt, and Arianism never gained such hold in the
West as it did in the East. That the leaders of the Church of
Alexandria, where it originated, were able to detect its real
nature at the outset was probably due in no small measure to
the memories of the discussion in the time of Dionysius and the
influence of the Western tradition which was then asserted.

The controversy was so important and the questions raised
are of such permanent significance that we must trace its course
at length, at least in regard to its chief features and the main
turning-points of the history.^ ^

Arius and Ms Teaching

Arius, like all the great heresiarchs, whatever defects of
character he may have had, undoubtedly wished to carry to
greater perfection the work of interpretation of the Christian
revelation. He aimed, with sincerity and all the ability at his
command, at framing a theory of the Person of Christ, which
would be free from the difficulties presented to many minds by
current conceptions, and capable of providing a solution of some
of the problems by which they were met.

He tried to interpret the Christian revelation in such a way
as to render it acceptable to men whose whole conception of God
and of life was heathen. In doing this he shewed himself to be
lacking in real grip of the first principles of the Christian con-

* On the history of Arianism the works of Professor Gwatkin are invaluable —
Studies of Arianism, Ist ed. 1882, 2nd ed. 1900, and The Arian Ccmlrovemy in the
•eries ' Epochs of Church History '.

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 157

ception, and in sound judgement and insight; but the long

continuance of the controversy, and the wide acceptance which

his theories won, prove clearly how great a need there was for

further thought and teaching on the points at issue.^

Before tracing the history of the controversy we must note

what were the principles on which Arius based his thought.^

' An excellent sketch of the developement of the doctrine of the Person of
Christ up to the time of Arius is given by Professor Gwatkin {Studies of Arianism
p. 4 ff.). Inherited from Judaism and the Old Testament was the fundamental
principle, with which Christians started, of the existence of God, His unity and
distinction from the world. As a second fundamental doctrine of their own they
had the revelation of this God in Jesus Christ— the Incarnation and the Picsurrection.
They had an instinctive conviction that the fulness of the Lord was more than
human, the life that flowed from him more than human life, the atonement through
him an atonement with the Supreme Himself, the Person of the Lord the infinite
and final revelation of the Father. So his divinity became as fixi-d an axiom as
God's unity— and of his humanity there was of course no doubt. The problem was
how to reconcile this view of Christ's person with the fundamental principle of the
unity of God. At first bare assertions were enough ; but, when the question of
interpretatiou was raised, new theories had to be tested by Scripture ; and the two
great tendencies, which are innate in human thought, emerge : the rationalist,
which questions the divinity and so the incarnation ; and the mystic, which, recog-
nising full divinity in Christ, regards it as a mere appearance or modification of the
One, and so endangers the distinction between him and the Father. By the fourth
century it was becoming clear that the only solution of the problem was to be
found in a distinction inside the divine unity. Neither Arianism with its external
Trinity, nor SabelliauLsm with its oeconomic Trinity, satisfied the conditions of the
problem. So it was necessary to revise the idea of divine personiility and to
acknowledge not three individuals but three eternal aspects of tlio Divine, in its
inward relations as well as in its outward relations to the world (that is, three
eternal modes of the divine bein.i;, God existing always in three spheres). Pjut this
was just what the heathen could least ilo. Here was experienced the greatest
difficulty in the pre-Christian conception of God which prevailed in the world, and
which converts brought with them— namely, the essential simplicity— singleness— of
His being (cf. the Sabellian Trinity of temporal asjiects {irpbcwira) of the One; and
the A nan Trinity of One increate and two created beings). Insistence on the Lord's
divinity was lading back to polytheism. The fundamental idea of God at the back
of all njust be rectified before the position was secure.

* The extant writings of Arius are few— a letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia (Theo-
doret II. E. i 4 or 5), a V-XU-x to his bishoj), Alexander (Epiph. adv. liner. Ixix, and
Ath. de. Hyn. 16), extracts from the Thalia (Atli. Or. c. Ar. i, ii, and de 8yn. 15),
and a Creed (Socr. H.E. i 26, and Soz. II. E. ii 27). Astcrius seems to be
regarded by Athanasins (see Or. c. Ar. i 30-33, ii 37, iii 2, 00, and dr. Deer. Syn,
Nic. 8, 28-31) as the chief literary representative of Arianism (for his history see
Gwatkin, p. 72, note), but we have only rpiotations from his writings in the works
of Athanasins and in Eusebius Caes. cmUra MarceUum (who had ^vritton against
Astcrius). PhiloHtorgiiis, a Eunomian, of Cappadocia (c. 368-430), wrote a liistory
in twelve books of the time from the ap]>earanci' of Arius to the year 423, in whicli
he defended Arianism as lieing the original form of Cliristianity. Of this there are
extant many short pieces and one loi\g i)a88agc (see Migne }\G. Ixv 469-638). The
letter of fcluHol-iim ol Nicomedia to I'anlinus (Theodorct H.E. i 5) is of imiwrtance.

158 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

To be included in his theory there was God, aud the Son of God,
and the Son had to be accounted for in such a manner as not
to endanger the unity of God. For his strongest interest was
the maintenance of Monotheism ; and a first principle with him
was the ' simplicity ' — the singleness — of God, as being absolutely
One and transcendent, far-ofl', unknown, inaccessible, and incom-
municable, hidden in eternal mystery and separated by an infinite
chasm from men. God willed to create the world ; but in virtue
of His nature he could not directly create the material universe,
and so He created the Logos for the purpose as His Son. (This was
the reason for his existence.) The Son of God is therefore before
time and the world, independently of the Incarnation, and distinct
from tbe Father — a middle being between Him and the world.

Two lines of reasoning by which Arius came to his results
must be remarked. In the first place, accepting as true the
Catholic teaching that Christ was the Son of God, he argued by
the analogy of human experience that what was true of human
fatherhood was true of the relation between God and His Son.
In the case of human fatherhood there is priority of existence
of the Father ; therefore in regard to the Father and the Sou
there is such priority of existence of the Father. Therefore
once there was no Son. Therefore he must at some time,
however remote, have been brought into being.

For the refutation of Arianism proper the writings of Athanasius are of peculiar
importance (a useful summary of the teaching of Arius in the letter of Alexamier on
the Synod of 321 in the tract — probably composed by Athanasius — called the
Depositio Arii ; see also the letter of Alexander in Theodoret H.E. i 3). Basil's
Epp. 8, 9 are full of interest, and besides there are the writings of Hilary, Gregory
of Nazianzus, and Phoebadius. For the tenets of the Auomoeans see Basil's five
(? three) books against Eunomius, and Gregory of Nyssa's twelve, ^vritten after Basil's
death in reply to the answer of Eunomius. Other champions of orthodoxy are repre-
sented to us only by fragments.

For a short statenjent of what Arius himself said of his own conceptions, see
his letter to Eusebius of Xicomedia, his ' fellow- Lucianist', the 'truly pious'
(eiJ(7€;3ijs), given by Theodoret H.E. i 4 (5). " We say and believe, and have taught
and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbe-
gotten ; and that he does not derive his subsistence from any matter ; but that by his
own wish and counsel he has subsisted before time and before ages as perfect God,
only begotten and unchangeable, and that before he was begotten or created or pur-
posed or established he was not. For he was not unhe^rotten. We are persecuted
because we say that the Son has a beginning, but that God is without beginning, . . .
and likewise, because we say that he is of the non-existent. And this we say because
he is neither part of God, nor of any essential being." In tluB phrase there is no
doubt reference to the notion supposed to be contained in the term oMooi/fftot of some
oifcLa. prior to Father and Son — a tertiuin quid — in which they both alike had part-

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 150

And in the second place, as to the nature and manner of this
divine Sonship, Arius held that the isolation and spirituality oi
the Father was a truth to be safeguarded above all else. But
the idea of generation was inconsistent with this primary prin-
ciple ; for generation not only ascribes to the Father corporeity
and passion (feelings) (which are human attributes) and involves
some kind of change (whereas the divine must be thought of as
absolutely immutable), but also it would imply unity of nature
between the Father who generates and the Son who is generated,
and so the singularity of God would be destroyed. Ingenerate-
ness must accordingly be of the very essence of divinity, and the
Son could not have come into being from or out of the essence
(or being) ^ of the Father, but only by a definite external process
or act of the Father's will. But ex hypothesi there was then
nothing in existence but the Father, and therefore the Son was
called into being out of nothing. This exercise of the Father's
will was equivalent to a creative act, and the Son therefore was
created by the Father.^

By these lines of reasoning the Arians were convinced that
the Son was not eternal and was a creature,^ though coming

' For other objections to this expression, see infra p. 171 n. 1.

'To say that the Son was begotten or born 'of the will' or 'by the will 'of
the Father seems to have been a common way of speaking before this time, and the
expression is in itself quite free from objection. So, for example, Justin wrote ArarA
T7]i' ToD ■JTccrpbs wdfTwy Kal 5eair6rov $fov /SouXtjv StiL vapdivov ivdpuiroi direKwfjOi]
(Apol. i 46), and used similar expressions {Dial. c. Tryph. 63, 85) ; Ori,i,'en, see
rupra p. 148 ; and Novatian (less accurately) 'ex quo [sc. the Father), quando ipse
voluit, sermo fiiius natus est '. Cf. the Creed in the Apostolic Constitutions vii 41 —
rbf TTpb aluivuiv (vSoKlq. rov narpbi yevvrjO^vTa. It was only when the ' will ' was
unnaturally placed outside of the 'being' of the Father, and the expression 'of the
will' was employed in opposition to 'of the being' of the Father, to denote a later
and external origin, that it ceased to be used by careful writers as a true and proper
des<;nption. See further additional note p. 194.

* A typical instance of Arian logic seems to be furnished by Asterius in this
connexion. He wrote a tract (see Ath. Or. c. Ar. i 30-33) of which the main
thesis api>areiitly was that there could not be two iLyh-qra. He then defined
OLfiv-riTov as rd fi^ iroir]Oii> dXX' itl Cv, and j)roceeded to ar^rtie that as the Father
•lone was iy^vr^Tov it was to Him alone that the description ov ttoltjO^v dXX' del 6»
apjilicd. That descrifition was thus not true of the Son ; and therefore as it was not
true to say of him 'not made but always (eternally) existent', he must have been
maiie and have come into existence at some remote period.

The formula 6.y!vqTov, as sounding more philosophical and having traditional
sanction, became a j)lausihle substitute for the original phrases of the Arians when
they were driven from 'out of nothing' and 'once he was not'. See Ath. de Deer.
2S, and Or. c. Ar. i 32. And so objection was taken on the part of their opponents
to any such use of the words irfivrfrov and ytvr^Tow — f.g. by Athanasius de Deer. 31 :

160 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

into existence before time ^ and before all other creatures, and
not like other creatures (inasmuch as they were all created
mediately through him, while he was created immediately by
the Father's will). Yet since he was a creature, and in this
sense external to the being of the Father, he must be subject to
the vicissitudes of created beings, and so he must be limited in
power and wisdom and knowledge. With free-will and a nature
capable of change and morally liable to sin he must depend on
the help of grace and be kept sinless by his own virtue and the
constant exercise of his own will.

Yet, nevertheless, though in all these ways inferior to the
Father, he was really Son of God and an object of worship.
And he it was — the Logos — who, taking upon him a human
body with an animal soul, having been the medium by which the
whole universe was originally created, was afterwards incarnate
in the person of Jesus Christ.^

Such was the theory by which Arius sought to conciliate the
pagan and the Christian conceptions of God and the universe.^
It seems to us quite clear that the Jesus to whom such a theory
could apply would be neither really human nor really divine,
and this was obvious at the time to some of the ablest and

"Nowhere is [the Son] found calling the Father Unoriginated ; but when teaching
us to pray, he said not, ' When ye piay, say, God Unoriginated ', but rather when
ye pray, say, ' Our Father, which art in heaven '." And "He bade us be baptized,
not into the name of Unoriginate and Originate, not into tlie name of Uncreate and
Creature, but into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" — though at the sam«
time it is of course allowed that the term Unoriginate does admit of a religious use
{ibid. 32).

' For this reason they were careful to say only ' there was once when he was not '
{^v irore 6re ovk Jjv), and not 'there was a time when he was not'. Cf. their phrase
dxp^j'wt TTpb wAvTcov yevv-qdels (Ath. de Synod. 16).

' The Logos took the place of the human rational soul, the mind, or spirit. See
infra on the Human Soul of Christ p. 247. fl

* Arius seems, in part at least, to have been misled by a wrong use of analogy,
and by mistaking description for definition. All attempts to explain the nature
and relations of the Deity must largely depend on metaphor, and no one metaphor
can exhaust those relations. Each metaphor can only describe one aspect of the
nature or being of the Deity, and the inferences which can be drawn from it have
their limits when they conflict with the inferences which can be truly drawn from
other metaphors describing other aspects. From one point of view Sonship is a true
description of the inner relations of the Godhead : from another point of view the
title Logos describes them best. Each metaphor must be limited by the other.

The title Son may obviously imply later origin and a distinction amounting to
ditheism. It is balanced by the other title Logos, which implies co-eternity and
inseparable union. Neither title exhausts the relations. Neither may be pressed
so far as to exclude the other.

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 161

most far-seeing and intelligent of the leaders of Christian
thought. But the doctrine of the Church had not yet been
defined with exactitude : if it was not really confused, it was at
any rate lacking in precision of terms ; and to many it seemed
that reason and Scripture alike gave strong support to the Arian
conclusions.

All passages of Scripture which imply in any way that
Christ was in the category of creatures ; which ascribe to him,
in his incarnate state, lack of knowledge or growth in know-
ledge, weariness, or sorrow, or other affections and states
of mind ; which teach some kind of subordination of the
Son to the Father — the Arians pressed into the service of their
theory.^

Athanasius in particular is at pains to refute their exegesis,
or to cite other passages which balance those to which alone
they give attention. We may take three crucial cases in which
to test the Arian arguments.

(1) Prov. 8^2"^ (LXX, which was regarded as authoritative
by nearly all on both sides). The Lord created me a beginning of
his ways for his works, before time (the age) he founded me in the
beginning . . before all hills he begets me. On this passage we
have the comments of Eusebius of Nicomedia in his letter to
Paulinus (Theodoret H.E. i 5 (6)). The manner of his begin-
ning, he says, is incomprehensible ; but " if he had been of
Him, that is, from Him, as a portion of Him, or by an eman-
ation of His substance {ova-ia), it could not be said that he
was created or established . . . But if the fact of his being
called the begotten gives any ground for the belief that, having
come into being of the Fatlier's substance (essence), he has
also in consequence sameness of nature, we take note that it
is not of him alone that the Scripture uses the term begotten,
but that it also thus speaks of those who are entirely unlike
him by nature. For of men it says, ' I begat and exalted
sons, and they set me at nought' (Isa. 1*), and ' Tliou liast
forsaken the God who begat thee ' (Deut. 32^^); and in other

' Among the chief passages to which they appoalod were these : — For the unity
of God, Deut. 6*. Luke 18'», John 17* ; for the nature of the Sonship, Ps. 45»,
Matt. W^, 1 Cor. 1"; for the creation of tlio Logos, Prov. 8" (LXX), Acts 2*
Col. 1'*, Heb. 3'; for his moral growth and dtvtloppment (irpoKoir-l)), Luke 2",
Matt. 26»*-, Heb. 6»-», Phil. 2*'-, Heb. 1*; for the possiliility of change (r6 rptwrbv)
and imperfection of knowledge, Mark 13", John 11" 13^' ; for his inferiority to the
Father. John 14» Matt. 27«. (Cf. MHt. 11" 2G»» 28'«, John 12", 1 Cor. 16" )

162 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

places it says, 'Who is he ihat begat the drops of dew?'
(Job 38-^), not implying that the nature of the dew is derived
from the nature of God, but simply in regard to each of the
things that have come into being, that its origination was accord-
ing to His will. There is indeed nothing which is of HiS sub-
stance (essence), yet everything has come into being by His will,
and exists even as it came into being. He is God ; and all things
were made in His likeness, and in tlie future likeness of His
Word, having come into being of His free-will. — All things have
come into being by his means by God. All things are of God."
The combination of apparent reasonableness and slippery argu-
ment in this exegesis speaks for itself.

(2) Col. 1^^, Who is the image of the invisible (unseen) God
7rp(OTuT0K0<; irdarj'i «Tto-eo)9. If the last three words were isolated,
their meaning might be doubtful, and it might be supposed
that the TrpcoroTo/co? (first-born) was included in the iraaa icriai<;
(all creation). The Arians took the passage so, and explained
it as teaching that the Son was a creature, though created
before all other creatures and superior to them. But the con-
text shews plainly that though the intention is clearly to
describe the relation in which Christ stands to the created
universe, yet the tt/scototo/co? does not himself belong to the
ycTicrt?. Such an attribution would be inconsistent with the
universal agency in creation ascribed to him in the words im-
mediately following — 'in {or by) him were created all things',
and with the absolute pre-existence and self-existence claimed
for him in the same breath, ' he is before all things ' {avro<i ecrriv
irpo irdvTcov). It would also be inconsistent with many other
passages in St Paul.^

* See Lightfoot's note ad loc. He argues that the word is doubtless used with
refereuce to the title npuTbyovos given to the \(yyoi by Philo, meaning the arche-
typal idea of creation, afterwards realized in the material world ; and with reference
to its use as a title of the Mf.ssiah in the Old Testament (Ps. 89^), implying that
he was the natural ruler of God's household with all the (Hebrew) rights of i)rinio-
geniture. Priority to all creation and sovereignty over all creation are thus the
two ideas involved in the phrase, and patristic exegesis was on these lines until
tiie Arian innovations. In opposition to them the Catholic Fathers sometimes put a
strained sense on the phrase, and would apply it to the Incarnate Christ rather
than to the Eternal Word, so being obliged to understand the ' creation ' of the new
spiritual creation, — against which view see Lightfoot. Cf. also Athanasius de
Deer. 20, and Basil on the text adv. Eunom. iv ; and against the secondary
meaning of sovereignty over creation, see Abbott International Critical Com-
mentary ad loc. All that the phrase can be said with certainty to mean is 'bom
before all creation {or every creature) '.

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 163

(3) John 14^, My Father is greater than 7. . . . This
Baying of Jesus seemed to the Arians conclusive proof of his
inferiority to the Father and of the secondary character of his
divinity. To Athanasius and those like-minded with him it
had exclusive reference to the state of humiliation of the Incar-
nate Logos, voluntarily undergone and accepted when he
' emptied himself ' ; and the fact that he could use such a
phrase was proof of his divinity. In the mouth of a created
demi-god (such as the Arians conceived) it would be unmeaning
and absurd. So Basil {Ep. 8) argues that the saying proves
the oneness in essence — " For I know that comparisons may
properly be made between things which are of the same nature.
... If, then, comparisons are made between things of the
same species, and the Father by comparison is said to be
greater than the Son, then the Son is of the same essence
as the Father."

The Outlreak of the Controversy and its History up to the

Council of Nicaea

The immediate cause of the outbreak of the controversy is
not known.^ Arius was a presbyter of the Church of Alexandria,
highly esteemed for his learning and gravity of life. He had
been a pupil in the famous school of Lucian of Antioch, who
seems to have combined in his theology the subordination
element in Origeu's doctrine of the Person of Christ with a
leaning to the Monarchianism of Paul of Samosata.^ About the
year 317 his teaching excited attention, and exception was taken

^ Professional jealousy has been assigned as the cause. Tlieodoret {II. E. i 2)
says Arius was disappointed in his expectation of succeeding to the bishopric. He
was cortiirily not free from intellectual vanity. He probably thought the teacliing
of Alexanilir unsouml and Subellian, ami jperha])s attuckcil it as such. But it may
bave been his own teaching that aroused opposition. (Controversy in the fourth
century was not trammellid by rules of courtesy to opponents, and Athanasius
himself describes tlie Ariiins as madmen, or fanatii's, anil enemies of God and
of Christ, and — frequently in allusion to scriptural similes — as dogs, lions, wolves,
chameleons, cuttlefisii, lecfhes, gnats, hydras. See also tlio IlisUtria Ariancrum of
Athaniisius.) Many of tlio same ideas, and the same; terms and texts, are found
current and matter of controversy in the middle of the third century. See the
(>)rres|iondnnce between the Dionysii supra p. 113, and the extracts in Atb. dc
Deer. 2.')-27.

* "It is not clear that Lucian of Antioch was hercti<al " — Gwatkin Shtdies of
Arianism^ p. 17. It will bo Jporne in mind that the styln of exfgrsis at Antiocb
was literal, and that the Luciauists thought that logic could settle everything.

164 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

to its character. Tho bishop, Alexander, soeins to have been at
tirst conciliatory ; but Arius was convinced that he was right
and would not yield. Persuasion and argument having failed, a
synod was summoned in 321, and Arius was deposed from his
office. He enlisted support, however, both in Egypt and farther
afield — especially from fellow-pupils in the school of Lucian,
many of whom occupied positions of power and influence. In
particular, he won the sympathy of Eusebius,^ bishop of the
capital, Nicomedia, and high in the emperor's favour, who called
a Council at Nicomedia, and issued letters to the bishops in
support of Arius. Many of tho bishops, following the lead of
Eusebius, thought Arius had been unjustly treated, and the
deposition of the presbyter assumed more serious proportions.
The rulers of the Church of Alexandria were put on their
defence. They had to justify their actions. Accordingly,
Athanasius, a deacon of the same Church, drew up at once a
note of the proceedings at the synod of 321, with the signa-
tures of the bishops present appended, and Alexander sent it
out to place the facts before the bishops of the Church at large.^
Meanwhile the emperor, whose one wish was for peace and the
unity of the Church, was induced to intervene, and sent in 324
a letter to Alexandria exhorting the bishop to restore peace to
the Church ; that was, to readmit Arius to his office. But the
bearer of his letter, Hosius, the Bishop of Cordova, one of his
chief advisers, had to return to him with a report which put a
different complexion on the matter, and Constantino sent a
rebuke to Arius. But feeling was too much roused by that
time for any one's intervention to be decisive, and, probably on
the suggestion of Hosius, a Council of the whole Church was
summoned by the emperor to meet in the following year
(325) at Nicaea, in Bithynia.* In this way it was hoped that
the mind of the Church on the points at issue might be
expressed.

1 Cf. the letter of Arius to him (Theodoret H.E. i 4), and his letter to Paulinus
of Tyre {ihid. i 5 — or 5 and 6).

' This is the treatise known as the DeposiHo Arii among the writings oJ
Athanasius. It is described by Robertson ('Athanasius' Nicene and Post-Nice'iie
Fathers vol. iv) as the germ of all the anti-Arian writings of Athanasius.

' The bishops assembled numbered three hundred and eigliteen, about one-sixth
of the whole body of bishops. The Council lasted about three months.

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 165

The Council of Nicaea and its Creed

But the mind of the Church was not made up. The actual
form of the question at issue was new and technical — a question
for experts ; and all the bishops were not experts. The Arians
called Christ God, and Son of God, and offered him worship ;
and they professed entire allegiance to the teaching of Scripture.
It might well seem to the mass of the bishops assembled in
council that the Arians were sound at heart, and that technical
details should not be pressed against them. This was the atti-
tude of the great majority, composed of the bishops of Syria
and Asia Minor. largely influenced by as much of the teaching
of Origen as they understood ; dreading above all else Mon-
archianism and any Sabellian confusion of the Persons, and
seeing something of the kind in the opponents of Arius, they
simply did not realize the gravity of the crisis. They were very
unwilling to go beyond the Scriptures, or to impose a new test,
or to add to definitions ; and they wished to be lenient to Arius
and his friends. They wished to maintain the stattLS quo, and
they did not see that Arianism was utterly inconsistent with the
traditional interpretation.^ With them, however, so far as
voting power went, the decision lay ; and in the person of
Eusebius, the great Bishop of Caesarea, they found a spokesman
and leader, whose historical learning and research and literary
talents could not but command universal respect.*

1 To thia ' middle ' party the name ' Conservatives ' has been given. The label
is a useful one, and true in the sense explained above ; but it is capable of
mislead ing, and if we use it we must guard ourselves against the inference that
the opponents of Arius were in any sense innovators. The real innovation was
Arianism, and its um'ompromising adversaries were the true Conservatives. This
became quite clour in the course of the controversy, wliile many of the 'middle'
party at Nicaea leant more and more towards the Arian side. It is therefore only
in thia limited sense, and with this temporary apjjlication, that the description holds.

• Eusebius, c. 260-340, a native of Palestine, probably of Caesarea, spent his
early life at Caesarea, where lie was fortunate in the friendship of the jiresbytcr
Patnphiliis, who left to him his great coileotion of books. At the time of the
Council he was beyond question the moat learned man and most famous living
writer in the Church (Liglitloot, Art. D.C.B., q.r.). His teaching may fairly be
taken as representing the prevailing ilontrine of the Trinity and the I'er.son of
Christ, which made it possible for many to vacillate between Subordinationism and
Sabcllianism, an'l shewed the need for more precise definitions. Donier describes
his doctrinal system as a chainelron-hued thing— a mirror of the unsolved problems
of the Church of that age. It was the Ariau controversy which compelled men to
enter for the first time on a deeper invesligalion of the questions (see Dorncr Person
of Christ Eng. tr. div. i vol. ii pj). 218-227). fJut on the \nt\^n points be is explicit

166 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Prominent in support of Arius were two Egyptian bishops,
Secundua of Ptoleniais and Theonaa of Marraarica, unfaltering
in their opinions to the end ; and with them at heart three othei
bisliops, pupils of Lucian — Ensebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of
Nicaea, and ]\Iaris of Chalcedou, and a few more.

Of the resolute opponents of Arianism, Alexander, the Bishop
of Alexandria, was of course the centre, with Athanasius as his
' chaplain ' and right-hand. But the most decisive part in the
opposition seems to have been played rather by Hosius ^ of
Cordova, as representative of the Western bishops, and Eusta-
thius of Antioch, and Marcellus of Ancyra, with a few other
Eastern bishops. The test which was at last agreed upon eman-
ated apparently from this small group. f|

Agreement was not easy. That the Ariana proper were in
a minority was evident at once. The heart of the Church re-
pudiated the terms they freely used about their Lord and Saviour.
But, as the question had been raised and the matter had gone so
far, it was necessary to do more than simply negative the conclu-
sions which they drew. Arian logic forced some closer definition
on the Church. A positive statement of what the Church
believed was required, as well as a negation of Arian teaching.

against Arianism, namely — (1) that the Logos was 7iot a Kricrfia like other creatures,
and (2) that there was not a time when he was not ; though he speaks of the Father
as pre-existf-nt before the Son, and of the Son as a second existence and second cause.
His alliance with the Arian party — so far as it went — was probably largely due to
personal friendships, and to liis deep-rooted aversion to the 'Sabellianism' of Mar-
cellus and others on the opposite side. And he followed what seemed at the time
to be the poUcy of 'comprehension'. (Cf. Socrates ff.E. ii 21, where passages are
cited to prove his orthodoxy against those who charged him with Arianizing. )

' The Western bishops present were few, but thoroughly representative. Africa
was represented by Caecilian of Carthage, Spain by Hosius of Cordova (the
capital ofthe southern province, Baetica),Gaulby N'ioasiusof Die (Dea Vocontioruin,
a,colonia on the road I'roin Milan to Vienne), Italy by tlie two Roman I'resbyti-rs smd
the Bisiiop Mark, metropolitan of Calabria, Pannonia by Domnus of Stridon.

Hosius had been for years the best known and most respected bishop in the
West (born in 256, he liad already presided at the Synod of Elvira in c. S06), and
as such had been singled out by Constantine as his adviser in ecclesiastical affairs.
It is probable that after the emperor had opened the Council with the S2)eech recorded
by Eusebius {Vit, Const, iii 12), Hosius presided, and the term 6/j.oo^<nos is only the
Greek equivalent of the Latin unius subdantiae, with which all Latin Christians
were familiar from the days of Tertullian and Novatian. On Hosius, see P. B. Gams
Kirchcngeschichte von Spauien vol. ii div. i, esp. p. 148 ff. It was more by word
and by deed than by writings that he fought for the faith of the Church, but
Athanasius has preserved a letter which late in life he wrote to the Emperor
Constantius, urging liim to abandon his policy of protection of the Ariana and
persecution of their opponents {Hist. Arian. § 44).

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 167

It was in drawing up this that the difficulty was felt. The
majority of the bishops assembled in council were very unwilling
to employ new terms not sanctioned by tradition, not hallowed
by apostolic use. But all the familiar scriptural phrases which
were suggested in succession were accepted by the Arians. They
could put their own interpretation on them. The historian of
the Couucil draws a vivid picture of the scene — their nods and
their winks and their whispers, and all the evasions by which
they endeavoured to maintain their cause and elude condemna-
tion. Little progress was made till the friends of Arius produced
a creed in writing which was really Arian, and proposed that the
Council should endorse it. It was torn in shreds amid the angry
cries of the bishops.^ At all events the Council was not Arian.
At last Eusebius of Caesarea read out what was probably the
Baptismal Creed of his Church,^ in the hope that it might be
sufficient and that all would accept it. The Creed was received
with general approval, but it was not precise enough to exclude
the possibility of Arian interpretation, and the emperor — no
doubt prompted by one of the Alexandrine group (probably
Hosius) — proposed the addition of the single word ' Homo-
ousios ' (of one ' substance '). Its insertion led to a few other

'SeeTheodoret J7.^. 17.

' The Creed is given by Socrates E.E. i. 8 (Hahn» p. 257), in the letter which
Eusebius wrote to his Church explaining the proceedings at Nicaea. lie describes
the Greed as in accordance with the tradition which he had received from his prede-
cessors in the see, both when under instruction and at the time of his baptism, with
liis own knowledge learnt from the sacred Scriptures, and witli his belief and teach-
ing aa presbyter and as bishop. The natural inference from his letter is that it was
the very Baptismal Creed of the Church of Caesarea (and probably of all Palestine)
that he recited, but it is possible that he gave a free adaptation of it, exi)anding
some and omitting or curtailing other clauses (see Hahn* pp. llil, 132). The words
as to the Son are, " And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Logos of God, God from God,
iil^lit from light, life from lifu, only [begotten] Son {vlbv fjLovoyevTJ), first born before
fill creation (wputTdroKov irdffrjj KrLfftu^), begotten from the Father before all the
ages, by means of whom too all things came into being, who on account of our
salvation was incarnate (aapKwBivTo) and lived as a man among men {iv ivBpw-jroit
roXiTtixrdfKi'oy — the metaphor of citizenship in a state had faded, and the word
means simply 'lived', or at most 'lived as one of them'), and suffered and rose
again on the third day, and wnnt up to the Father, and will come ngain in gloiy to
judge living and di^ad." To the Cree<l Kiiscbius added an assertion of the individual
existence of each person in the Trinity (the Father truly Father, the Son truly Son,
iind the Holy Sjiirit truly Holy Spirit), with an ajipeal to the bajitismal commission
(Matt. 28"), which was no dotibt int<'nded to be taken to heart by any who, in
opposing Arianism, might tend to slide unawares into 'Sabcllian' error. For this
iintiSAbcllinn declaration, however, in the Creed of the Council there was substituted
an auti-Arian anathema.

168 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

email alterations ; and at the end was added an express repudia-
tion of the chief expressions of the Arians.^

The Creed thus modified was in its final form as follows : ^

"We believe in one God the Father all-sovereign,^ maker
of all things both visible and invisible. And in one Lord
Jesus Christ the Son of God, begotten from the Father as
only-begotten God* from God, that is from the [very]
being of the Father ^ [or ' begotten from the Father as only

* In drawing up the Creed of Nicaea from the Creed of Eusebius the following
phrases were struck out : (1 ) \6yov — which represented the vague Eusebian Christology,
instead of which the Sonship was to be brought prominently forward ; (2) Trpur&roKov
vda-rji KTlffeus and irpd iriiVTdjv tCiv aldivuv iK tou warpbi yeyevv7j/j.4vov, because sus-
ceptible of Arian interpretation ; (3) ^i* dvOpwiron iroXirevadfjievov, because too vague,
not expressing explicitly tlie real manhood. Modifications of phrases, in effect new,
were the following : rbv vlbv toO 6(od, and yevyrjd^yra ^k tou iraTpdy fiovoyeyrj (instead
of \6yov and later on in the Creed vlbv /iovoyev^), and ivavdpujir-^aavTa. Three
phrases only were quite new additions : tovt^<ttiv ix ttjs ov<rlai toO warpbi, yevv^divra
ov iroiri$ivTa, and op.oo(iai.ov rt^ irarpi.

' The Creed agreed to by the Council must not be regarded as a full and complete
statement in symbolic form of the faith of the Church at the time. The express
purpose for which the Council was summoned was to examine the Aiian doctrines,
and to declare the authoritative teaching of the Church on the matters in dispute —
not to frame a new Baptismal Creed for all. The Creed may be said to have been
limited by the ' terms of reference ', and therefore it deals at length with the doctrine
of the Person of Christ and with nothing else : and there is even no statement on
the birth from the Virgin, nor on the suffering under Pontius Pilate, which were
certainly part of the common tradition, and contained in the Baptismal Creed of
Eusebius, though omitted by him too, as immaterial to his purpose, in his letter to
his people. Cf. also the First Creed of Antioch, 341, at the end of which are the
words "and if it is necessary to add it, we believe also concerning the resurrection
of the flesh and life eternal ".

' wavTOKpdrwp, the termination signifies the active exercise of rule — 'all-ruler',
'all-ruling'. In the New Testament it is used in the Apocalypse (o Bebi 6 x., nine
times) and in 2 Cor. 6'* (quotation of LXX, Amos 4'*= Lord of Hosts). All-mighty
— simply possessing all power, apart from any notion of its employment — is iravro-
dOvapiot. Both words are represented by the Latin omnijtotens.

* That this is the construction intended is strongly maintained by Hort Two
DissertMions p. 61 ff., as also that the clause ' that is, of the essence of the Father '
explains ' only-begotten ', being designed to exclude the Arian interpretation of it
as expressing only a unique degree of a common relationship. See Additional Note
p. 195. Athanasius, however, never dwells on p-ovoyevri and always treats the
clause iK t^s ov(T'i.a% rov irarpos as a mere exegetical expansion of iK toO irarpbi or iK
Oeov (see next note), and the order of the clauses is extremely awkward if Dr.
Hort's interpretation be right. However familiar the collocation piovoyevrj 0(6v
was at the time, I am not confident that it was intended here, and the more
generally accepted rendering, which is given in the text as an alternative, may be
accepted with less misgiving.

* iK rrjt ovfflas rov Trarpdi. Oiiffia here certainly means the inmost being of the
Father, his very self. Tlie translation ' substance ' which comes to us through the
Latin (substantia = essentia) is not satisfactory, ' Essence ' hardly conveys to English

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 169

(Son), that is from the being of the Father, God from God '],
light from light,^ very God from very God,' begotten, not
made,' sharing one being with the Father,* by means of
whom all things came into being, both the things that are
in heaven and the things that are on earth : who on account
of us men and on account of our salvation came down and
was incarnate, became man," suffered, and rose again on the
third day, went up into heaven, and is coming to judge living
and dead. And in the Holy Spirit.

ears the real meaning, and 'nature 'too is strictly quite inadequate. The phrase
is intended to mark the essential unity of the Son with the Father, declaring that
he has his existence from no source external to the Father, but is of the very being of
the Father — so that the Father Himself is not, does not exist, is not conceived of as
having being, apart from the Son. So it is that Athanasias {de Deer. 19) says
the Council wiote 'from the essence of God' rather than simply 'from God', ex-
pressly to mark the unique unoriginate relation in which the Son stands to the
Father, in view of the sense in whicli it is true that all things are 'from God'. Of
nothing originate could it be said that it was ' from the essence of God '. The
essence of the Father is the sphere of being of the Son. He is inseparable from the
essence of the Father (ibid. 20). To say ' of the essence cf God ' is the same thing
as to say ' of God ' in more explicit language (ibid. 22).

' In this phrase there is taken into the service of the formal Creed of the Church
a familiar analogy — the sun and the rays that stream from it — to shew that, thougli
in one way they are distinct, there is no kind of separation between the Father and
the Son. The being, the life, that is in the Son is one and the same as the being
that is in the Father ; just as there is no break between the ray of light which we
see and the source of all our light in the sky. The ray is not the sun — but the
light is the same, continuous, from the sun to the ray. The simile illustrates
equally both ' of the essence ' and ' one in essence ' ( Ath. de Deer. 23 and 24).

" In these words the analogy is dro[)ped. It is no mere reflection of the divine
being that is in the Son. Fatlier and Son alike are really God — each and individually.

* It is generation, and not creation, by which the Son exists : as it is asserted
later that he was himself the ngont tlirough whom Creation was effected.

* o/ioovfftoi' TV irarpl. The ouala. of the Son is the ox/ala. of the Father : as far as
oiiala. goes, no distinction can be made between them. Yet it is a distinct existence
whicli the Son has in relation to the Father. So, as iK rrj^ ovalai tou warpit expresses
the one idea, op.oovaiov t<^ narpl siifeguards the other ; and iJasil was abl« to insist
that the lattf r phrase, so far from agreeing with the Sabellian heresy, is plainly
repugnant to it. "Tiiis exi>r(!s.sion ", he says, "cwrects the evil of Sabellius : for
it docs away with the eaniene-ss of the hypostasis (i.e. the oneness of person — tt)v
Tavr6r-ijTa TTJt vwoardatwi — according to Basil's limited use of \jiri)aTa.<n%), and intro-
duces the conrc[ition of the persons in perfection. For a tiling is not itself of one
essence with itself, but one thing with another." — IJasil Eji. 52 (and see Bull op. c.
p. 70).

* {vavOpunr-ffcavTCL. The jireccding phrase (7a/5((a)^^vTa, 'was incarnate', 'became
flesh', was not enough in view of the Arian Christology (see su/ira p. 160). So
this term was abided. The Son, whose odala is the same aa the Father's, became
man. Whatever is necessary to human nature — all tliat makes man man, all th»
oonatituents of a normal human existence — he took upon himself.

170 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

"And those that say there was once when he was not,
and before he was begotten he was uot,^ and that ho came
into being out of nothing, or assert that the Son of God
is of a different essence (subsistence) or being,^ or created,
or capable of change or alteration^ — the Catholic Church
anathematizes."

This Creed was signed by all the bishops present except
Secundus and Theonas ; * and when shortly afterwards an imperial
decree was issued banishing Arius and those who did not accept
the decision of the Council, it seemed that Arianisra was disposed
of. But this result was far from being effected.

* It seems certain that the thesis here anathematized ' he was not before he wa«
begetten ' is the Arian thesis equivalent to the denial of the eternity of the Sonsliip
{i.e. which negatives the Catholic doctrine of the eternal generation — the existence
from eternity of the Son as Son — and upholds the Arian conception expressed in the
previous clause ' there was once when he was not '). The anathema is thus intended
to maintain simply the eternity of the existence of the Son — though he is Son yet
he never had a beginning (contrasted with the Arian ' because he is Son, therefore
he must have had a beginning'). [Some early writers, however, including
Hippolytus (c. Noet. 10) and Theophilus {ad Autol. ii 10-22, and supra p. 127)
seem to conceive of the existence of the Lord (as Word) before he became Son — as
though he was only generated Son at a later stage, at the beginning of all things :
and Bull {Def. F.N. iii 5-8) argues that the generation thus spoken of was only meta-
phorical, and that in harmony with such a mode of representation the Nicene anathema
has not reference to the Arian thesis stated above, but expressly maintains (in this
sense) that "the Son was (though not yet, strictly sj)eaking, generated) before his
generation" — this generation being only one of a succession of events in time by
which the real and eternal truth was shadowed out. See Robertson Athanasius
pp. 343-347.]

The anathemas are of considerable value for the elucidation of the Creed,
shewing precisely at what misinterpretation particular phrases of the Creed were
directed. Statements and denials thus go together ; and any uncertainty as to the
meaning of the positive definitions is removed by the negative pronouncements that
follow.

' ^1 ir^pai viroffTdffeus ^ oucrlas. The words are certainly used as synonyms,
as they were by Athanasius till the Council at Alexandria in 362. In repeat-
ing tlie anathema {de Deer. 20) he has only i^ ir^pas oucrlas, shewing that to
him at least no new conception was added by the alternative viroardjecos. It
was perhaps intended for the West {= substantia). See Additional Note on
vir6cTa<ns infra p. 235.

* Tpcn-rbv rj dWoiurrdv. In these words we pass from metaphysics to ethics, — and
the chief ethical inference of the Arians from their metajihysical theory is rejected.
See snpra p. 160. In virtue of the divine being which was his, Jesus Christ
(although man as well as God) was sinless and incapable of moral change or
alteration of character. How he could be at one and the same time both man
and God, the Creed does not attempt to exftlain. It is content to repudiate the
Arian teaching, which was inconsistent with his being God. See iii/ra ]>. 250,

* So Theodoret. Socrates, however, saya all except live.

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 171

The Reaction after Nicaea — personal and doctrinal

The victory over Arianism achieved at the Council was
really a victory snatched by the superior energy and decision
of a small minority with the aid of half-hearted allies. The
majority did not like the business at all, and strongly dis-
approved of the introduction into the Creed of the Church of
new and untraditional and unscriptural terms.^ They might be
convinced that the results to which Arianism led were wrong ;
but probably few of them saw their way to a satisfactory logical
defence against the Arian arguments. A test of this kind was a
new thing, and sympathy for Arius and its other victims grew.
A reaction followed in his favour. This was the motive of the
first stage in the complicated movements of the time between the
two first General Councils of the Church. Sympathy with Arius
connoted dislike of the chief agents of the party which procured
his condemnation, and Athanasius and Marcelhis ^ were singled out
as most obnoxious. They had to bear the brunt of the attack.

* The objections to the new terms ^k t^s ovjlas and ofioovffioi were numerous.

(1) There was the scriptural (positive) objection which every one could appreciate.
The words were not to be found in the inspired writings of the evangelists and
Apostles. Every Creed hitherto had been composed of scriptural words, and men
had not been pinned down to a particular and technical interpretation. (This
objection Athanasius meets in de Deeretis 18, where he turns the tables on the
objectors, asking from what Scriptures the Arians got their phrases i^ ovk 6vtuv,
tiv irore fire ouk r)v and the like, and shewing that scriptural expressions olfered no
means of defence against such novel terms. The bishops had to ' collect the sense
of the Scriptures' — Hid. 20.)

(2) There was the 'traditional' or ecclesiastical (negative) objection. The use
of the word l>iioovaio% had been condemned at the Council of Antioch in 269 (see
supra p. 111). (Athanasius, however, claims 'tradition' for it — see de Deer. 25;
and insists that it is used in a different sense from that in which Paul used it, and
that it is a true interpretation of Scripture.)

(3) There was the doctrinal objection. 'I'o all who held to the conception of the
singlenes-s — tlie simplexity — of the divine I'xistence, to all wlio took ovcla in the
primary sense of particular or individual existence, it was difficult to see any but
a 'Sabellian' nieaning in tlio word whicli implied common possession of tlio divine
OKiala. Ditheism (and Tritheism) all wen; agreed in roi)udiating, but tliis word seemed
to im[>ly that the jicrsons were only temporary manifestations of the one ovala..

(4) There was the pliilo.sophical objection. Tlic words ini[>lied either tliat there
was some ovala jirior both to Father and to Son, which tlicy shared in common (and
then this ouala. would be the first principle and tlicy would be alike derived from it);
or else they connot d a materialistic conception, Father and Son being as it were
I'arts or pieces of one ovala. (Tliis objection being based on the ideiitifi<'ation of
oiVc'a with fffiof or CX?;. ) See Ath. Or. c. Ar. i 14, De Syn. Arim. el Hcl. 51 :
Hilary de Fid« OrUnl. 68.

* See Additional Not« on ^^larcellus, p. 190.

172 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

After years of intrigue and misrepresentation Arius was
recalled and would have been reinstated but for his sudden death,
and Athanasius and Marcellus were exiled (336 A.D.). Allowed to
return on the death of the emperor, they were again within two
years sent into exile, and the way was cleared for an attempt to
get rid of the obnoxious Creed — the terms of which so relent-
lessly excluded Arian conceptions. The reaction ceases to be
80 personal, and becomes more openly doctrinal — a formal
attack upon the definition 6ixoovai,o<i under cover of the pretexts
to which reference has been made.

Attempts to supersede the Nicene Creed — Council of Antioch 341

The opportunity was found at the Council of Antioch in 341,
when some ninety bishops assembled for the dedication of
Constantine's ' golden church '. The personal question only came
up for a moment, when a letter from Julius, Bishop of Rome,
urging the restoration of Athanasius and Marcellus, was read ;
but the Council resented his interposition and proceeded to con-
sider forms of Creed which might be substituted for the Nicene.
Four such Creeds were produced,^ all of them carefully avoiding
the terms by which Arianism was excluded. The first of the
four, though prefaced by a specious repudiation of Arian
influence (how should bishops follow the lead of one who was
only a presbyter ?), was ' Arianizing ' not only in its avoidance of
ai*y expressions which Arians could not have accepted, but also
in its explanation of ' only begotten ', and its marked attribution
of the work of the Incarnate Son to the good pleasure and
purpose of the Father. The majority of the Council, however,
were not prepared to offer this as a substitute for the Creed of
Nicaea, and a second Creed more acceptable to the ' moderates
was adopted by the Council in its stead. Its shews exactly how
far the average ' orthodox ' bishop of the time was prepared to go
in condemnation of Arian theories and in positive statement of
doctrine. It is as follows : —

" In accordance with the evangelical and apostolic tradition *
we believe in one God, Father all-sovereign, the framer and

" They are given in Ath. de Synod. 22 ff., and Socr. II. E. ii 10 (Hahn » p. 183 ff. )
* The appeal which is made throughout to Scrijilure and Tradition (thougli the

authors are forced to admit some non-scriptuial words) carries with it the tacit

condemnation of the new Nicene terms.

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 173

maker and providential ruler of the universe. And in one
Lord Jesus Christ His Son, the only-begotten ^ God, by means
of whom [were] all things, who was begotten before the ages
(worlds) from the Father, God from God, wliole from whole,^
sole from sole,^ complete from complete, king from king, lord
from lord, living Logos, living wisdom, true light, way, truth,
resurrection, shepherd, door, unchangeable and unalterable,
invariable image of the deity — both being (essence) and purpose
and power and glory — of the Father,* the first-born before every
creature^ {or the first-bom of all creation), who was in the
beginning by the side of (with) God, God the Logos, according to
the saying in the Gospel : And the Logos was God — by means
of whom all things came into being, and In whom all things
consist : who in the last days came down from above and was
begotten from a virgin, according to the Scriptures, and became
man, a mediator between God and men, apostle of our faith and
captain of life, as he says : I have come down from heaven, not
to do my own will, but the will of Him who sent me.^ Who
suffered on behalf of us and rose again on the third day, and
went up into heaven and took his seat on the right hand of
the Father, and is coming again with glory and power to judge
Hving and dead. And in the Holy Spirit, who is given for
comfort and hallowing and perfecting to those that believe,
even as our Lord Jesus Christ commissioned his disciples,
saying: Go ye forth and make disciples of all the nations,
baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and

' ' Only -begotten ' must in this case certainly be joined with ' God ', which other-
wiae would Htand in an iinjiossiblc j>osition. See supra p. 168 n. 4.

• These words are directed against any notion of partition of the Godhead, as
though a portion only of the divine were in the Son and the entirety of the Godhead
were thereby imp lind. God is cntiro and the Son is entire.

• I.e. the sou alone was begotten by the Fatiur aloue, all else being created by
the Father not alone, but through the Son whom He had first begotten alone. See
Alh. de Deer. 7. This phrase is in accord with the Arian explanation of noviryevfis,
and beranic a favourite formula of the Anonioeaus.

• This is tlie nearest equivalent to the discarded hfiooiaiov. The passage should
perhaps be punctuated with a eolon fifter 'unalterable', but the four words wljich are
bracket<;d are clearly explanatory of tlie 'deity' of tiio Fatln-r, of which tiio Son is
said to be the unvarying image. tUwv means the complete representation, and
tlKij}¥ Tr)% ovalat toO xar/)6?, if fairly intfrpruteil, might sullice to exclude Arianiam ;
but Arians could accept it as being practi<aily true.

• There is nothing in the Creed to exclude tlie Arian interpretation of this phrase.
See su/iTd p. 16'.^.

• This emphatic rofermco to the Katlicr's will would be agreeable to Arians.

174 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

of the Holy Spirit — clearly meaning ^ of a Father who is truly
Father, and of a Son who is truly Son, and of the Holy Spirit
who is truly Holy Spirit, the names not bein;^ applied in a
general sense (vaguely) or unmeaningly, but indicating accurately
the peculiar existence^ (? individuality) and rank and glory belong-
ing to each of the [three] named — namely, that they are three
in existence (? individuality), but one in harmony.'

" Inasmuch therefore as this is the faith we hold, and liold
from the beginning and to the end, before God and Christ we
anathematise every heretical evil opinion. And if any one,
teaches contrary to the sound right faith of the Scriptures,
saying* that there was or has been a time or season or age
before the Son was begotten, let him be anathema. And if any
Dne says that the Son is a creature as one of the creatures, or a
thing begotten as one of the things begotten, or a thing made as
one of the things made, and not as the divine Scriptures have
handed down the aforesaid articles one after another — or if any
one teaches or preaches differently from the tradition we
received, let him be anathema. For we truly and reverently
believe and follow all the things drawn from the divine
Scriptures which have been handed down by the prophets and
apostles." ^

This Creed seems a clumsy and cumbersome substitute for the
clean-cut clauses of the Creed of Nicaea. Vague and verbose
accumulations of scriptural phrases are no compensation for the

* Anti-Sabellian, The names correspond to permanent numerical distinctions
within the Godhead.

' viroaraaiv. The word here probably comes close to the meaning ' personal
existence '. See the history of its use p. 235.

^ This expression, which really makes the unity of the three persons moral rather
than essential, has been described (Robertson Athanasius p. xliv) as an artfully
chosen point of contact between < irigen, on the one side, and Asterius, Lucian, and
Paul of Samosata, on the other side. It was protested against at Sardica 343 (see
Hahn* p. 189) as implying a blasphemous and corrupt interpretation of the saying
' I and the Father are one '.

* None of the assertions here anathematized was made by the leaders of the
Arians. The expressions used represent just those subtle distinctions which S' emed
to Athanasius to be merely slippery evasions of direct issues.

* On the authority of Sozomen {H.E. iii 5, vi 12) this Creed is supposed to
have been composed by Lucian, and to have won accej)tance under cover of his
distinguished name. If it was so, the anathemas at the end and (probably) a few
phrases in the body of the Creed must have been added by those who produced it at
Antioch. The Lucianic origin of the Creed has, however, been called in question in
recent tiuies, and the latest suggestion is that Sozomen was mistaken, and confused
this (the Second) with the Fourth Creed assigned to this Council, which might be

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 176

loss of its well-balanced terse expressions. The spirit of its
framers is shewn by their constant appeal to the Scriptures, and
by the weakening down of the anti-Arian definitions. In efl'ect
such a Creed as this is powerless against Arianism, and takes
things back to the indeterminate state in which they were before
the outbreak of the controversy. In the Creed itself there is
probably not a single phrase which Arians could not have
accepted. The strongly worded rejection of a merely ' nominal '
Trinity reflects the fear of Sabellianism by which the framers of
the Creed were haunted, while their explanation of the nature
of the Unity of the Godhead is compatible with different grades
of deity. And the anathemas of the Creed of Nicaea, while
apparently retained in the main, are so modified that, though
they seem to put Arian teaching under the ban, they condemn
positions which nobody, of any party, wished to maintain. Such
is it is, however, it was approved by the Council as its official
statement, and is known as the Creed of the Dedication.

A third formula, which was signed by all, is notable only for
its condemnation of Marcellus, both by name and by the addition
of clauses emphasizing the personal and permanent existence of
the Son. But it was the personal profession of faith of a single
bishop, and not intended apparently as a complete creed.

Yet a fourth Creed was drawn up by a few bishops a little
later, after the Council had really separated, and sent — as if
from the synod — to the Emperor Constans in Gaul. It is much
shorter than the Second, the scriptural phrases and appeals being
curtailed or omitted. The eternity of the kingdom of the Son
is strongly maintained against Marcellus (though he is not
named), and the Nicene anathema against those who say ' out of
nothing or out of a dilVerent essence {vTroaracrLsi)' is qualified by
the further definition ' and not out of God ', so that though
intended to be more acceptable to Nicenes it became the basis
of the subsequent Arianizing confessions of the East.

liiiciunic. [Tlie argument is that the Creed in the Apostolic Con.it ilutions vii 41
(Ilahii * p. 139) is Liiciiiii's, and that tho Fourth Creed of Aiitio(;h more closely
reHoiiiLleH this Creed than tho Second does. lint the rcseniblannc is not in any eiise
at all close, and the attrilmtion of the Creed in the Apostolic Cons' it u lions to Lucian
is quite hypothetical (though its basis may well have been the old Haiitianial Creed
of Antio'h).] The aasuinption of a mistake seems unnici'ssary. The liishops' .state-
ment that tliey had found it in tho writings of Lucian (see yozoiuen) would not be
in.?OTisistent with its having been touched up here and there before the Council
approved it. (Sue llahn * pp. 139 and 184.)

176 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Oppositwn of the West to any New Creed — Council of Sardica 343

Constans refused to receive the deputation. The Western
bishops were averse to any tinkering with the Creed, and, in the
hope of putting a stop to it, Constans, with the assent of Con-
stantius, summoned a general Council to meet at Sardica.^ The
Council met in 343, but the division between East and West
revealed itself at once. The Western bishops refused to ratify
the decisions against Athanasius, and the Eastern bishops there-
upon withdrew and held a Council of their own at Philippopolis,
at which they reaffirmed the condemnation of Athanasius and
approved a Creed which was substantially the same as the Fourth
of Antioch with the addition of new anathemas.*

The Westerns, left to themselves, declared Athanasius and
Marcellus innocent of offence and protested against the wicked-
ness of their accusers. An explanation of the Nicene Creed was
proposed but not adopted (though it is included in the circular
letter announcing the proceedings of the Council).^ In its stead
a denunciation of any one who proposed a new Creed was agreed
to. The Faith had been declared once for all and no change was
to be considered — this was the attitude of the Western bishops
throughout the whole period of the controversy from the Council
of Nicaea onwards.

Renewed Attempts to secure a non-Nicene Creed

But in the following year (344-3'15) another synod that
met at Antioch to deal with the case of the Bishop Stephen put
out a fresh edition of the Fourth Creed of 341 (actually drawn
up early in 342), with such expansions of the anathemas and
such elaborate explanations intended to conciliate the West that
it reached unprecedented dimensions and was known as the long-
lined or ' prolix ' Creed (the Macrostich).* The positive senti-

* In Dacia, in the dominions of Constans, between Constantinople and Servia — the
modern Sopliia in Bulgaria. According to Thcodoret H.E. ii 6, two hundred and
fifty bishops met ; according to Socrates and Sozomen, following Athanasius, about
three hundred: but see Gwatkin's note as to the real number \)vesQiit {Studies of
Arianism^ p. 125). Hosius, Athanasius, and Marcellus were among them.

* Hahn * p. 190 (a Latin version).

» See Theodotet H.E. ii 6-8, and Ilalin » p. 188.

* fjMKp6<TTLxos iK0e(n.% — so Sozomen {U.E. iii 11) says it was called. The Creed
ia given by Socrates H.E. ii 19, and Hahn ' pp. 192-196.

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 177

ments contained in it are for the most part unexceptionable : as
when the eternal Sonship is maintained and the Arian phrases
are rejected as unscriptural and dangerous and intruding on the
incomprehensible mystery of divine processes, and the subordina-
tion of the Son is asserted but balanced by words declaring him
to be by nature true and perfect God and like the Father in all
things ; ^ or when the expression ' not begotten by the will of
the Father ' is denounced in the sense that it imposes necessity
on God, whereas He is independent and free and unfettered in
His action ; or when the mutual inseparable union of Father and
Son in a single deity is proclaimed. Yet the Nicene position
is being covertly turned all through, and the real sympathies
of the authors of this Creed are shewn in the incidental use
of the phrase * like the Father in all things ' (which was soon
to become the watchword of the ' Semi- Arian ' party), and in
the peculiarly strong expressions which are used in condemna-
tion of Marcellua and Photiuus ^ and all who thought as they
thought.

In 346 Athanasius was recalled from exile and for the next
ten years enjoyed a hard-won period of peace. This suspension
of hostilities was mainly due to the political troubles of the
time, which absorbed the energies of those friends without whose
help the enemies of the Nicenes could do little against them.
During this time, however, two events of the first importance
occurred.

Pacification of the ' Conservatives ' hy Condemnation of Photinus

In 351 a synod was held at Sirmium at which Photinus, the
chief follower of Marcellus, was condemned and deposed.' This
meant the final overthrow of the ideas attributed to Marcellus.
In future tiie ' Conservatives ' had nothing to fair from that
quarter. They could breathe freely a^^ain so far as Sabellianisni
was concerned. And so they were at liberty to reconsider their
position in relation to tiieir Arian allies, witli whom the dread of
' confusion of the persons ' had united tlieiu.and to reflect whether

' The u.se of tliis p))ra8<> ri^ xarpl Kard irdvra Sfxoiov ia notable, but it does not
occur conspicuously till SfiO (see in/ra p. 182).

' S^coreixij, 'Son of Darkiifss' rather tiian 'of Iii^ht' — his oi)pone!its' perversion
of his name, it S)-enis — is the form uliich Atli(inii.siuH gives.

* For the Creed of thi« synoi] (the Fourth of Autioch with new anathemas)
see Hiihu' p. 196.

178 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

after all Arianism was compatible with the doctrine of the Lord's
divinity.

Develo'pcment of Extreme Form of Arianism

By the death of Constans in 350 Constantius was left solo
emperor, without the restraining influence of any colleague of
Nicene convictions ; and, as soon as he had secured his position
against revolt, he was free to indulge to the full his own fanatical
Arian sympathies. And so, under these favourable conditions,
there was fostered an extremer developement of Arianism (winning
adherents in the West as well as in the East) than might other-
wise have found expression, the leaders of the new party being
Aetius,^ Eunomius,^ and Eudoxius.'

At Councils held by Constantius in 353 at Aries, after the
defeat and death of Magnentius, and in 355 at Milan,* the con-
demnation of Athanasius was voted; and in 356 took place a

* Aetius actively attacked the teaching of the semi- Arian bishops Basil of Ancyra
and Eustathius of Sebaste. Gallus, who was at the time in charge of the Government
at Antiocli, ordered him to be put to death by ' crurifragium ', but he was rescued by
the intercession of friends. A short treatise in forty-seven theses, and a preface
written by him defending his use of tlie watchword a.v6fj.oios against misrepre-
sentation of his opponents, are preserved in Epiph. adv. Haer. Ixxvi, and letters
to Constantius in Socr. H.E. ii 35. He was condemned at Ancyra in 358 and at
Constantinople in 360 ; recalled by Julian and made a bishop ; but he had chequered
fortunes till his death in 367 (see Sucr. II. E. ii 35, and Diet. Christian Biog. 'Aetius').

* Eunomius, the pupil and secretary of Aetius, was the chief exponent of Ano-
moeanism. His writings were numerous, but were regarded as so blasphemous that
successive imperial edicts (from the time of Arcadius in 398, four years after his
death) ordered them to be burnt, and made the possession of them a capital crime.
Against him in particular Basil and Gregory wrote. (See Art. D.C.B.)

* Eudoxius, described by Gwatkin [op. cit. p. 175 n.) as 'perhaps the worst of the
whole gang ', a disciple of Aetius and friend of Eunomius, and after him the leader
of the Anomoean party, was ordained and made Bishop of Germanica (on the
confines of Syria, Cilicia, and Cai)padocia) after the deposition of Eustathius (331),
who had refused him orders as unsound in doctrine. Having improperly procured
his election to the see of Antioch (347-348), he managed to hold his position till
359, when the Council of Seleuceia deposed him ; but by court influence he was
appointed patriarch of Constantinople in 360 in succession to Macedonius, and by
the favour of Constantius and Valens was able to resist opposition till his death in
370. He seems to have been entirely lacking in reverence, and incredibly self-
confident (see Art. D.C.B.).

* See Soz. H.E. iv 9. Only some half-dozen bishops opposed and protested, and
were exiled by imperial decree. Socratfs, however (H.E. ii 36), represents the
protest as effectual. It was on this occasion, when the orthodox bishops refused to
sign the condemnation of Athanasius as being against the canon of the Church, that
Constantius made his famous utterance "Let my will l^e deemed the Canon".
Gwatkin (p. 149) says "the Council . . . only yielded at last to open violence '.
Tiiree bishops, including Lucifer of Calaris, were exiled.

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 179

savage assault on his Church at Alexandria, his narrow escape
and retirement into exile in the desert, and the apparently com-
plete overthrow of the Nicene party in the East. This third
exile of Athanasius lasted till 362, and during this time the fate
of Arianism was really settled, though twenty years more elapsed
before the victory was finally won.

The ultimate issue was made clear by the effect of the
[Second] Council of Sirmium in 357. Under the leadership of
Valens,^ Ursacius,^ and Germinius,'^ the bishops agreed to a Creed
which hints that the Son is not really God, declares with em-
phasis the superiority of the Father and the subjection of the
Son along with all other things, and forbids the use of the term
' substance ' or ' essence ' (being) in any form, whether ' of one
substance 'or 'of like substance (or being) ', on account of the
difficulties to which such terms have given rise, and because they
are not to be found in the Scriptures and transcend human
knowledge.^ Such a declaration was of course a strongly Arian
manifesto ; ' Anomoean ' even in effect, since it condemns ' of
like essence ' no less than the Nicene ' of one essence '. And
as such it was at once denounced, and by the name which
Hilary, the great champion of the Nicene Faith in the West,*

' Valens and Ursacius had been personal disciples of Arins, ])robably during his
exile into Illyricum after Nicaea. Later on tliey found it politic to profess ' con-
servative principles' (see Socr. H.E. ii 37), and seem to have held a very confused
doctrine. In 347, at a Council at Milan, they confessed the falsehood of tlie
cliarges against Athanasius, but that there was no genuine recantation of Arian
views is proved by their part in the Sirmium ' blasphemy '. After that, tliey
formed tlie Homoean party in the West (Acacius in the East), on what seemed to
be the line of least resistance, and accepted the ' Dated Creed ' at the Sirmium
conference in SoQ, where Valens distinguislied himself by trying to omit the words
kotA Trdcra. They were at Ariminurn and Nice, and Valens by artful dissembling
and juggb-ry with words succeeded in getting Arianizing phrases adopted. Valens
was Bisliop of Mursa in Pannonia and Ursacius of Singidunum (Belgrade).

' Germinius was Bishop of Sirmium.

•The Creed is in Ilaljn » p. 199 (Latin), and (Greek) Ath. de Syn. 28; Socr.
n.E. ii. 30. 'Onoiovaiov occurs here for the first time.

* Though the Westnpver felttbestrrssof the Arian controversy t > the same extent
as the East, and was fortunate in having — f.irscmie time — emperors who I'avduieil tlie
Nieene rather than the Arian cause, yet the work of Hilary, a religious layman elected
Bishop of Poitiers in ?,^>'A ('the Athannsius of the West'), and Ambrose in ostablish-
mg the Ilomoousian doctrine must not bo passed by in any lujconiit of its history.

Arianism was strongly (and at times violeiitly) championed in Gaul by such men
as Ij-saeiiis, Valens, and Saturnimis ; and after the Council of Milan in 355, at
which the condemrjation of Athanasius was pron<nince,(l, Ililiiry and a number o'
other bishops withdrew from communion with the three, wlio thereupon, by repro-
tentatious (probably false) to the emperor, secured an edict lianishiiig Hilary to

180 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

suggested — ' the blasphemy of Sirniium ' ' — it has since been

Phrysia (356). Tlie exile lasted three years, and during it Hilary carried on the
war against Arianism by his writings, de Synodis (conciliatory as Atlianasiiis was
towards semi-Arians, who seemed really to accept the Nicciie teaching but to stumble
kt the Nicene terras) and de Trinitate. And on his return, till his death in 360, by
zeal tempered by tact and mutual explanations of uncertain terms, he effectively
won over the waverers and reduced the Ariau party to the smallest dimensions.
(See J. G, Cazenove ' Hilarius Pictar.', D.O.B. ; and for his doctrinal teaching
especially Dorner Doctrine of the Person of Christ Eug. tr. div. i vol. ii p. 399 ff.)

Hardly less important was the work of Ambrose later— like Hilary, a layman
suddenly elevated to the episcopata to be a pillar of the Faith (Bishop of Milan
374-397). The successor of the Arian bishop Auxentius, and unflinching in his
resistance by word and by deed to Arianism, however supported in imperial circles,
he steadily maintaiued the Catholic teaching against all heresy. As a diligent
student and warm admirer of the Greek theologians, especially Basil, he exerted all
his great influence to secure the comi)lete victory of the Nicene doctrine in the West.
(See especially Dt fide ad Gratianum (ed. Hurter, vol. 30) and De Spiritu S.)

' The blasphemy of Sirmium runs as follows: "Since there was thought to be

some dispute concerning the faith, all the questions were carefully dealt with and

examined at Sirmium, in the presence of our brothers and fellow-bishops Valens,

Ursacius, and Germinius. It is certain that there is one God, all-ruling and Father,

as is believed through the whole world, aud His only Sou Jesus Christ, the Lord,

our Saviour, begotten from (the Father) Himself before the ages : but that two gods

cannot and ought not to be preached, for the Lord himself said ' I shall go to my

Father and to your Father, to my God and to your God ' (John 20"). Therefore there

is one God of all, as the Apostle taught : ' Is God God of the Jews only ? is He not

also of the Gentiles ? Yea, of the Gentiles also. Since there is one God, who justifies

the circumcision from faith and the uncircumcision through faith' (Rom. S*-**).

And everything else too was concordant and could not be at all discrepant. But

as regards the disturbance caused to some or many with regard to substance, which

is called in Greek usn.a, that is— to make it more clearly understood — homouaion, or

the term homoeusion, no mention at all of it ought to be made and no one ought to

preach it — for this cause and reason, that it is not contained in the divine Scriptures

and that it is beyond human knowledge, and no one can declare the nativity of the

Son, concerning whom it is written ' Who shall declare his generation?' (Isa, 53^).

For it is plain that only the Father knows how he begat His Son, and the Son how

he was begotten by the Father. There is no uncertainty that the Father is greater :

it cannot be doubtful to any one that the Father is greater than the Son in honour

and dignity and renown and majesty, and in the very name of Father, since he

himself testifies—' He who sent me is greater than I am' (John 14^). And no one

is ignorant that this is Catholic — that there are two persons of Father and Son,

that the Father is greater, the Son subject along with all the things which the

Father subjected to Himself; that the Father has not a beginning, is Invisible, ia

immortal, is impassible ; that the Son, however, has been born from the Father, God

from God, light from light^the Son whose generation, as has been said before, no

one knows except his Father ; that the Son of God, our Lord and God, himself, as

ifl read, took upon him flesh or body, that is, man (hunianity), from the womb of

the Virgin Mary, even as the angel proclaimed. And as all the Scriptures teach,

and particularly the Apostle himself the master (teacher) of the Gentiles, (we know)

that from the Virgin Mary he took man (humanity), by means of which he shared

in suffering. Fulheiniore, the chief tiling and the conlinnation of the whole faith

is that a Trinity bhould always be maintained, as we read in the Gospel, 'Go ye and

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 181

known.^ It was much too late iu the day to seek to make peace
by snatching the bone of contention away. A coalition formed
with such an idea was bound to fail ; but it did much worse —
it played into the hands of Arianism, and, whatever the East
was, it was not really Arian. And so the coalition fell to pieces.
Its Arian members had gone too far, and in the moment of
victory they lost their half-unconscious allies. At a synod held
at Antioch early in the following year, it is true, the flagrant blas-
phemies of Aetius and Eunomius were allowed by the president,
Eudoxius, to pass ; but the moderates (' Conservatives ') were the
more stimulated to take immediate action.

Protests of the Moderates in the East

They held a counter meeting at Ancyra under Basil, the
bishop, at which they anathematized in general every one who
did not faithfully confess the essential likeness of the Son to
the Father, and in particular (with reference to numerous
passages in the Gospel according to St John) all who so mis-
interpreted the sayings of Jesus as to conceive him to be
unlike ' the Father.* The anathemas covered all the extreme

baj)tize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'
(Matt. 28"). Entire and complete ia the number of the Trinity. And the Paraclete
the Spirit is through the Son, and he was sent and came according to the promise
to build up, to teach, to sanctity the Apostles and all believers."

[It will be noted that the Father is here stated to be invisible and incapable of
suffering, and the Son in contrast to Him is regarded as passible, joining in the
suffering of liis human nature. The Sou as a divine being is contrasted with the
human nature wliicli he assumed. A reference in the explanation of the Creed
which was offered at Sardica in 343 in order to rcimdiate Arian conceptions (Ilahn*
p. 189), "This [sc. the S[tirit) did not suffer, but tlie human nature {ivOpt^-Ko^) which
he put on suffered — whiirh he assumed from Mary the Virgin, the human nature
which ia ca|iaf)le of suffering", shews that Ariaus taught that the divine nature
itself in the luiarnate Christ shared the suffering. That is, no doubt, the view in-
tendwl here. Such teaching obviously makes the divine nature of the Son (passible)
different from the divine nature of the Father (impassil)le), and as such it was
repudiated by tlio opponents of Arianism. The later exact teacliing of Cyril of
Alexandria and Ji«o «n tlie subject (.see infra pj). 208, 290) wan already in some con-
nexions expressed by Athanasius (Cr. c. Ar. iii 31-33), as it had been previously by
Tertiillian (see .»it/)r^' j>. 114).]

' See Hilary dc SynoUis 1 1 and adv. Conslantium 23. Hosius, Bishop of Cordova
— to whose suggestion the term Homoousios at Nicaea was pr()l)ably due — wa.i present
at tliis synod, and was compelled by violence to sign tlie Creed (see .Soz. II. E. iv 6).
.So Hilary could call it ai.to 'the ravings of Hoaius ', a singularly uncharitable
obiter diclum in view of all the facts and the great services of Hosius.

•See Hahn' p. 201.

182 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Allan theses, and the emphatic declaration that the Son was
like the Fatlier even in essence (i.e. in his very being) was
at this juncture just the bridge wliich was needed to lead
wanderers back to the Nicene faith in its fulness. But now
the ' moderates ' went too far for the temper of the time. Tiie
good effects of their action were largely undone when they
procured a sentence of exile against Aetius, Eudoxius, and a
large number of the Anomoean party, wliom Constantius obliged
them to recall after an Arian deputation had put their case
before him. And so there was a deadlock, and a compromise
had to be found.

The Homoean Compromise

A new party was formed — the party of compromise —
intended to be the rallying-point of all moderates, with the
watchword ' like in all respects ', and the prohibition of
technical terms. This compromise, promoted by Acacius, Bishop
of Caesarea, was accepted by Basil of Ancyra (the president of
the last Council) and the Emperor Constantius. To draw up a
Creed embodying it, and to prepare the business for a great
ecumenical Council to accept it, a conference was held at
Sirmium, under the presidency of the emperor, in the month of
May 359.^ The Creed which was approved is 'moderate' in
tone, and unusually strong in its declarations as to the eternal
generation of the Son (' before all the ages, and before all
beginning, and before all conceivable time, and before all com-
prehensible being (or substance) '). But it only says, ' like the
Father who begat him, according to the Scriptures ', and * like
the Father in all things, as the holy Scriptures say and teach ' ;
and it forbids all mention of the term ' substance ' (or essence
or being) in reference to God, on the ground that though it was
used in a simple or innocent sense by the Fathers, yet it was
not understood by the people and caused difficulties, and was

■ This was the third assembly at Sirniium within the decade, and the Creed i.°
commonly couuted the ' third ' of Sirmium (there was, however, one drawn up
at Sirmium against Photinus in 347, which, strictly speaking, is the first of
Sirmium — se<! Ilefele Councils ii 192). It was prol)ably composed by Mark, Bishop
of Aretlmsa, ]>erliai)S in Latin, but this cannot be proved (see Hahn'p. 204, and
Bum Introd. Ilist. Creeds p. 92). Tlie framers of the Creed prefixed a clause giving
the date of its publication (' the eleventh day before the Calends of June' — May
22). To their oj>[)onents (see Ath. de Syn. 3) it seemed ridiculous to date the
Catholic faith, and as ' the Dated Creed ' it is commonly known. The Greek of it
in given in Ath. de Syn. 8 ; Socr. H.E. ii 37 ; Kahn» p. 204.

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 183

not contained in the Scriptures. Such was the Creed ^ by
which it was hoped to unite all parties and bring back
harmony to the Church. But though the ' Cabinet-meeting '
of Sirmium could agree, the new party of ' Homoeans ' (or
' Acacians ', or ' semi-Arians ') did not really unite the Church.
Honestly interpreted, the formula * like in all things ' would
cover ' like in substance (essence, being) ' and exclude all
difference ; ^ yet the very word ' like ' seems to connote some
difference, and the divine ovaia of Father and Son was one
and the same. But the emperor meant this formula to be
accepted, and with a view to greater ease of manipulation the
bishops were summoned to meet in two synods — one for the
Westerns at Ariminum and another for the Easterns at Seleuceia.
The Western synod met,' Ursacius and Valens representing
the Homoean cause. But the bishops were so far from accepting
the Dated Creed that they reaffirmed the Creed of Nicaea, with
a declaration in defence of ovaia, anathematized Arianism, and
condemned the Homoean leaders (who at once went off to the
emperor to secure his support), and sent a deputation to Con-

' The Creed is of further interest iis being the first which contained the clause
on the Descent into Hades — "and went down into the nether world and set
in order things there (t4 iKeiae olKovoix-qcavra), and when the doyr-koepcra of Uadea
saw him they were affrighted " (Job ;38'^ LXX) — a clause which probably sliews tho
influence of Cyril of Jerusalem, who refers to the Descent several times, and in his
list of ten do'jmata includes it as explanatory of the burial {e.g. Cat. iv 11, 12).

• Basil of Ancyra, one of the ' cabinet', felt it necessary to draw up a statement
that the formula Sfioiov Karh. rduTa really embraces everything, and is enough to
exclude any diflereiice between Father and Son. He shews at length that though
the bare term oi/irla is not contained in either the old or the new Scriptures, yet
ita sense is everywhere. The Son is not called the Word of God as a mere force
of expres-ion {ivipyaa. \(ktikt)) of God, but he is Son (a dofiuite hypostasis) and
therefore ovala., and so the Fathers called him. He then goes on to describe and
to argue against Arian and semi-Arian tenets, and, referring to the attempt to
proscribe ovcla, says they wished to do away with the name ovala in order that it
it were no longer uttered by the mouth their heresy might grow in the hearts of
men. He suspects they will bo caught writing 'like in will and purpose', but
'unlike in oMa'. Hut if they boml fide accept 'like in all tilings', then they
gain nothing by getting rid of the term. For it makes the Son like the Father
not only in regard to jiurpose and 'energy', as they define it, but also in regard
to his original being and his personal existence, and in icjjard to his very being
as Son. In a word, ho declams the formula 'in all things' embraces absolutely
everything and admits of no dilfercnoe. See Kjiijilianius Ilaer. Ixx iii \'l-2'l
fesp. 15). [It is the theology of Basil of Ancyra expressed in this treatise that
Hamark regards a« ultimately adopted, with dcvelopenienfa, hy tin' Cap]iado<'iaiiH
Basil an<l the Orogories. See infra p. 193.] See Additional Note on 6^oioi/fftot and
tlic HomoiMns infra p. 192.

•See Socr. II. K. li 37 ; Ath. de Syn. 8 (f., ad A/roa 3.

1 84 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Btiintius to explain affairs and urge that no change ought to be
allowed. Tiie emperor shewed all honour to Ursacius and
Valens, and sent back the other deputation with a dilatory
reply, so that at last the bishops of the Council, without being
formally dissolved, returned to their cities. And then some-
how or other at Nice in Tiirace, near Hadrianople, a few
bishops (whether the original deputies, or the partisans of
Ursacius ^ only, is uncertain) published as the work of the
Council of Ariminum a revised translation of the Dated Creed,^
in which the expression ' likeness * is weakened by the omission
of ' in all things '.

Meanwhile the Eastern synod met at Seleuceia. The majority
were 'moderate' and wished simply to readirm the Creed
of tlxe Dedication of 341. But the leading spirit was Acacius,
and in view of the present distress caused by the difficulties
with regard to Homo-ousion and Homoi-ousion and the new term
Anomoion (un-like), a declaration was put forward ^ rejecting all
three terms and anathematizing all who used them, and simply
declaring the likeness of the Son to the Father, in the sense
intended by the Apostle when he said (Col. 1^^), " who is the
image of the unseen God ". And the Creed concludes with an
assertion that it is equivalent to the one put forward at
Sirmium earlier in the year. The leaders of the extreme Arian
party were thus conjoined with the upholders of the Nicene faith,
and all alike were put under the ban. It was of the proceedings
of this year that Jerome said, " The whole world groaned and
wondered to find itself Arian ".*

A Council held immediately afterwards at Constantinople
(Dec. 359) completed the work, and early in the year 360 the
modified form of the Dated Creed, which had been signed at

^ Cf. Socr. I.e. with Ath. de Syn. 30.

*Hahn^ p. 205, The })hrasus now run, Mike the Father according to the
Scriptures ' and ' even as the holy Seriptuies say and teach ', and the expression fxlo.
{nrdcTTaffii also is forbidden.

* Hahn ' p. 206. This declaration was not really accepted by the synod, which
the Quaestor Leonas dissolved, as agreement seemed impossible ; but tlie principle
of it was assented to by the deputies sent to Constantius from the synod. (A
majority of the Council even deposed Acacius, Eudoxius, and others ; but their
sentence was disregarded.)

♦Jerome Vial. adv. Lucif. 19 (Migne P.L. xxiii p. 172). On the Councils of
Ariminum and Seleuceia (and the whole question), see the great work of Athanasiua
de Synodis, written while he was in exile (359), before he heard of the subsequent
proceedings, references to which were afterwards inserted. Its real aim was to

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 185

Nice (with ' in all things ' omitted), was issued as the faith
of the Church ^ — and the victory of Arianism in the Homoean
form was apparently complete. As representative and scape-
goat of the Anomoeans, Aetius was abandoned — excommunicated
and deposed ; but Eudoxius and Acacius triumphed. 'Comprehen-
sion ' was secured on these conditions. The Homoean formula
allowed the freedom which was desired, and admitted all who
repudiated the unlikeness of the Father and the Son. It was
the ' authorized ' Creed for the next twenty years, though all
the time the way back to the full acceptance of Homo-
ousion was being prepared.

Gradual Conversion of Semi-Arians and Convergence of Parties

to the Niceiie Defnition

The first turning-point was the death of Constantius in
361. In the early part of the following year Athanasius re-
turned to his see and held a synod at Alexandria, at whicli the
Creed of Nicaea was of course presupposed. The synod decided
that all that should be required of Arians who wished to be re-
admitted to communion ^ was that they should accept this test,
and anathematize Arianism and the view which spoke of the
Holy Spirit as a creature.^ The Arian teaching as to the con-
stituents of the person of Christ came under consideration, and
the inti'giity of his human nature and its perfect union with
the Word was asserted.* Furthermore, in connexion with the

convince the goimine bemi-Ariaus that nothing but 6;jioov<rioi' wouM suffice, and
that it really was what they meant (§§ 41-54).

' Uahn ' p. 208. It was at this Council that Macmlonius, Bishop of Alex-
andria, ordaincfl by Arian bishops in opjiosition to Paul and Athanasius, was
deposed. See iii/ra ' Doctrine of the Holy Spirit ' p. 212.

'■' Liicifir of Calaris, who had been exiled to E^'ypt, was present at the Council.
lie could not agree to the AriaiiH obtaining vejiiam cxjtof.nitciilia. Hence his schism.
He too had conHccrated I'auliuuu in oppc^itiun to Melcliu.s at Antiocli.f]

* The Arian thesis with regard to the Son was being extended to the Holy
Si)irit, and apparently some, who were now willing to accejjt the Nicene teaching
as to the Son, still wished to be free from any similar (ielinition as to tlie Holy
Spirit, and to distinguish between them in reganl to deity. See infra j)]). 206, 1209.

* This Wiia in o[iposition to the christological conceptions already nolrd (supra
[I. 160), which were destined to excite greater attention when ciiampioned in
anotlier interest by Apolliii.uius. "They confessed", writes Athauasius, "that
the Saviour had not a body without a soul, nor without sense or intelligunee ; for
it was not possible, when the Lord harl become man for us, that his body should
be without iiitelligouce ; nor was the salvation elfected in the \\\>nl himself a
salvation of body only, but of soul also " {Tom. ad Ant. 7).

186 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

most ' practical ' problem before the Council — the position of
affairs at Antioch, the dissensions between the Nicene party
(Eustathians) and the Homoiousian party (Meletians) — the
meaning of the word ' hypostasis ' in relation to the Godhead
was discussed. It was recognized that two usages were current,
and that questions of words ought not to be allowed to divide
those who really agreed in idea. Both ' one hypostasis ' and
' three hypostases ' could be said in a pious sense. The
former was in accordance with the usage of the Creed of
Nicaea, in which the word is an equivalent for ova la ; the
latter was equally accurate when the phrase was used to
signify not three divine ' substances ' (three gods), but three
eternal modes of the existence of the one divine substance
(three ' persons ')• In the East there had been some disposition
to use the word ' hypostasis ' in this latter sense — the usage
which finally prevailed ; but since the time of the Dionysii the
question had not arisen ; and to get behind the terms to the
sense in which they were used, and so to reveal to the disputants
the merely verbal nature of their apparent difference, was a
conspicuous success achieved by Athanasius.^

But hardly was the Council over when Athanasius was again
expelled by Julian from his diocese — to return a little more
than a year later by the new emperor's consent.

In 363 a Council at Antioch too reaffirmed the Creed
of Nicaea,^ but with a significant explanation of the keyword of
the Creed. Homoousion, suspected by some, has received from
the Fathers a safe interpretation — to signify ' that the Son
was begotten from the ovaia of the Father ' and ' that he is
like the Father in ovala ' ; and they add that it is not taken
in any sense in which it is used by the Greeks, but simply to
repudiate the impious Arian assertion in regard to Christ that
he was ' from nothing '.

A short-lived revival of Arianism marked the year 364,
and some renewal of persecution by the * Augustus ' Valens in

1 See the account of the Council in the Letter whicli he \vrote to the Church of
Antioch (the Tomus ad Antiochenos) — ' calm and conciliatory, the crown of his
career '—urging them to peace. Both sides are represented as agreeing to give up
the use of the terms in dispute and to bo content with the expression of the
faith contained in the Creed of Nicaea.

' This was the work of the Acacians, to gain the support of Meletius, who was
in high estimation with the Emperor Jovian. Their acceptance of the Nicene
Creed may therefore have been to some extent opportunist. See Socr. B.K iii 25.

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 187

the following year drove Athauasius again into banishment for
the winter, but the revolt of Procopius and the indignation of
the people of Alexandria led to his speedy recall early in 366,
and the remaining seven years of his life were free from any
such disturbance.

A Council was held at Lampsacus in the autumn of 364, at
which the formula ' like in essence ' was accepted, but its sup-
porters were powerless to take decisive action against opponents
who were favoured by Valens. Imperial influence effectually
barred the way to the complete establishment of the Nicene faith.

In 375 Valentinian was succeeded by Gratian, who was
entirely led by Ambrose ; but it was not till Valens was killed
in 378, and Theodosius — a strong Nicene — was appointed by
Gratian in his place, that the unanimity of the emperors made
possible for the Church as a whole the restoration of the Creed
for which the struggle had been so long maintained.

Final Victory of the Nicene Interpretation at the Council

of Constantinople

The Council which met at last in 381 ^ at the capital, Con-
stantinople, solemnly ratified the faith of the Council of Nicaea

' Only Eastern bishops were piesent, and Meletius of Antioch, who was held
in universal estimation (though he had been so much distrusted in the West), was
appointed to preside. Gregory of Nazianzus had alreaily been some time in Con-
stantinople, hard at work building up the Nicene faith in his Church of the
Anastasia, since Gratian's edict of toleration in 379 had made it possible again to
give the Catholics of Constantinople a diocesan iidministrator. But as bishop only
of the insignificant Sasiina, he had hardly ecclesiastical rank enough to preside.
The first act of the Council was to ajipoint him, much against his will, Bishop of
Constantinople; and on the death of Meletius, shortly after the beginning of the
synod, he naturally took the jilace of president. When, however, the synod
insisted on electing a successor to Mcleliiis, and so eonlinuing the schism at
Antioch (in violution of the agreement that when either of the two bishops
.Meletius and Paul died, the survivor should be acknowledged by both parties) ;
and when the Egy|)tian Ijishojis (who i)rob;ibly desired the recognition of Maximus,
an Alexandrine, who had been jireviously secretly consecrated Bishop of Constanli-
no[ile) jirotested against Gregory's a|)pointment as a violation ol the Nicene canon
which forbade the removal of a bisliop from one see to another ; Gregory insisted
on resigning and was succeeded by Nectarius. See Hefelo Councils vol. ii p. 310 If.

The W('st had no jiart in the Council, and it was not till 4ril that it took rank
as ecumeniial- the Second General Council— and then only in resjiect of its decrees
on faith (the canons as to the staliis of the Bishop of Constantinople not being
accepted at Rome).

In jireparing the way for the acceptance of the Nicene definitions the work of
Gregory and Basil and Grcgf>ry of Nyssa — the Cappadoi-ian Fathers — had been of
highest value. See further in regard to them Cha]itcr XIII.

188 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

ill its original shape,^ aud condemned all forms of Arian teach-
ing ; aud edicts of Theodosius were issued — in accordance with

* No new Creed was framed (see Socr. H.E. v 8, and So/. II. E. vii 9). An en-
larged Creed, afterwards known as the Creed of the Council of Constantinople, was
apparently entered in the Acts of the Council (wliich are not extant), as it was read
out ft-oni them at the Council of Chalccdon. Possibly it was the Creed professed
liy Nectarius on his baptism and consecration as Bishop of Constantinople during
the progress of the Council, See Kunze Das nicdnisch-konslaiitinopolitanische
Symbol, and A. E. Burn Guardian, March 13, 1901. Possibly Cyiil of Jerusalem,
whose ' orthodoxy ' had been more than doubtful (he certainly disliked the test-
word homoousios), and who on this occasion publicly proclaimed his adherence
to the homoousian formula (see Socr. I.e.), recited in evidence of his opinions the
form of Creed wldch was in use in his Church — a form based upon the old Baptismal
Creed of Jerusalem (which can be gathered from his catechetical lectures on it m
348-350) — revised and augmented from the Creed of Nicaea about 362, after he
was reinstated in his bishopric. And this Creed, being api)roved by the Council,
was entered in the Acts — though not intended for publication and general use ;
and then, inasmuch as it was manifestly useful in view of later developements of
teaching as to the Holy Spirit, it passed into wider currency, and came at length
to be regarded as a Creed drawn up on this occasion by the authority of the
Council itself. (As early as the very year following the Council a synod of
bishops who met at Constaiitinoiile, in a letter to Damasus, Bishop of Rome,
referred to ' a more expanded confession of the faith ' recently set forth in Con-
stantinople. ) It is certain that a Creed almost identical with that which tradition
came to attribute to the Council was in existence seven years before the Council
met, when it was appended to an exposition of the Faith (styled o 'kyKvpwrb^ —
AiicoraiMS — the Anchored One), composi^d by Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis (Con-
stantia), in Cyprus. The connexion of Salamis with Jerusalem (its metropolis) would
lead to the use of the same form of Creed in both {)laces. EjuphMnius seems to
regard it as the faith of the 318 bishops who met at Nicaea ; but it is scarcely
possible that such an en'or could have been made at the Council itself, and there
is no evidence that the enlarged Creed was adopted by this Council except the
unsupported statement of the deacon Aetius at the Council of Clialcedon seventy
years later. At this Council of Chalcedon the geimine Nicene Creed was received
with enthusiasm as the baptismal confession of all (it had apparently been adopted
as such in the first half of the fifth century), but the so-called Constantinopolitan
only as the true faith. It is obvio'isly not based on the Nicene Creed, though
in close agreement with its teaching as to the Person of Christ. Thus it does not
contain the clause iK ttjv ovalas toO varpds, one of the most contested of Nicene
phrases, nor ' God from God ' (though this was afterwards inserted in the Western
versions of the Creed) ; nor ' things in heaven and things in earth ', in the clause
attributing creation to Christ. The first of these clauses could be dispensed with
more easily when there was no longer dauger of Sabellian ideas threatening the
personality of the Son ; and though it is true that no words so effectually pre-
clude the possibility of the Homoean interpretation of the Creed, yet Athanasius
always insisted that they were only an explanation of ^/c toO irarpSs (see Addi-
tional Note). To sum up — (1) All the historians of the Council say that it was
(only) the Nicene Creed that was affirmed. (2) There is no evidence during the
seventy years after the Council that anybody thought there had been an enlarged
Creed drawn up then. At Ephesus in 431 no mention was made of any but the
Creed of Nicaea, (3) The enlarged Creed in question was in existence seven years
before the Council, and was probably drawn up still earlier (perhaps c. 362). (4) It

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 189

the decisions of the Council — forbidding Arians to occupy the
existing churches or to build new ones for themselves.
Attempts were made to bring Arians over and unite them to
the Church ; but, when they proved unsuccessful, the heresy was
rigorously suppressed by force and expelled from the greater
part of the empire.^

has as its basis not the Niceiie Creed, but the Ba])tismal Creed of Jerusalem (being
an enlarged edition of the latter with Nicene corrections and amendments). See
Hort Two Dissertations. It is possible that before the time of the Council of
Chalcedon it had been taken into use as the baptismal Creed of the Church of Con-
stantinople (so Kunze argues op. cit.). The traditional view of the origin of the
' Constantinopolitan ' Creed has recently been again championed by a Russian
scholar, Professor Lebedeff, of Moscow (see Journal of Theological Studies vol. iv
p. 285), who considers that the Creed given in the Ancoratus was really the Nicene
Creed, as Epiphanius describes it, and that the form iu which it now stands in the
texts is due to the work of a copyist who interpolated into the original Nicene
form additions from the (genuine) Constantiiiopnlitan Creed. His argument will
need careful examination ; but meanwhile at all events the view stated above holds
the field. See also in/ra pp. 214-217.

* Though Arianism was thus banished from the Church of the Roman Empire it
became the faith of the barbarian invaders of the empire and of the Gothic soldiers
in the armies of the empire. The whole Gothic nation (with their successive rulers,
Alaric, Genseric, Thoodoric) were Arians from tiie days of the great work among
them of the Arian bishop Ulphilas. The Lombards were Ariau till the time of
Queen Tlieodelinda, at the end of the sixth century. So were the Visigoths in Spain
till the time of King Keccared (the Council of Toledo in 589 was intended to
emphasize the national renunciation of Arianism ; and the unconscious addition,
on this occasion, of the words et a Filio to the clause on the jirocession of the
Spirit well illuatratea the intention). The Franks alone of Teutons were free from
Arianism.

The familiar form of the Gloria in all Western liturgies in which the three
Persons are co-ordinated — instead of other variable forms— also witnesses to the
struggle. And the Creed which contains the Ilomoousion was first ordered to be
used before the Eucharist to guard against Arian intruders.

Of the causes of the failure of Arianism, Prof. Gwatkin writes (op. cit. p. 265) : "It
waa an illogical compromise. It went too far for heathenism, not far enough for
Christianity. It conceded Christian worship to the Lord, though it made him no
better than a heathen demigod. As a scheme of Christianity it was overmatched
at every jioiut by the Niceue doctrine, as & concession to heathenism it wan out-
bid by the growing worship of saints and relics. Debasing as was the error of
turning saints into demi-gods, it seems to have shocked Christian feeling less than
the Arian audacity which degmdtd the Lord of Saints to the level of his creatures."
In breadth of view and grasp of doctrine Athanasius was beyond comi)ari8on
HUfwrior to the Arians. Arianism was indeed "a ma.s8 of prosum]itii(ius theoris-
ing, supjiorted \>y scraps of obsolete truditionalisni and uncritical tcxt-mongcring —
and, besides, a lifeless system of uns|)iritual pride and hard uidovingness ".

The victory of o/ioowtoj was clearly a victory of reason. It was, further, the
trium|ih of the conviction that in Jesus of Na/arcth had actually been revealed a
Saviour in whom the union of humanity and deity was realized.

And there is no doubt that "Arian succcs.'k^ began and ended with Arian command
of the palace". "Arianism worked throughout by Court intrigue and militaryoutrage."

90 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

MARCELLUS

The chief authorities for the teaching of jMarceUus, the chief repre-
sentative of the supposed SabelUan tendencies of the Nicene Christo-
logy, are two treaties of Eusebius of Caesarea (contra Marcellum and
de Ecclesiastica Theologia), which contain extracts from his own work
On the Subjection of the Son ; a letter to Julius in Epiphanius Haer.
Ixxii ; fragments of a writing of Acacius against him, and a Creed of
the Marcellians, also in Epiphanius, I.e. (i\Iigne P.O. xlii 383-388,
395-400). In Athanasius Or. c. Ar. iv (as Newman thinks, and Zahn
insists) the system of Marcellus is probably attacked (without his
name). See Th. Zahn Marcellus von Ancyra, Gotha, 1867. f]

He was Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia (perhaps as early as 315), and
at Nicaea was one of the minority whose persistence secured the inser-
tion of the test-word o/xoovVios ; and after the Council he wrote his
treatise irtpl r^? tov vlov viroTayrj^ against Asterius the literary repre-
sentative of the Arians. His own interpretation, however, was by no
means to the mind of the dominant (Eusebian) party, and was called
in question at successive synods at Tyre and Jerusalem, and at Con-
stantinople in 336, when he was deposed from his office on the charge
of teaching false doctrine. Eusebius of Caesarea took in hand the
refutation of his theories, and from his treatises it appears that Mar-
cellus agreed with the Arians that the conceptions of Sonship and
of generation implied the subordination of the Son, who was thus
generated — he must have had a beginning and be inferior to the
Father; he could be neither co-equal nor co-eternal. The notion of
Sonship was accordingly improperly applied to the divine in Christ;
it referred only to the person incarnate, as the use of the term in
Scripture shewed. Of the eternal — the divine — element in Christ
there was one term only used : not Son, but Logos. The Logos is the
eternally immanent power of God, dwelling in him from eternity,
manifested in operation in the creation of the world, and for the
purpose of the redemption of mankind taking up a dwelling in Christ,
and 80 becoming for the first time in some sense personal. The
God-man thus coming into being is called, and is, the Son of God ; but
it is not accurate to say the Logos was begotten, nor was there any Son
of God till the Incarnation. The title Logos is the title which must
dominate all others, expressing as it does the primary relation. The
relations expressed by other titles {e.g. irpwroTOKo?) are only temporary
and transient. When the work which they indicate has been effected
the relations will cease to exist. The relation of Sonship will disappear :
it is limited to the Incarnation and the purposes for which the Logos
became incarnate, and the Logos will again become what he was from
eternity, immanent in the Father.

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 191

For theories such as these little support could be expected ; they
had too much in common with Sabellianism — the bugbear of the East.
Marcellus was regarded as teaching that the Son had no real person-
ality, but was merely the external manifestation of the Father.

[llarnack names four contemporary objections to his system : — (1)
That he called only the Incarnate Person the Son of God ; (2)
that he taught no real pre-existence ; (3) that he assumed an
end of the kingdom of Christ ; (4) that he talked of an exten-
sion of the indivisible Monad.]

Basil describes his teaching as a " heresy diametrically opposite to
that of Arius ", and says he attacked the very existence of the only-
begotten Godhead and erroneously understood the term ' Word '
(implying that he taught no permanent existence of the Only-begotten,
but only a temporary 'hypostasis'). See Epp. 69, 125, 263.

It is impossible to determine how far the picture of Marcellus, which
Eusebius gives, is coloured by the widespread fear of Sabellian views
in the East. Either ^larcellus was an arch-intriguer and trimmer, as
some do not hesitate to style him, or he was much misrepresented.

It must be borne in mind that opinion had scarcely yet been
definitely formulated as to the eternity of the Son's distinct existence
in the future. St Paul's words (1 Coi 15^8) 'then shall the Son himself
too be subjected to him that subjected all things to him, in order that
God may be all in all ' might be understood to point to an ultimate
absorption of the Son in the Father. Tertullian, at any rate, and
Novatian after him, had taught that the Son, when his work was
accomplished, would again become mingled with the Father — ceasing to
have independent existence (see Novatian de Trin. 31). And probably
the West was more influenced by Novatian's work than by any other
systematic work on doctrine. So that on this point too support might
be expected, in general, from the West.

In any case it is clear he could boast, as Jerome {de Vir. ill. 86) assorts
that he boasted, that he was fortified by communion with Julius and
Atlianasius, the chief bishops of the cities of Rome and Alexandria;
and Athanasius could never be induced to condemn him by name at
all events, and late in life when an inquisitive friend questioned him
about Marcellus ho would only meet an appeal with a quiet smile
(Ei)iphanius, who tells the tale, adv. llaar. Ixxii 4). In 340 a synod at
Rome, under Julius, pronounced him orthodox; and it is also certain
that the Council of Sardica in 343, when the Eastern bishops had
withdrawn, declared him orthodox. "The writings of our fellow-
minister, Marcellus", they wrote, "were also read, and plainly evinced
the du[)lioity of the adherfuts of Jlusebius ; for what Marcellus had
simply suggested as a point of enquiry, they accused him of professing
a8 u point of faith. The statements which he had made, both before

192 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

and after the enquiry, were read, and his faith was proved to be orthodox.
He did not alliim, as tliey represented, that the beginning of the Word
of God was dated from his conception by the holy Mary, or that his
kingdom would have an end. On the contrary, he wrote that his
kingdom had had no beginning and would have no end" (Theodoret
Hist. Eccl. ii %—N. and. P-N.F.).

Hilary indeed declares that at a later time, by some rash utterances,
and by his evident sympathy with Photinus, he came to be suspected
by all men of heretical leanings ; but in face of the evidence it is
difficult to suppose him heretical at the earlier time, however strong
the extracts in Eusebius (who was clearly biassed) may seem.

What the followers of Marcellus said for themselves may be seen
from a statement of belief which was presented on behalf of an
* innumerable multitude ' by a deputation from Ancyra, sent to Athan-
asius, in or about the year 371 (shortly before the death of Marcellus),
under the leadership of the deacon Eugenius (see Hahn^ p. 262).
They expressly anathematize Sabellius and those who say that the
Father Himself is the Son, and when the Son comes into being then
the Father does not exist, and when the Father comes into being then
the Son does not exist : and they proclaim belief in the eternal personal
existence of the Son, as of the Father and the Holy Spirit ; adding a
further anathema on any who blasphemously taught that the Son had
his origin in the Incarnation in his birth from Mary. They thus
clearly maintain the eternal Sonship and the reality of the three vttoct-
Tao-£is of the Deity.

HOMOIOUSIOS AKD THE HOMOEANS

To say that the Son is ' like ' the Father is not at first sight open
to objection. The expression had been widely current without protest.
Athanasius in his earlier treatises against the Arians was content to
sj-jeak of the Son as being like the Father (see e.g. the Depositio Arii,
c. 323, and the Expositio Fidei, ? 328 a.d., Hahn^ p. 264), and in
argument with Arians he does not disallow the term even later (Or. c.
Ar. ii 34, c. 35G-360 ; of. ad. Afros 7, c. 369). But at this later time
he used it himself in general only with qualification (e.g. Or. c. Ar. ii
22, Kara iravra, and i 40, iii 20 ; but alone ii 17).

So Cyril of Jerusalem in his Catechetical Lectures (c. 348-350),
while insisting on the necessity of scriptural language, and contradict-
ing the doctrines of Arius (without mentioning his name), protests
against terms of human contrivance {Cat. v 12) and uses 'like the
Father' either 'according to the Scriptures' or 'in all things'.
- But as early as de Deer. 20 (c. 351-355) Athanasius had written
that by saying the Son was "one in ovcria" with the Father the

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 193

Cooncil meant "that the Son was from the Father, and net merely
like, but the same in likeness ..." his likeness being different
from such as is ascribed to us : and he proceeded to shew (§ 23) that
mere likeness implies something of difference. " Nor is he like only
outwardly, lest he seem in some respect or wholly to be other in
ovo-t'a, as brass shines like gold or silver or tin. For these are foreign
and of other nature, are separated off from each other in nature and
virtues, nor does brass belong to gold . . . but though they are con-
sidered like, they differ in essence." And later, de Syn. 53 (c. 359-
361), he argued altogether against the use of the term Mike' in
connexion with oia-Ca on the ground that ' like ' applies to qualities
rather than to ' essence '.

So Basil after him in Ep. 8 (perhaps dependent on de Syn.), c. 360.
" "We in accordance with the true doctrine speak of the Son as neither
like nor unlike the Father. Each of these terms is equally impossible,
for like and unlike are predicated in relation to quality, and the divine
is free from quality. . . . "We, on the contrary, confess identity of
nature and accept the one-ness of essence. . . . For he who is essen-
tially God is of one essence with Him who is essentially God." So it
was that when the partial truth of ' likeness ' was put forward as the
whole truth, the expression had to be abandoned. No form of like-
ness will really do. It would apply to some qualities and attributes
perhaps ; but in being God (that is, in their ova-ia) Father and Son
were not like but the same — of one ova-ia : in their special attributes
and individual characteristics they were not like — they were distinct
VTr'/cTTcicrets.

TTIK MEANING OF HOMOOUSIOS IN THE 'CONSTAN-
TINOPOLITAN' CREED

Dr. Ilarnack (following Dr. Zahn and Prof. Gwatkin to some
extent) maintains that though Ilomoousios triumphcMl at the Council
of Constantinople and finally won its place in the Creed of the
universal Church, yet it was accepted in the sense of Homoiousios.
He speaks accordingly of the 'old' and the 'new' orthodoxy, the
'old' and the 'new' Nicenes — the 'old' being represented by the
champions of o/xoouVto? at Nicaoa, and by the West and Alexandria,
the 'new' by the Antiochenes, the Cappadocians, and the Asiatics.

Of old, he argues, it had been the unity of the Godheail that had
stood out plain an(i clear: the plurality had b«'cn a mystery. But
after 362 it was permitted to make the unity the mystery — to start
from the plurality and to reduce the unity to a matter of iikonoas,
that is, to interpret Ilomoousios as Homoiousios, thus changing the
' substantial ' unity of being into a mere likeness of being.

194 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

This is, in effect, to say that it was permitted to believe in three
beings Avith natures like each other, oio-ia receiving a sense nearer to
' nature ' than to ' being '. Instead of one Godhead, existing permanently
in three distinct forms or spheres of existence, there are three forms
of existence of like nature with one another, which together make
up the Godhead.

It would indeed be strange if expert theologians, after so long a
controversy, at last agreeing to reject homoiousios in favour of the Nicene
homoousios, strained out the term and swallowed the sense. It would
indeed be a scathing satire on the work of councils and theologians.
It would be proof of strange incompetence and blindness on the part
of the historians of doctrine that such a conclusion of the Arian
controversy should only have been discovered in the nineteenth
century.

But this new reading of the history is a paradox. It is not really
supported by the evidence cited in its favour. The facts when
patiently reviewed confirm the old historical tradition and do not
justify the new hypothesis, according to which the Church has all
these centuries been committed to an essentially tritheistic interpreta-
tion of the Person of her Lord. [See further "The Meaning of
Homoousios in the * Constantinopolitan ' Creed" Texts and Studies
vol. vii no. 1.]

"BY THE WILL OF THE FATHER"

The teaching that God called the Logos into personal existence by a
decree, by the free action of His will, involves ideas that are inconsistent
with the Catholic interpretation of the Gospel. It conceives God as
already existent as a Person by Himself alone, so destroying the Trini-
tarian idea of the personality of the Godhead; and declares that God,
who had been thus alone, after a time brought forth the Logos, which
he had hitherto borne within himself as one of his attributes (his in-
telligence), and endowed it with a hypostatic existence, and the Logos
thus became a Being distinct from God Himself. The generation of the
Logos is thus represented not as necessary, founded in the very being of
God ; nor as eternal, although it is prior to all time : but as accidental,
inasmuch as the Logos might have been left, as originally, impersonal.
So the Son might never have come to a real hypostatic existence, and
there might not have been the relation of Father and Son in the God-
head. That is to say, the Christian conception of God would be only
fte facto true, and would not be grounded in the very essence or being
oJ the Godhead.

If it were the case, as the Arians taught, that the Son was created
by the will of the Father ', then the counsel and will preceded the

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 195

creation ; and thus the Son is not from all eternity, but has come into
being. There was a time (though not ' time ' as we know it) when he
was not. Therefore he is not God as the Father is. "It was an
Arian dialectical artifice (see Epiphanius Ancor. 51) to place before the
Catholics this alternative : — God produced his Son either of free will or
not of free will. If you say ' not of free will ', then you subject the God-
head to compulsion. If you say * of free will ', then you must allow that
the will was there before the Logos. Ambrose (de Fide iv 9) answered
that neither expression was admissible, for the matter concerned neither
a decision of the divine will nor a compulsion of God, but an act ^.f the
divine nature, which as such falls under the idea neither of compulsion
nor of freedom. To the same effect Athanasius (Or. c. Ar. iii and de
deer. Nic. Sijn.) argued that the generation, as an act of the divine
nature, goes far beyond an act of the will (cf. Greg. Naz. Theol Or. iii
3 tf.). And Cyril of Alexandria makes a distinction between the con-
comitant and the antecedent will of the Father; manitaining that the
former, but not the latter, is concerned with the generation of the Son
(crt'v8po/xos OiX.-qa-i<;, not irporjyov^i.ivT] — see de Trin. ii p. 56)."

So DoUinger writes, but he goes on {Hippolytus and Callistus Eng.
tr. p. 198) to shew that, though the Catholics contended vigorously
against the Arian teaching on this point, the Trinitarian self-determina
tion of God must not, of course, be represented as a merely natural and
necessary process ; that is to say, as a process in any sense unconditioned
by His will. " In God, in whom is found nothing passive — no mere
material substratum, who is all movement and pure energy, we can con-
ceive of no activity, not even directed towards Himself, in which the
will also does not share. The eternal generation of the Son is at once
necessary (grounded in the divine nature itself, and therefore without
beginning), and also at the same time an act of volition [voluntaria).
That is, the divine will is one of the factors in the act of begetting.
Not without volition does the divine essence become the Father and
beget the Son. IJut this volition is not a single decree of God ; not
something which must be first thought or detormincd, and then carried
\\\U) effect : but it is the lir^t, essential, eternal movement of the divine
will oj)erating on itself, and the condition of all external, that is,
creative, acts."

Movoyei/T^s— UNIGENITUS, UNICUS

The word /xovoytv?)?, according to the original and dominant use of it
in Greek literature, and by the prevailing consent of the Greek Fathers,
wa.s applied properly to an only chiM or offspring. So Basil adv.
Kunom. ii 20 exj)lain8 it as meaning 6 //oco<; yivv-qOi't':, and rcpmliates
the meaning 6 fto^o? Trapa /aoi'ou ycvo/Afi'os {or yivvrjOti'i) which w*"

196 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

arbitrarily put upon it by Eiinomiiis. The special kind of unicity
which belongs to an only child is latent in the word in the few iisapes
in which it is not apparent, as when it is used of the Phoenix, or by
Plato Tim. 31b with oupavo's (as made by the Father of all, ib. 28c),
and by later writers of the koo-/xos. In a few cases only the word is
loosely applied to inanimate objects that are merely alone in their kind,
as if it were connected with yeVo?.

The paraphrase /aovos ytwr^Oe-k, which Basil gives, is essentially true
to the sense, but the passive form goes beyond fxavoy^vri^. So probably
iloes uni(jenitu8 ; and ' only-begotten ' is still narrower in meaning. If
it is connected with vlo's, ' only Scni ', as in the Apostles' Creed, would
be the nearest equivalent in English. If it is connected with 6t6<;,
' only ' would not, of course, be a possible translation : ' sole-born ' might
express the meaning more exactly.

Unicus was the rendering of /Aovoycvi;? throughout the Bible in the
earliest Old Latin versions, but it was supplanted by unigenitus in some
forms of the Latin before the time of Jerome in the five passages in the
New Testament in which it has reference to our Lord (namely John P*- ^^
316. 18^ \ John 4^). Nearly all the native Latin Creeds have filium
unicum eius, though unigenitus is used in translations of comparatively
late Greek creeds. Even Augustine uses unicus more readily, and
when he has unigenitus he explains it as equivalent to unicus. But
xn the course of time the more explicit word prevailed, except in
the Apostles' Creed. So we have filium unicum in the Apostles' Creed
(English 'only'), hut Jilium miigenitum in the Latin translations of the
' Constantinopolitan ' Creed (>]nglish ' only begotten '). See Hort Two
Dissertations.

CHAPTER XIII

Toe Doctrine of the Holy Spirit and the Trinity

The Course through which the Doctrine went

In tracing out the history of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit we
are confronted by a course of developement similar to that which
is seen in the history of the other great Christian doctrines.
The experiences of Christ himself, and such teaching in regard
to them as he gave his disciples, were sufficiently understood to
secure recognition of the most important principles. It is clear
that the earliest teaching and some at least of the earliest writ-
ings of the Apostles were conditioned by belief in the personality
and divinity and manifold operations of the Holy Spirit.^ And
this faith has beyond all question always remained implicit in
the life of the Church ; and whenever the Church as a body has
been called on to give expression to the Christian theory of life
— to interpret the Christian revelation — she has never been for
a moment in doubt as to her mind upon this point. She has
had no hesitation in declaring that in the Christian conception
of the existence of the One God there are included three persons
— that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are alike and equally essen-
tial to the idea of the one Godhead. As to the exact relations
existing between thorn, the exact mode of existence, she has not
wished to lay down delinitions, and she may perhaps have been in
doubt. In regard to the Holy Spirit, as in regard to the Son, she
was ultimately forced to some measure of definition. Meanwhile
individual thinkers without exact guidance sometimes strayed a
little aimlessly and missed the path, in spite of the indications
afforded by earlier teaching and existing traditions and institu-

' Whatever o[(inion may be held as to tlie date of the Johannine writings, the
Acts of the ApoHtles and the Kjiistlos of St Paul seem to give decisive evidence
ill regard to belief in the Holy Sidrit which was daily acted on in the practice and
life of earliest Christian coninmuities.

15 I"

198 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

tions. In seeking unguardedly for closer definition they some-
times reached results inconsistent with main principles, or in
devoting attention to particular lines of reasoning they ignored
others.

Tracing out the history of the doctrine, therefore, means
tracing out the teaching of some of the few individual thinkers
or teachers whose writings happen to bear upon the subject ;
until, quite late in the day, there arose a school of teachers that
consciously questioned the main principles of the faith of the
Church, and educed the unmistakeable expression of what had
often hitherto been only half-consciously held.

The Doctrine of the Spirit in the Bible

As to the teaching of the Bible with regard to the essential
nature of the Holy Spirit there can be no doubt. It is explicit
and unanimous in its witness that he is divine.^ " But to the
further enquiry, whether this Divine Spirit is a person, the reply,
if on the whole decisive, does not come with equal clearness
from the earlier and the later books. The Old Testament
attributes personality to the Spirit only in so far as it identifies
the Spirit of God with God Himself, present and operative in the
world or in men. But the teaching of Christ and of the Apostles,
whilst accentuating the personal attributes of the Spirit, dis-
tinguishes the Spirit from the Father and the Son."^

" The Spirit of God as revealed in the Old Testament is God
exerting power. On this account it is invested with personal
qualities, and personal acts are ascribed to it. . . . The Spirit
... is personal, inasmuch as the Spirit is God. There is,
besides, a quasi-independence ascribed to the Spirit, which
approaches to a recognition of distinct personality, especially in
passages where the Spirit and the Word are contrasted. But
the distinction applies only to the external activities of these
two divine forces ; the concept of a distinction of Persons within
the Being of God belongs to a later revelation." ^

Functions of the Holy Spirit are recognized in the Old Testa-
ment in nature, in creation and conservation ; in man, in the

^ See Swete 'Holy Spirit' in Hastings' D.B. for a full statement of the biblical
presentation of the doctrine which is here only summarily and partially sketched
in relation to the later exjiressions of the doctrine. Cf. also supra pp. 11-15

« Ibid. ; cf. Pa. i.i' 57» 139^ Isa. 48>« 63'^- 1».

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 199

bestowal of intellectual life and prophetic inspiration and moral
and religious elevation — while all his gifts are to be bestowed
upon the Messiah.

In the New Testament his work is recognized in the Con-
ception, Baptism, and Ministry of the Lord ; and in all the
'^apicTfiara which he bestows on individuals and the Church.

Some ambiguity in the expression of the doctrine may be
observed when St Paul calls him also the ' Spirit of Christ '
(Rom. 8^) (a phrase which he also uses of Christ's human spirit,
Rom. 14; of his pre-existent nature, 2 Cor. 3^^; and of his
risen life, 1 Cor. 1 5^) ; while in some cases the Holy Spirit is
apparently identified with Christ (Rom. 8^- ^°), since through the
Spirit the ascended Lord dwells in the Church and opt^rates in
believers.

The Doctrine in the Early Church

Incidental references in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers^
shew the same teaching ; but in The Shejyherd of Hermas, which
contains many allusions to the Holy Spirit, language is used
which identifies the Spirit with the Sou.^

Some of the Apologists were so much concerned to expound
the doctrine of the Logos ' that they not only fail to dwell on
the Holy Spirit, but even refer to Christ himself much that
would have been more accurately attributed to the Holy Spirit ;
and in some cases they shew a disposition to rank the Spirit
lower than the Son.*

' E.g. Clement 1 Ep. 2. 48, 68, and frequently of his inspiration of Scripture,
as also Barnabas constantly {e.g. 9, 10). So Ignatius recognizes his distinct per-
sonality, his procession from God, liis mission by the Son, his oj)erations in the
Incarnation, and in members of the Church {Magn. 13 ; Philad. 7 ; E/ih. 17, 18, 9 ;
Smym. 18). He is included in the doxologies in 3fart. I'olyc. 14, 22, and Mart.
Jijn. 7. See Sweto 'Holy Gliost' D.C.B., an artiflo which so thoroii^lily covers the
field that a subsc'inent worker over the ground can jjrobably reach no true results
that are not alreafly carefully stated there. Here, for the most iwirt, a shoi t sum-
mary of thorn is all that is possible.

' See Swite Udd.

•See supra p. 124. This is true perhaps especially of the teaching of Justin
Martyr in rr-g.inl to the X6701 airfpnariKb^. lie also says that the Word hiiiisolf
wrought the miraculous conception (Apol. i 33). Similarly Thcophilus speaks of
'the Word, being God's Sjiirit' coming down on the prophet* (ad Au'ol. ii 33), and
the writer to Diognetus userl similar oxprcjwions.

* E.g. .Justin, " We place the Spirit of prophecy in the third onlcr", but in the
same breath " for we honour him with the Word " (fxtrb. \6yov rip-Qfity — Apol. i 13 ;
cf. 60 ; see also Apol. i 6) ; and Tatian describes the Spirit as the minister of the
Son {Oratio ad. Oraec. 18).

200 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Conspicuous among those of these early writers who are
known to us stand Theophilus, who is the first to use the term
Triad (Trinity) in reference to the Godhead (though it must be
noted that he does not actually name the Holy Spirit),^ and
Athenagoras, who sees in the Spirit the bond of union by which
the Father and Son coinhere, and implies the doctrine of his
essential procession by the image in which he describes him as
an efifluence from God, emanating from Him and returning to
Him as a ray of the sun or as light from fire.^

Gnostic thought upon the subject shews points of contact
both with CathoHc doctrine and with the heretical theories which
were rife in the fourth century. The excesses of the Montanists,
champions as they were of the present reign of the Spirit in the
world, led no doubt to some unwillingness to fully recognize the
place of the Spirit in the divine economy, but the movement was
probably still more influential in stimulating interest on the
matter and arousing thought.

Tihe Montanist conception of a special age in which the Holy
Spirit ruled implied at least a full sense of his personality and
divinity, and it was not inconsistent with a belief in his eternal
existence. But neither eternity nor personal existence, in any
true sense, was assigned to the Spirit by any of the Monarchians.
As Spirit, he was merely a temporary mode of existence of the
one eternal God, in his relation to the world.^

Meanwhile Irenaeus had vigorously repudiated Gnostic
misconceptions, and by the aid of various images had partly
pourtrayed the relation of the Spirit to the Father * and to the
Son,* and had described his work as Inspirer and Enlightener, in
the Church and in the Sacraments. And Tertullian at the end of
the second century had expressed in all its essential elements the

' As the Triad he names ' God and his Word and his Wisdom ' (ad Autol. ii 15).

* "The Son being in the Father and the Father in the Son by the unity and
power of the Spirit " (Leg. 10 and 24).

* This is true, of course, particularly of tlie school of Sabollius. The earlier
Monarchians, 8o far as we know, paid little attention to the doctrine of the Spirit.
See further supra p. 105.

* The Son and the Spirit are the two hands of God. Tlie Son is the Offspring,
the Spirit is tJie Image of the Father : the Son is His Word, the Spirit His Wis-
dom. Together they minister to the Father, as the hands and intellect minister to
man, not as though created or external to the Life of God, but eternal as God Him-
self. See adv. Haer. esp. 'w praef. and chh. 14 and 34 ed. Harvey.

' This particularly in relation to men, since the Incarnation, of which the gift of
the Spirit is a fruit [ibid, iii 38, v 36). See further Harvey's Ifidex ' Spirit '.

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 201

full Catholic doctrine of the relations between the Three Persons
in the one Trinity, linked together in the one divine life.^ This
is the first attempt at a scientific treatment of the doctrine.

The deity, personality, and distinct mission of the Holy
Spirit were certainly recognized (if with some individualities of
conception or expression) by Cyprian, Hippolytus,^ Novatian, and
Dionysius of Eome.

Whether Clement of Alexandria formally investigated the
doctrine or not we do not know ; but he certainly conjoins the
Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son in worship and praise,
and so implicitly recognizes Him as a divine person, and regards
Him (though sometimes not clearly distinguishing him in this
respect from the Word) as the source of inspiration and illu-
mination and as imparted in the Sacrament of Baptism.^

Origen's Expression of the Doctrine

A more systematic exposition of the doctrine was undertaken
by Origen ; and in treating of some of the problems it suggests
he was led into language (as in regard to the Son) which the
Arians afterwards pressed to conclusions destructive of the
conception of the Trinity. His standpoint in the matter is
shewn in liis great work On first Principles, wliich he prefaces
by a statement of the points clearly delivered in the teacliing of
the Apostk'S.* Tliird among these points he says : " The A])ostles
related that the Holy Spirit was associated in honour and dignity
with the Father and the Son. But in his case it is not clearly
distinguished whether he is to be regarded as generate or in-
generate,* or also as a Son of God or not ; for these are points

* See supra p. 140. This doctrine is expressed particularly in his tract against
Praxeaa. See §§ 2, 4, 8, 25, 30.

' See 8upra p. 108.

» Sec esp. Pard. iii 12, i ; Strom, v 13, 24.

* Ho says they dolivcrfid tlienisdvcs with tlie nttnost clearness on points whicli
they believed to he necessary to every one, leaving, however, the grounds of tlieir
Btateiiients to be cxaminfd into by those wlio shouM reni'ivc thn s]n'('ial aid of the
Holy Si)irit ; while on other subjects th<!y nienly stated tlic fact tliat tilings were so,
keej)ing nilence as to the manner or origin of their existence, in order to leave to
their successors, who shoulfi lie lovers of wisdom, a stibject of exercise on which to
display the fruit of tlieir talents. L)e I'rinc. Preface 3 — Ante-Nicene Christian
Library.

' Tiie Orcek of this jia.s.vnge is not extant. Rufinus translates ' natus an iniiatus',
whicli represent* ytwyrrrb^ fj iy(yyi}Tot. Jerome, however, has ' factua an iufectua ',

202 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

which have to be enquired into out of sacred Scripture according
to the best of our ability, and which demand careful investi-
gation. And that this Spirit inspired each one of the saints,
whether prophets or apostles ; and that there was not one
Spirit in the men of the old dispensation and another in those
who were inspired at the advent of Christ, is most clearly taught
throughout the Churches." This passage is highly instructive ;
but it is uncertain whether Origen intended to say ' generate or
ingenerate (begotten or unbegotten)', or 'originate or unoriginate'.
The former expression might only imply some uncertainty as to
the exact phraseology which should be used to describe the
relation of the Spirit, as one of the persons of the Trinity, to
the others. But the latter expression would at least cover the
conception that the Holy Spirit, as belonging to the class of
things that had come into being (been made or created), was not
truly God. For further elucidation of Origen's meaning we
must look elsewhere. In his commentary on the Gospel accord-
ing to St John he discusses at length the passage in the prologue,
" All things came into being (were made) through him ", and
asks, Did then the Holy Spirit too come into being through
him ? ^ To this question he says there are three possible
answers — The first : Yes, if the Holy Spirit belongs to the class
of things that have come into being, since the Logos is older
than the Spirit. The second : for anyone who accepts this Gospel
as true, but is unwilling to say the Spirit came into being
through the Son — that the Holy Spirit is ingenerate.^ The
third : that the Holy Spirit has no being of his own (personality)
other than that of the Father and the Son.^ The third and the
second answer Origen rules out, on the ground that there are
three distinct 'hypostases', and that the Father alone is ingenerate.*
It remains therefore that the Spirit has come into being through
the Logos, though he is higher in honour and rank than all the
things that have come into being (by the agency of the Father)
through the Logos. And Origen goes on to suggest that this

which points to the Greek yevrjrbi fi ayev-qros (originate or unoriginate). The fre-
quent confusion of the words would justify Rufinus if, as some suppose, he found the
latter in his text and interpreted it as the former. See supra p. 122 n. 1.

* Origen Comm. in Joh. i 3, ed. Brooke vol. i p. 70 f.

* ayevvrjTov, but the argument requires rather iyivTjrov, unoriginate, the opposite
ofyevTiriv, to exclude Ilim from the class of yevrjrd.

* fXTjoi ovuiav TLvh, Iblav {/(pecrrdvai tov aylov irreiittOTOs iripav irapb. rhv iraripa. koX
rhv vlliv.

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 203

perhaps is why he is not also called 'Son' of God; since the
Only-begotten alone is from the beginning Son by nature, and
his ministry is necessary for the personal existence of the Holy
Spirit, not only for his very being but also for his special
characteristics which he had by participation in Christ (his
wisdom, for example, and rationality, and justice). It is also
the Holy Spirit who provides what may be culled the material
for the charismata (the various gifts and endowments) which are
given by God to those who, on account of the Spirit and of
their participation in him, are called ' holy ' (saints) — this
' material ' being actualized by God and ministered by the agency
of Christ and having its subsistence in accordance with the Holy
Spirit.!

It is thus clear that Origen regarded the Fourth Gospel as
teaching that the Spirit owes his origin to the medium of the
Son, and that therefore he is in tlie order of the divine life
inferior to the Son ; and indeed this is the inference which he
explicitly draws from the consideration of passages of Scripture
which seem at first sight to give to the Spirit precedence in
honour above the Son ^ — " He is to be thought of as being one
of the ' all things ' which are inferior to him by means of whom
they came into being, even though some phrases seem to draw
us to the contrary conclusion." It is, however, no less clear that
at the same time he regarded the Spirit as a divine hypostasis,
removed high above the category of creatures ; and he carefully
guards (for instance) against the idea that the Holy Spirit in any
way owes his knowledge and power of revelation to the Son,
implying that he has it in virtue of his very being. " As the
Son, who alone knows the Father, reveals Him to whom he will,
80 the Holy Spirit, who alone searches the deep things of God,
reveals God to whom he will."^ The Son alone has liis being
direct from the Father, but he is not therefore — in Origen's
thought — a creature. Nor is it necessary that all things tliat
have come into being through the Son should be creatures.*

'To tliis thought Origon i.s lr;fl hy the passage in 1 Cor. 12*''-: "Thoro are
fJiffereiiccs of charismata, but tho Hamf; Sjiirit : aii'l there arc <liirf^reiiccH of ministra-
tions, and tlie same Lonl : and there are differences of workings (modes of bringing
to actuality), and it is the snnie God who works all things in nil."

* Pa.ssaKu3 eiauiiued are Isa, 48", and the Siu against the Holy Sjjirit
(Matt. 12»).

» Dt I'rine. i 34.

* Cf. dc Princ. i 33 : "We have l>een able U) find no statement in Holy Scrip-

204 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

The special idea of creation does not seem to be present to
Origen's mind in this connexion. It is rather origination
simply that he is dealing with. This is the primary meaning
of the word he uses — the word on which he is commenting ;
and it is really the origination of the Spirit through the Logos,
and consequently his inferiority in order to the Logos, that he is
concerned to maintain.

He does indeed definitely extend to the Spirit^ the conception
of eternity of derivation which he realized of the Son ; and it seems
clear that, wherever he speaks of the Spirit as in any way inferior
in rank or order, he has under consideration only human experience
of the Trinity (God as manifested in revelation), and is not
attempting to deal with the inner being and relations of the
Godhead.^ But though, as is probable, he was not in this respect
far removed from the ' orthodox ' Catholic faith, it is certain that
his language lent itself to misconception and may be said to
anticipate Arius ; and some of his pupils are said to have repre-
sented the Spirit as inferior in glory to the Father and the Son.'

Gregory Thaumaturgus

One of the most famous of them, however, Gregory of
Neo-Caesarea,* strongly asserted the unity and eternity of the
Three — " a complete Trinity, in glory and eternity and reign
not divided nor estranged. There is therefore in the Trinity
nothing created or serving, and nothing imported — in the sense
that it did not exist to start with, but at a later time made its
way in ; for never was there wanting Son to Father nor Spirit to
Son, but there was always the same Trinity unchangeable and
unalterable." Here too the Spirit seems to be associated es-

ture in which the Holy Spirit could be said to be a thing made or a creature. . . .
The Spirit of God which niovci (was borne) upon the waters is no other than the
Holy Spirit."

* See de Pririe. i 34 : "The Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity
of the Trinity, i.e. along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless he had
always been the Holy Sjiirit."

' See e.g. such strong assertions as de Princ. i 37 : "Nothing in the Trinity can
be caller] greater oi' less. . . . There is no rlitrerence in the Trinity, but that whicli
is called the gift of the Spirit is made known through the Son and operated
factualised) by God the Father."

* See Swete I.e.

* Known as Thaumaturgus, the evangelist of Pontus and Cappadocia. See hia
Creed (Hahn * p. 253), composed probably soon after 260.

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 205

pecially closely with the Son, as he is in the preceding clauses
of the Creed which describe him as " having his existence from
God and appearing through the Son, the Image of the Son,
perfect (image) of perfect (Son); Life — the first cause of all
that live ; Holiness — the provider of hallowing, in whom is made
manifest God the Father who is over all and in all, and God the
Son who is through all ". The derivation of the Spirit is thus
referred to God through the Son as medium, but the thought
that such derivation implies any inferiority of divine attributes
is absolutely excluded.

Dionysius of Alexandria

And Dionysius of Alexandria was equally emphatic in regard
to the co-eternity of the three hypostases. Each of the names
is inseparable and indivisible from the next. As he had insisted
that the names Father and Son connoted each other, so that he
could not say ' Father ' without implying the existence of the
Son, 80 he says : ^ " I added the Holy Spirit, but at the same
time I further added both whence and through whom he pro-
ceeded. Neither is the Father, qua Father, estranged (dinjWo-
TpccoTai) from the Son, nor is the Son banished {airwKLaTai) from
the Father ; for the title Father denotes the common bond. And
in their hands is the Spirit, who cannot be parted either from him
that sends or from him that conveys him. . . . Thus then we
extend the Monad indivisibly into the Triad, and conversely
gather together the Triad without diminution into the Monad."

JEusehiiis of Caesarea

Eusebiua of Caesarea shews in his references to the Holy
Spirit the same unconscious Arian tendency that marked his
action in the controversy as to the person of the Sou. The
Spirit is third in dignity as well as in order — the moon in the
divine firmament, receiving all that he has from tlie Word ; his
very being is through the Son. " He is neither God nor Son,
since he did not receive his genesis from the Fatlier in like
manner as the Son received his ; but he is one of the things
which came into being through the Son." Yet he transcends
the whole class of things that have come into being. Eusebius

' See Ath. de Sfni. Divnyi. 17, aud supra \). 115.

206 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

seema not to discriminate between the procession and the
mission of the Holy Spirit, and uses the same term both of him
and of the Son.^

The Avian Theories expressed hut not emphasized, and for

a time ignored

At the Council of Nicaea the battle raged round the doctrine
of the Godhead of the Word — the doctrine of the Holy Spirit
was not under direct consideration. " The opinion on this
subject in the hearts of the faithful was exposed to no attack " ; ^
so the simplest expression of belief was enough,^ and little more
found place in any of the many Creeds (Arian and Semi-
Arian) which were drawn up in the following thirty years.
But by degrees, as individuals began to question the deity
of the Spirit, the Arians extended to him the phrases they
applied to the Son — a * creature ', ' divided from the being
(essence) of Christ ' ; as indeed in TJie Thalia Arius had already
declared that the essences of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were
of their very nature distinct, alien, and separate. " Assuredly
there is a Trinity with glories not alike. . . . One is more glorious
than the other with glories to infinitude." *

But though Arius expressed himself in this way, all attention
was for many years concentrated on the doctrine of the Sou ;
and teaching went quietly on in the Church on the lines on
which it had proceeded before the time of Arius.

The Church Teaching in the Middle of the Fourth Century —

Cyril of Jerusalem

An excellent specimen of such instruction is furnished by
tlie Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem shortly before the
year 350.«

At the very outset he makes his appeal to Scripture. In
view of the danger of the sin against the Holy Spirit, and of the

^ Swete I.e. The passages referred to are Praep. Evang. vii 16 ; de Eccl,
Tkeol. iii 6.

* Basil Ep. 125, in explanation of the absence of any detailed profession of faith.

* See supra p. 4, on the willingness of the Church to acquiesce in simple
' Creeds ' till forced to exclude erroneous interpretations by closer definition.

* See Ath. de Syn. 15.

* These lectures to catechumens {Cat,, xvi and xvii) are really the first system-
&tic attempt to present the doctrine of the Spirit that we have.

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 207

fact that the Holy Spirit spoke the Scriptures, and said about,
himself all that he wished or all that we could receive, we may
well limit ourselves to the teaching of Scripture (§§ 1, 2).

He disclaims the attempt to accurately describe his being
(hypostasis), and will only mention misleading ideas of others so
that his pupils may not be seduced from the right path and
all together may journey along the king's highway (§ 5).

It is really sufficient for salvation for us to know that there
is " one God the Father, one Lord his only Son, one Holy Spirit
the Comforter ". We need not busy ourselves about his nature
or being ((fsvaiv rj vTroaraaiv), — as it has not been written we had
better not essay it (§ 24).

Accordingly Cyril devotes himself for the most part to
enumerating various beneficent operations of the Spirit before
the Incarnation, in and during the life of Christ on earth, and
in the Apostles and the faithful ever since.^ All through he
appeals to present experience of the wonderful power with
which he works, and is at pains to point the lesson that, varied
as are the modes in which his energy is manifested, it is one and
the same Spirit who spoke through the prophets of old of the
coming of Christ ; who, when he had come, descended upon him
and made him known ; who was with and in the Apostles ; who
illuminates the souls of the just, and supplies the force which
purifies or strengthens according to the need; who bestows all
the varied graces and virtues of Christian life,^ directly and
through the appointed channels of the ordinances and sacra-
ments of the Church,^ the ' good Sanctifier and Ally and Teacher
of the Church ', the true Enlightener.

At the outset he warned his hearers that it was of ' a
mighty power divine and mysterious ' that he was about to
speak, and his whole treatment of his subject is conditioned by
his recognition of the full divinity of the Spirit. Only in one
connexion, however, does he at all elaborate this point, and that

' In Cat. xvi he cites instances cliic-fly from tlie Old Testament; in Cat. xvii
from the New, csftecially the Gosi)el8 an<l the Acts (time failing liim for more).

' See particularly Cal. xvi §§ 16, 19, 20, 30, xvii 36, and the iitw j)aasage
xvi 12, in which, applying the words of Joli. 7** and 4'^ to the Spirit, he declares
the Spirit the source of all thiit is beautiful in inoral and spiritual life, as it is on
water tljat the varied charm ami loveliness of the life of nature (l(!])onil8.

^ He is himself given to us in Baptism when he seals the soul {Cat. xvi 24), and
in the Chrism {Cat. My.H. iii 2, 3), and effects the consecration of the elements in
the FiUcharist, bo that the very body and blood of Christ is received {ibid, iii 3, iv 8,
▼ 7) ; and he in the giver of vaiious giftn and graces for ministry.

208 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

by way of negation, when he declares that none of the things that
have come into being is equal in honour with him. None of
the order of the angels has equality with him. He has no peer
among them ; they are contrasted with him as recipients of a
mission of service : whereas he is ' the divinely appointed ruler
and teacher and sanctifier ' of all angelic orders.^ But he also
insists that the gracious gifts which he gives are all the gifts of
the one God — " there are not some gifts of the Father and some
of the Son and some of the Holy Spirit . . . the Father freely
bestows them all through the Son together with the Holy Spirit";*
the Holy Spirit is honoured along with Father and Son ; and
comprehended in the Holy Trinity, and all three together are
one God. " Undivided is our faith, inseparable our reverence.
We neither separate the Holy Trinity, nor do we make confusion
as Sabellius does." ^

Over against Sabellian ' confusion ' he expresses repeatedly
the distinct personality of the Spirit. He states with emphasis
that it was by his own initiative that he descended upon Christ.
He draws attention to the directly personal action attributed to
him in many instances.* — " He who speaks and sends is living
and subsisting (personal) and operating." And once he drives
home the teaching of such incidental comments in the words : " It
is established that there are various appellations, but one and the
same Spirit — the Holy Spirit, living and personally subsisting
and always present together with the Father and the Son ; not
as being spoken or breathed forth from the mouth and lips of
the Father and the Son, or diffused into the air ; but as a
personally existing being, himself speaking and operating and
exercising his dispensation and hallowing, since it is certain that
the dispensation of salvation in regard to us which proceeds
from Father and Son and Holy Spirit is indivisible and con-
cordant and one."*

With regard to the procession, he quotes the report of the
discourse of the Lord contained in the Fourth Gospel, bidding
his pupils attend to it rather than to the words of men ; ® and in
another passage he brings together two sayings of Christ to shew
that the Son himself derives from the Father that which he

^ See esp. xvi 23 and viii 5, excluding the idea that the Spirit was among the
SouXa of the Son.

■■' xvi 24. » xvi 4 ; cf. iv 16. * E.g. xvii 9, 28, 33. 84.

• xvii 6. • xvii 11.

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 209

gives in turn to the Spirit.^ More than this he did not think
fit to say to catechumens, even if he was prepared at all to
define more closely the mystery of the relation between the
Holy Spirit and the Father and the Son.

The Need for Authoritative Ghiidance on the Doctrine

The first clear indication that the question was becoming
ripe for synodical consideration is seen in the anathemas
appended to the Creed of the Synod of Sirmium in 351 ^ against
any one who styled the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost * one
person ' (irpoacoTrov), or spoke of the Holy Spirit as the ' unbe-
gotten God ', or as not other than the Son, or as a ' part ' {fxepos;)
of the Father or of the Son, or described the Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit as ' three Gods '.

The Teaching of Athanasius

Some years later the growth of the doctrine that the Spirit
was merely a creature, and one of the * ministering spirits ',
superior to the angels only in degree, was reported by Sarapion,
Bishop of Thmuis, in the Delta, to Athanasius, who was then in
exile in the desert. Athanasius in reply drew up a statement of
the doctrine of the deity of the Spirit.^

The particular assailants of the doctrine of whom Sarapion
told him professed to regard the Son as divine, and this furnishes
Athanasius with his chief argument all through. The relation
of the Son to the Fatlier is admitted in the sense of the Creed
of Nicaea, and the relation of the Spirit to the Son in the
sense of the Scriptures. These are the two premisses. Athan-
asius sets himself in various ways to shew that the Homoousia

' xvi 24 : " All things were committed to me by the Father ", and " he receives
of mine and sliall declare it to you ".

Mlahn^ p. lOS.

* lie sent four letters in all {ad Sarapionrm Oralionrs iv) — the first a lonf; one,
the second atul third intfridf.'d to be simpler (the second really deals with tlio
(Jodhcad of the Son, while the tliird Humniarizes the fir.st), and the fourth in rejily to
objections (particularly with regard to the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit). [A
convenient edition of the letters in Bibliotlwca Pair. Oraec. dogmatica, ed. Thilo,
vol. i.]

The opponents of the doctrine against whom he argues he calls Tropici (Meta-
phoricttls), because they would inlr;rpret as tropes or metaphors the pausagca of
Scripture in which the doctrine was exprcs.sed.

210 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

ot the Spirit is a necessary inference from them. On this theme
he rings the changes. It recurs with each fresh argument, in
answer to each objection. The Spirit is the Spirit of the Son
and has the same unity with him as the Son has with the
Father. If therefore the Son is not a creature, it is impossible
that his Spirit can be. And further, as it is impossible to
separate the Spirit from the Son, their doctrine would introduce
into the Trinity a foreign and alien nature, so that they really
destroy the Trinity and really come to a Duality instead. Their
error as to the Spirit involves necessarily error also as to the
Son, and error as to the Son involves error as to the Father
(i 2 ; cf. i 9 and 21). The Trinity as a whole is ' one God ' (i 17)
indivisible and homogeneous. The term ' Spirit ' is used in
various senses in the Scriptures ; but, when the Holy Spirit
is meant, the article or some further designation (such as
' Holy ', ' of the Father ', ' of the Son ') is always added to the
mere term Spirit ; and it is only passages in which the word
occurs by itself that even seem to lend themselves to their
interpretation (i 3, 4). To prove this he cites a great number
of instances from Old and New Testaments alike.^ And later
on he argues that the giver of life, and of all the endowments
which the Spirit confers, can be no creature, but must be divine
(§§ 22, 23).

Nor is there any more support in Scripture for the view that
he is an angel ^ (i 10—14).

But driven from Scripture, as they could find nothing to
their purpose there, they go on, out of the overflowing of their
own heart, to produce a new argument : — if not a creature and
not an angel, if he proceeds from the Father, he must be called
a Son ; and so the Word would not be ' Only-begotten *, and there
will be two brothers in the Trinity. Or yet again, if he is said
to be the Spirit of the Son, then the Father is grandfather of
the Holy Spirit (§ 15). It is against these inferences that
Athanasius works out the doctrine of the procession of the
Spirit, though he protests against being compelled to enter
upon such questions at all. He begins by shewing that human

^ The passage which he starts from as typical of the passages in wliich they
supposed he was represented as a creature (but which, Athanasius says, do not refer
to him) is Amos 4".

^ The chief passage on which they depended was 1 Tim. 5**, " I charge thee
before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and the elect angels " (arguing that, as the
Spirit is not expressly mentioned, he must be included among the angels).

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 211

analogies will not apply — a human ' father ' is always the ' eon '
of another (he has been son before he in turn became father) ;
but in the Trinity this is not so, there have been always both
Father and Son, each always remaining the same (§ 16).^

It is on Scripture that we must depend, and Scripture
describes the Father as the Fountain, and the Son as the River,
and we drink of the Spirit ; or the Father as the Light, and the
Son as the radiance, and with the Spirit we are illumined.

The Father alone is wise, the Son is his Wisdom, and we
receive the Spirit of wisdom. In no ease can one be separated
from another. When we receive life in the Spirit, Christ
himself dwells in us, and the works which he does in us are
also the works of the Father (§ 19). All things which are
the Father's are also the Son's ; therefore the things which are
given us by the Son in the Spirit are the Father's gifts. They
are given from the Father, through the Son, in the Holy Spirit
(§ 30). All come from one God (cf. iii 5).

The Spirit is the Son's own image, and he is said to proceed
from the Father,^ because he shines forth and is sent and given
by the Logos (irapa tov \6jov) who is from the Father (§ 20).
He is the Son's very own (ISiov tov vlov) and not foreign to God
(^evov TOV 6eov) (§ 25).

He is said to be in God Himself and from God Himself.
Now since, in the case of the Son, " because he is from the
Father, he is (admittedly) proper to the essence of the Father
(t8io«? T^9 ovaia<i avTov) ; it follows in the case of the Spirit, that,
since he is admitted to be from God, he is proper to the Son in
essence (i8iov kut ovalav tov vlov). . . . He is proper to the deity
of the Father.^ ... In him the Trinity is complete* (§ 25). Of
the Trinity, which is like itself and indivisible in nature, and
of which the actions and operations are one (§ 28), the holiness
also is one, the eternity one, tlie immutable nature one (§ 30).

This is the ancient tradition and teaching and faith of the
Catholic Church, received from the Lord, preached by Apostles,

' Cf. iv 6. Tlie Fiitlior is always rftllicr, and tho Son always Son, and the
Holy Spirit is and i.s called alwavb Holy Spirit.

* Tlie terms are irapi. (or ^k) tov irarpii 5tA rod vlov.

* He is also in Him (iv 4).

* The Scriiitures further prove his divinity by shewing him to bo ininiulablo ami
invariable and ubiquitous (§ 26 ; cf. iii 4). So too his functions prove his diUcrenco
from men — the princi[tle of sjiiictifuation cannot bo like that which it sanctifies :
the source of life for creatures cannot itself be a creature.

212 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

and preserved by the Fathers, — it is the very foundation of the
Church — and no one who falls away from it can be, or can be
said to be, any longer a Christian. This was the foundation
which the Lord himself bade the Apostles lay for the Church
when he said to them ' Go ye and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them into the name of tlie Father and of the Son and
of the Holy Spirit' (§28).

Those who dare to separate the Trinity and reckon the Holy
Spirit among created things are as audacious as the Pharisees
of old who attributed to Beelzebub the works of the Holy Spirit
— let them take heed lest along with them they incur punish-
ment without hope of forgiveness here or hereafter (§ 33).

Hilary of Poitiers

At the same time as Athanasius was expounding the doctrine
in the East, Hilary of Poitiers, a representative of the Nicene
faith in the West, was maintaining similar teaching in more
systematic form ^ in liis treatise On the Trinity, written during
his exile in Phrygia. Particularly noteworthy is what he says
of the procession. The Father and the Son are his authors.
He is through (per) him through whom are all things (i.e. the
Son), and from (ex) him from whom are all things (i.e. the
Father). . . . The Spirit receives from the Son and so from the
Father also, so that he may be said to receive from each ; but
Hilary does not decide whether receiving connotes proceeding, nor
does he venture to speak of a procession of the Spirit from the
Father and the Son. His own phrase is ex Patre per Jilium.^

The Theories of Macedonius

The chief representative known to us of the Arian teaching
with regard to the Holy Spirit is Macedonius, who had been
appointed Bishop of Constantinople after the deposition and
subsequent murder of Paul (a Nicene), but was himself in turn

* The importance of the great dogmatic work of Hilary (358 or 359) — at a time
when comparatively few Christians in the West could read such treatises as those
of Athanasius in Greek — can hardly be exaggerated, whatever blemishes in the
execution of the work there may have been, and though Augustine was destined to
overshadow and supersede Hilary. (Aug. De Trinilate was published more than
fitty years later, c. 41G.) See Cazenove ' Hilariua Pictavieusis' D.C.B.

» See Swete ' Holy Ghost' D.C.B.

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 213

deposed by the Synod of Constantinople in 360.^ In his
retirement he is said to have elaborated the theories connected
with his name ; teaching that whereas the Son was God, in all
things and in essence like the Father, yet the Holy Spirit was
without part in the same dignities, and rightly designated a
servant and a minister similar to the angels.^ If not true God
he must be a creature. The favourite argument seems to have
been a redudio ad ahsurdum : the Holy Spirit is either begotten
or not begotten ; if not begotten, then there are two unoriginated
beings — Father and Spirit ; if begotten, he must be begotten
either of the Father or of the Son — if of the Father then there
are two Sons in the Trinity (and therefore Brothers) ; if of the
Son, then there is a Grandson of God, a Oeo^ vlwvo^}

The Doctrine declared at the Council of Alexandria 362, and
subsequent Synods in the East and in the West

The question came before a synod for the first time at
Alexandria in 362, on the return of Athanasius from his third
exile.* The view that the Holy Spirit is a creature and separate
from the essence of Christ was there declared anathema, " for
those who, while pretending to cite the faith confessed at Nicaea,
venture to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, do nothing more than in
words deny the Arian heresy while they retain it in thought ". And
all present agreed in the faith in " a Holy Trinity, not a Trinity in
name only, but really existing and subsisting, both a Father really
existing and subsisting, and a Son really and essentially existing
and subsisting, and a Holy Spirit subsisting and himself existing :
a Holy Trinity, but one Godhead, and one Beginning {or prin-
ciple); and that the Son is co-essential with the Father, as the

' The synod dominated by Acacius at which, in tlie Ariau interest, the strict
Homoean formula ('like' only) was agreed to, and Semi-Arians and Anomoeans
alike were 8ui)i)reH3ed. MacetJoniiis and others («.</. Basil of Ancyra and Cyril of
Jerusalem) were deposed really because they were .Semi-Arians, to whom the strict
Homoean formula seemed 'Arian', but nominally on various chargis of irregularity.
See Hefelo Coimcils vol. ii p. 273, and supra p. 185.

'So Soz. II. E. iv 27. Ilis followers were known as Marodonians or Pnouma-
tomachi (contenders against the Sfiirit) or Marathonians, from Marathonius, Bishop
of Nicome<lia, a chief sujii)ortcr of the teaching.

'See e.g. Greg. Naz. Or. Throl. v 7, and Athanasins supra p. 210.

* See supra p. 185, and Ath. ad Aidiocluiws, esp. §§ 5, 6. Note the claim to
hold the Nicene faith along with the ' Macedonian ' doctrine of the lioly Spirit. Cf.
Theodoret H.E. iv 3.

214 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

fathers said ; while the Holy Spirit is not a creature, nor foreign,
but proper to, and inseparable fioni, tlie essence of the Father and
the Son. . . . For we believe that there is one Godhead, and that
its nature is one, and not that there is one nature of the Father,
to which that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit are foreign."

From this statement it seems clear that a more ample pro-
fession of faith in the Holy Spirit than the Creed of Nicaea
supplied was at this time required as a condition of the restoration
of Arians to communion. Special circumstances were in view and
were provided for in this particular way. But there is no proof
that any fresh definition was pressed upon others. There is, on
the contrary, evidence to shew that Athanasius approved of the
policy of non-intervention which Basil followed in the matter.^

About this time the same faith was embodied in a letter to
the Emperor Jovian,^ declaring that the Holy Spirit must not be
separated from the Father and the Son, but rather glorified together
with the Father and the Son in the one faith of the Holy Trinity,
because there is only one Godhead in the Holy Trinity.

A few years later (366 ff.), synods at liome under Damasus
condemned the Arian or Macedonian conceptions, and maintained
the Trinity of one Godhead, power, majesty, and essence ; and the
profession of faith addressed to the Eastern bishops, which was
published by one of these synods in 369,^ was in 378 {or 379)
subscribed by a hundred and forty-six Eastern bishops at
Antioch.

The Epiphanian Creed

The heresy, however, gained ground, and the need for an
expansion of the Creed to cover this fresh subject grew urgent.
A short expression of the general traditional belief was already
in existence in the Creed contained in the Ancoratus* of Epi-

* Basil was suspected and attacked by the monks because of his reserve in speak-
ing of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Athanasius wrote in his support and
defence, urging his children to obey him as their father, and to consider his inten-
tion and purpose (his oUovofila) — "to the weak he becomes weak to gain the weak".
He is utterly astonished at the boldness of those who venture to apeak against
him (Ath. Ej>p. 62 and 63 ; Basil Ep. 204).

* Theodoret H.E. iv 3. Dr. Robertson 'Athanasius' Ixxxiv n has shewn that
Theodoret is mistaken as to a synod being held in 363 ; but the letter remains.

* This is known a.s the ' Tome of Damasus '. The anathemas repudiate in detail
all false ideas about the Spirit and maintain the divine attributes of each person of
the Trinity (see Hahn * p. 271). They shew what teaching was current.

* Hahn * p. 134. But as to the origin of this Creed see supra p. 188 n. 1.

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 215

phauius, Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, which was published in 374.
It declares in simple untechnical phrase the divine personality of
the Spirit, as one to be worshipped and glorified together with
the Father and the Son ; his procession from the Father ; his
pre-existence as the source or power of life and the Inspirer of
the prophets; and his operation in the Incarnation of the Son.

Simple and unsystematic as the language of this Creed is, it
clearly recognises the personality, the eternity, and the divinity
of the Holy Spirit ; and his chief functions.

(a) The Personality. He is co-ordinated with the Father and
the Son, the same form of words being used — eh eva Oeov irarepa
— KOi ei<i eva Kvpiov . . . rov vlov — Koi el<i to 7rvevfj,a to ayiov.
He too is Kvpiov as the Son, and he proceeds e'/c tov TraTp6<; {i.e.
eK T7}<? ovaia<; tov vaTpof, he was therefore in the Father). He
is worshipped and glorified together with (aw) ... as a person.

(h) The Eternity. This is implied in the phrases which
shew the personality, particularly by the present iKiropevo/xevov,
which connotes neither beginning nor end ; also, to some extent,
by the operations attributed to him, especially the title ^coottolov.

(c) The Divinity. He is placed on a level with the Father
and the Son, styled Lord, said to be in the Father, and to be
worshipped as only one who is God can be — along with the
Father and the Son.

(d) His Operations. He is the source of all real life (making
alive — Giver of Life), the source of inspiration of the prophets,
the agent in the Incarnation of the Son ; and by collocation he
is the source of the graces which the ' holy ' Church administers.

(e) His relation to the Godhead is simply described in the
words ' proceeding from the Father '}

* The ' procession ' is stated to be from the Father, and the Eastern theologians
generally laid stress on the derivation of tho Spirit from the Father (without denying
it from the Sou also, but preferring the expression 'through the Sou' as medium —
as TertuUian in the West had said a Fatre per filium). So Eiii]>lianiu3 never uses
the word ' procession ' to express the relation of the Spirit to the Sdu. He only
says that he receives of him ' proceeding from (iK or dird) the Father and receiving
of the Son' {rod TIoD Xd/x/Saj-ov ; cf. John 15^ and 16"). But he does not hesitate
to say that the Sjiirit is 'from the Father and the Son' and ' from the same es.senco'
or Godhead (always using tlie prepositions iK or irapd ; see Ancor. 8, 9, 67, 78,
69-70 ; adv. Ilaer. Ixii 4).

It will thiiB be seen that though, in common with the Greek Fathers, he does not
express the procession from the Son, he comes nearer in his language than others to
putting the Fatlier and the Son together as tlie joint source of derivation of the Spirit.

In the West, Amtirose, writing a little later (381) («ee de Sp. S. i 11) makes
the derivation of the Spirit dependent on the Son ; and the declaration of Cyril of

216 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Compared with the Creed of Nicaea (which, however, was only
intended to deal with the doctrine of the Person of Christ, see
supra p. 168 u. 2) all these clauses are new, except the one bare
statement of faith ' in the Holy Spirit '} But they only amount

Alexandria that the Spirit is the Son's very own (Anathema ix against Nestorius
— Hahn' p. 315) was approved by the Council of Ephesus in 431.

The first definite denial that tlie Holy Spirit receives his essence from the Son
(as well as from the Father) was expressed by Theotloret in answer to Cyril's
anathema. If, by the Spirit being the Son's very own, Cyril only meant to describe
him as of the «ame nature and proceeding from the Father, he would agree and
accept the phrase as pious ; but if he meant that the Spirit derived his being from
the Son or througli the Son, then he nmst reject it as blaspliemous and impious.
Cyril in reply justilicd his expression (without going into Tlieodoret's charge), on the
ground that the Spirit proceeds from God the Father but is not alien from the Son,
who has all things along with the Father according to his own declaration, "All
things that the Father liath are mine — therefore said I to you that He shall take of
mine and shall declare it to you ". And the Council of Ephesus, at which his
anathemas were approved, condemned a Creed of Theodore of Mopsuestia (Hahn*
p. 302), which incidentally denied that the Spirit had received his being through the
Son. But the question was not further examined or discussed for some time in the
East. [On Theodore's peculiar conceptions of the Spirit see Swete I.e. p. 127. ]?[

Augustine (see infra), and Leo after him {Ep. xciii 1), tauglit 'from the Father
and the Son ', and this became the conception so thoroughly accepted in the West
that the additional words expressing it appear to have been inserted in the Creed in
its Ijatin version without the insertion attracting attention. At a Council held at
Toledo in 589 (summoned by Reccared, king of the Visigoths), to emphasize the
national renunciation of Arianism, the Creed was quoted with the words 'et Filio'
added. There is no evidence to shew that the addition was intentional ; the Creed
was little known in the West at the time, and the Council no doubt supposed that
the Latin version recited was a true translation of the original Greek. It was
further ordered that the Creed should henceforward be recited before the PcUer
nosltr in the Eucharist. As a defence against Arianism the addition was eminently
useful, and the doctrine it taught was emphasized by several subsequent synods. It
was contained in a local creed put forth by a synod at Hatfield in 680. But it was
not till after the middle of the eightli century that the doctrine of the procession
was formally debated at a Council : first in 767 at Gentilly, near Paris, when
some Eastern bishops were present, and the question was not regarded as urgent :
then in 787 at Nicaea, when the doctrine of the procession ' from the Father
through the Son ' was approved : then in 794, at a great assembly of Western
bishops at Frankfort, when the cultus of images approved at Nicaea was disallowed
and the doctrine of the i)rocession from the Son was reasserted and supported by the
influence of the Emperor Charles the Great : and again in 809, at a Council at Aix,
at which both the doctrine and the interpolation in the Creed were vindicated. The
Pojie, Leo iii., however, while agreeing in the doctrine, refused to sanction the addi-
tion of the words et Filio to the ancient Creed of the Church, authorized by a General
Council and universally received ; and, though the use continued elsewhere in the
West, it was not till two centuries later that it found its way into the Church of
Rome. Meanwhile it had been one of the matters of controversy that led to the
breach of communion between the Church of the East and the Church of the
West. [On the form of the Creed at Toledo see Burn Jntrod. to Creeds p. 115.] J

* The Creed contains all the chief Nicene clauses and anathemas.

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 217

to a scanty summary of the teacliing which, as is shewn above,
an ordinary presbyter gave his catechumens before any con-
troversy as to the Holy Spirit arose. (The words tov irapd-
K\t]Tou which are in Cyril's own Creed have dropped out.)

And, indeed, Epiphanius himself declares that this was the
faith which was handed ' down ' by all the holy bishops, together
above three hundred and ten in number ' — that is, by those who
composed the Council of Nicaea : a statement which is literally
inaccurate, but no doubt conveys the truth as regards the
convictions of the bishops in question.

This Creed, no doubt, was the Baptismal Creed in use in
Salamis (and probably throughout Palestine), but Epiphanius
also gives a longer one ^ (prol»ably composed by himself), more
a paraphrase than a creed, which was required of candidates
for baptism who had been or were suspected of still being
connected with any of the heresies then rife. With regard to
the Holy Spirit its terms are these : " And we believe in (ei?
TO . . .) the Holy Spirit, who spake in the law and preached
in the persons of the prophets and came down upon the Jordan,
speaking in the apostles, dwelling in the saints ; thus we believe
in him (iv avrw), that he is the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God,
the perfect Spirit, the Spirit Paraclete, uncreated, proceeding
from the Father and received * from the Son and an object of
faith", — and in the anathema appended to the Creed the
catechumen is required to repudiate, in regard to the Holy
Spirit also, all the Arian phrases which the Nicene Council
anathematized in regard to the Son.

There was thus, it is clear, abundant teaching being given
in the Church to counteract the effects of the theories of the
Macedonians, and the way was prepared for the full assertion of
the doctrine of the Trinity by a General Council.

Basil's Treatise on the Holy Spirit

About the same time, in reponse to the prompting of his
friend Amphilochius, Bishop of Iconium, Basil wrote his treatise
on the Holy Spirit (374-375).

He begins by explaining that he had been criticized because

> Hahii* p. 135.

' A variant reading gives the active 8en.se ' receiving' ; of. John 16". TLo p}irai»e
is first found here.

218 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

he had used two forms of the doxology, " to God the Father
through the Son in the Holy Spirit ", and " with the Son together
with the Holy Spirit " ; ^ that the two forms were regarded as
mutually inconsistent, and the latter as an innovation. Aetius
had framed a rule by which the use of the prepositions in
Scripture was governed, and argued that the dillerence of use
corresponded to, and clearly indicated, a difference of nature (§ 2) ;
and according to this rule the first form of doxology only was
legitimate — God being widely differentiated from the Son, and
both from the Spirit.

In the first place, therefore, Basil argues that the rule is
imaginary, and that no such distinction holds in the use of the
sacred writers ; and, having established this point, he infers that
the use of identical terms should shame his opponents into
admitting that no difference of essence either exists (§ 11).

He insists that the Church knows both uses and does not
deprecate either as destructive of the other. Sometimes with
(fieTa), sometimes through {8td), is the more appropriate ; accord-
ing as, for example, praise or thanksgiving for blessings received
through the Son is the more immediate purpose (§ 16).

Then, after an enquiry into the real meaning of the expres-
sion ' through the Son ', he passes on (§ 22) to his chief subject
— the doctrine of the Spirit, in the Scriptures, and in the un-
written tradition received from the Fathers. After a glowing
description of the nature of the Spirit and the manifold forms of
his gracious influence and varied gifts (the crown of all of which
is said to be ' abiding in God, likeness to God, and the supreme
desire of the heart — becoming God '), he meets in succession
objections urged against his being ranked with God in nature
and glory.2 In the course of the review of the evidence of
Scripture and tradition he is led to conclusions such as the
following : —

" He who does not believe in the Spirit does not believe in
the Son, and he who does not believe in the Son does not believe
in the Father." " In every operation the Spirit is conjoined with
and inseparable from the Father and the Son." ^ In every dis-

' 8ih ToO viov iv T(f) ayiif) irvfv/u.aTi and fieri, roC vlov avv ti^ irvevfiari T(f ayiif.

* Among other interesting points in the course of the discussion are the
description of the effects of Baptism (§ 26 ; cf. § 35), the references to baptism into
Christ only (§ 28), the value of the secret unwritten tradition (§ 66).

* To express with some show of ' worldly wisdom ' the idea that the Spirit was
not eo-ordiuate with Father and Sou but subordinate to them, the opponents of the

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 219

tribution of gifts the Holy Spirit is present with the Father and
the Son, of his own authority (in his own right), dispensing in
proportion to the deserts of each. And in our own experience,
in the reception of the gifts, it is with the Holy Spirit — the dis-
tributer — that we first meet ; and then we are put in mind of the
Sender (that is, the Sou) ; and then we carry up our thoughts to
the fountain and author of the blessings (§ 37). It is through
the Spirit that all the dispensations are carried out — Creation,
the Old Covenant, the Incarnation in all its circumstances, the
ministry of the Church, the future Advent (§ 39 ; cf. 49).

The Spirit's relation to the Father is thus essential and
eternal. There is no doubt about the distinction of the three
persons and the unity of essence. The one Spirit, conjoined through
the one Son with the one Father Himself, completes the adorable
and blessed Trinity (§ 45).

The Spirit is from God ... he comes forth from God :
yet not by generation as the Son, but as the spirit of his
mouth. But he is also called the Spirit of Christ, as being
in respect of nature made his own {wKeiwuevov Kara rrjv cf)vat,v
avToj § 46) ; he is as it were an ' intimate ' of the Son. He is
thus in some sense through the Son ; but Basil indicates rather
than expresses this conception.

After shewing at length that the prepositions in question
have been and may be used indifferently, he points to the
advantages of 'with' {a-vv § 59). It is as effectual as 'and' in re-
futing the mischief of Sabellius and establishing the distinction of
persons, and it also bears conspicuous witness to the eternal com-
munion and perpetual conjunction which exists between them.
' With ' exhibits the mutual conjunction of those who are associ-
ated together in some action, while ' in ' shews their relation to
the spliere in which they are operating (§ GO).

Otlier reasons are then given for glorifying the Spirit, and
the treatise concludes with a sombre picture of the state of the
times, in which self-appointed place-hunters first get rid of the
dispensation of the Holy Spirit, and then allot to one anotiier
the chief offices in all the Churches.

doctrine adopted a curious verbal Huhtlety and argued that he was not ' numbered
witli ' them, but was 'numbered under' thoiu, an<l tliiit co-niiincrjition suits tilings
e(iiial in honour, but sub-numeration tilings ri'latively inferior (§§ 13, 41, 4'2).
Basil says this doctrine of sub-numeration introfluccs polytheism into Christian
theology (§ 47). Number has not really any place in the sphere of the Divine.
Cf. also Greg. Naz. Or. T/uol. v 17 U.

220 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Gregory of Nyssa — Quod non sint tres Dei

The same teaching was being given by Gregory of Nyssa
too about the same time. The devoted younger brother of Basil,
of whom he constantly speaks as his ' master ', while not intending
to depart in any way from his brother's teaching, he certainly gave
it somewhat more formal expression in some connexions, and con-
tributed largely to win currency for the ' Cappadocian ' theological
distinctions.

As in his treatise on Common Notions (Migne P.G. xlv pp.
175—186), so in his letter to Ablabius, That there are not three
Gods {ibid. pp. 115—136),^ written about 375, he works out the
position that ' God ' is a term indicative of essence (being), not
declarative of "persons (not irpoaunrcov hrjXwriKov but overtax
arjfiavTiKov) ; and therefore it is, and must be, always used in
the singular with each of the names of the persons. So we say
' God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit ', and
if we insert the conjunction ' and ' between the clauses it is only
to conjoin the terms which declare the persons, not the term
which indicates the singularity of the essence. The three terms
express the three modes of being, the three relations ; but the
being remains one and the same, and the term expressing it must
therefore always be used in the singular.

The analogy of human nature and the common use in the
plural of the term ' man ', which expresses it, no doubt presents a
difficulty. (This was the question Ablabius had put to Gregory.)
But strictly, it is an abuse of language to speak of so many
' men ' ; it would be more accurate to describe each individual
(Peter, James, John) as a ' hypostasis ' of ' man '. Only in this
case we tolerate the inaccuracy, because there is no danger of
our thinking that there are many human natures, while in re-
spect to the Deity we might be thought to have some community
of doctrine with the ])olytheism of the heathen. This is a solu-
tion of the difficulty sufficient for most men. Yet the difference
of use may be justified by a deeper reason. The term ' Godhead '
is really significant of operation (ivepyeca) rather than of nature.
And the operations of men (even of those who are engaged in
the same spheres of work) are separate and individual, whereas
the operations of the Godhead are always effected by the Three
together " without mark of time or distinction — since there is no

' Au EDglisb translation in ' Gregory of Nyssa' N. and P-N. F.

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 221

delay, existent or conceived, in the motion of the divine will
from the Father, through the Son, to the Spirit ". " In the case
of the divine nature we do not learn that the Father does any-
thing by Himself in which the Son does not work conjointly, or
again, that the Son has any special operation apart from the
Holy Spirit ; but every operation which extends from God to
the creation, and is named according to our variable conceptions
of it, has its origin from the Father, and proceeds through the
Son, and is perfected in the Holy Spirit."

An objection which Gregory foresees might be brought
against this argument — Chat by not admitting the difference of
nature there was danger of a mixture and confusion of the
persons — leads him lo his most characteristic statement of the
distinction between the persons as based on a constant causal
relation. " While we confess the invariable character of the
nature, we do not deny the diOerence in regard to that which
causes and that which is caused (r^y Kara to atriov Koi alrcarov
Bia^opdv), wherein alone we conceive that the one is dis-
tinguished from the other — namely, by our belief that the one
is that which causes, and the other of or from that which causes.
And we apprehend yet another diflerence in tluit wliich is of or
from the cause : for one (part) is directly from the first, and
another (part) is through that which is directly from the first
... so that in the case of the Son the fact that he is Only-
begotten remains undoubted and does not throw doubt on the
fact that the Spirit is from the Father, inasmuch as the media-
tion (or intermediate position sc. between Father and Spirit) of the
Son guards for him the fact that lie is Only-begotten, and does
not exclude the Spirit from his relation of nature to the Father."
At the same time, the diflerence in respect to causation denotes
no difference of nature, but only a difference in the mode of
existence (e.g. that the Father does not exist by generation, and
that the Son does not exist without generation). It does not
touch the question of existence — of nature. That he exists we
believe first — viz. what God is : then we consider how He is.
"The divine nature itself is apprehended through every concep-
tion as invariable and undivided; and therefore one Godhead
and one God, and all the other names which relate to God, are
rightly proclaimed in the singular."

In this argument it is clear that the absolute co-eternity and
co-equality of the Three Persons is recognized. The idea of

222 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

causation serves only to distinguish the three modes of existence.
God is one (o ©to?) ; but within His being there is Cause
(to ahiov), to which the name ' Father ' corresponds, and there
is caused (ro ahiaTov), which includes the immediately caused
(to 'irpo(Te)(oi<i e« rov irpoarov) to which the name ' Son ' corre-
sponds, and the mediately caused (to hia rov Trpoae')(o)'i eV rov
TrpcoTov) to which the name ' Holy Spirit ' corresponds. The
Holy Spirit is thus in such wise 'from the Father ', that he is
also ' through the Son '. And this connexion of the Spirit with
the Son and the Father is Gregory's teaching also in his other
writings, though not always in the same terms.^

A year later, in 376, a synod at Iconium, presided over by
the bishop to whom Basil had written, decided that the Nicene
Creed was enough, but that in doxologies the Spirit should be
glorified together witjh the Father and the Son ; and the doctrine
of the Spirit was laid down as Basil had taught it. And his
treatise itself was at this time formally sanctioned and confirmed
by a synod in Cappadocia.*

The prevailing uncertainty reflected in the Sermons of
Gregory of Nazianzus

The uncertainty, however, which still prevailed is clearly
reflected in one of the sermons which Gregory of Nazianzus

* Cf. the Oratio Catechetica ii, "an essential power existing in its own proper
person, but incapable of being separated from God, in when:! it is, or from the Word
of God, whom it accompanies" ; On the Holy Spirit (Migne xlv p. 1304), iK roD deoO
iari, Kol To\j xpi-'^fov ian, Kadui yiypaTrrai, ; " not to be confounded with the Father
in being unoriginate, nor with the Son in being only-begotten"; the image of a
separate flame burning on three torches — the third flame caused by that of the first
being transmitted to the middle and then kindling the end torch ; " proceeding
from the Father, receiving from the Son"; "The Father is always Father, and in
Him the Son, and with the Son the Holy Spirit"; and On the Holy Trinity (cf. Basil
Ep. 189 or 80), in which the main argument is that the identity of operation seen
in regard to Father and Son and Holy Spirit proves identity of nature or essence.

He also touches the line of argument which Augustine afterwards worked out so
fully (see infra p. 228) — the analogy of our own nature, in which certain shadows
and resemblances may be detected that go to prove the existence of a Trinity in the
Deity. (See e.g. Oratio Cat. i-iii.)

It is to be noted that Gregory of Nyssa does not claim that the oixrla of the God-
head in itself can be known, but only its ISidj/xara or yvaipia ^lara.. See de Communihus
Notionibus (Migne xlv p. 177), Eefut. alt. lib. Eunomii {ibid. p. 945), Quod non
lint tres dii {ibid. p. 121). So, among others, Augustine in Joh. Tract, xxxviii 8,
"ego sum qui sum, qvue mens potest capere f "

* Hefele Councils vol. ii p. 290.

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 223

preached at Constantinople about the year 380, while engaged
in his noble task of building up again a ' Catholic ' congregation
in the city which had so long been given over to the Arians.
" Of the wise among us ", he says, " some have held the
Holy Spirit to be an Energy, others a Creature, others God.
Others again have not decided which of these he is — out of
reverence, as they say, for the Scriptures, because they lay down
nothing precise upon the point. On this account they neither
concede to him divine veneration, nor do they refuse him honour ;
thus keeping in their disposition concerning him to some sort of
middle way, which, however, is in effect a very wretched way.
Of those, however, who have held him to be God, some keep this
as a pious opinion to themselves (are pious so far as opinion
goes), while others have the courage to be pious in expression of
it also. Others I have heard in some kind of way mete out the
Deity, more wise in that they conceive and acknowledge the
Three as we do, but maintain a great distinction between them,
to the effect that the One is infinite both in respect of being and
of power, the second in respect of power, but not of being, the third
circumscribed in both of these relations." ^ And while for him-
self he insists as strongly as possible on his essential eternity
and equality with the other persons of the Godhead — which
cannot be complete, and therefore cannot be Godhead without
him (§ 4) — he is certainly God, and if God necessarily co-essential
with the Father (§ 10); and while he sweeps away all inquisi-
tive and petty reasonings about his generation and origin by
appeal to the Lord's own words as to procession, and refuses to
enquire into its nature or to attempt to invade the mysteries of
the divine existence — it is enough to know that he is not be-
gotten but proceeds : yet he seems to regard the uncertainty of
former times with no little sympathy, as in harmony with the
appointed order of developement in the revelation of truth — •
" the Old Testament proclaimed the Father clearly, but the Son
more darkly ; the New Testament jiliiiiily revealed tiie Son, but
only indicated the deity of the Spirit.* Now the Holy Spirit
lives among us and makes the manifestation of himself more
certain to us ; for it was not safe, so long as the divinity of the
Father was still unrecognized, to proclaim openly that of the

' Greg. Naz. Or. 31 § 5 (Or. Thr.ol. v § 5).

' Language of this kind might have seemed to the Moutuniuts of earlier times to
support their main conceptiona.

224 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Son ; and, so long as this was still not accepted, to impose the
burden of the Spirit, if so bold a phrase may be allowed." ^

From the point of view of Gregory the Macedonians would
be lagging behind the necessary — the divinely appointed — course
of developement of revelation of the nature of the Godhead,
And before, and at the time of, the Council of Constantinople in
381 every effort was made to win them over to the recognition
of the truth and the unity of the Church — unfortunately in vain

The Council of Constantinople

Amongst the bishops who were present there appears to
have been no uncertainty as to the doctrine of the Church ; *
they reaffirmed the Nicene Creed with an explanation ^ of various
points of doctrine, among which the Godhead of the Spirit was
affirmed, and every heresy was declared anathema ; * and the
emperor gave authoritative expression to their conviction and
decision when he issued the command — at the close of the
Council — that " all the churches were at once to be surrendered
to the bishops who believed in the Oneness of the Godhead of
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ". ^

And so the faith in the triune personality of God was
proclaimed against the last attempt of Arianism, and the Catholic
interpretation established — one God existing permanently and
eternally in three spheres of consciousness and activity, three

1 Ibid. § 26 ff. See the whole of this Sermon, esp. §§ 9, 10 and 28 for the testi-
mony of Scripture to the Holy Spirit.

- They included (besides those mentioned) Cyril of Jerusalem, Helladius the
successor of Basil at Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, aud Amj)lulochiu3 of Iconium — all
well versed no doubt in the Catholic doctrine,

* This is not extant, but the synod which met at Constantinople in the following;
year states that the Council had put forth a tome, and at Chalcedon they were said
to have communicated their decisions to the Westerns (Hefele ii ji. 348). It is not
certain to which of the Councils — in 381 or in 382 — some of the canons attributed to
the Council of 381 belong. The synodical letter of the Council of 382 (to Damasns
and other Western bishops), excusing themselves from attending a Council at Rome,
is given in Theodoret H.E. v 9, and again declares the faith that there is " one god-
head, power, and essence of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit ; the
dignity being equal in three perfect hypostases {inroa-rdffeffiv) and three perfect
persons (irpocrwTrots) ".

* The heresies specified are those of the Eunomians or Anomoeans, the Arians or
Eudoxians, the Semi-Arians or Pneumatomachians, the Sabellians, Marcellians,
Photinians, and ApoUinarians.

* " One and the same Godhead in the hypostasis of three Persons of equal
honour and of equal power ; namely, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." —
Soz. R.E. vii 9. On July 30, 381.

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 225

modes, three forms, three persons : in the inner relations of the
divine life as well as in the outer relations of the Godhead to the
world and to men.

From this time forward it was only in connexion with the
procession of the Spirit that any fresh developement of the doc-
trine is to be noted. But it was so lucidly summed up, and in
some of its aspects so appealingly presented by Augustine, that a
short statement of his summary of it may be given in conclusion.^

Augustine's Statement of the Doctrine f[

The aim of his treatise is to shew that " the one and only and
true God is a Trinity, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are
rightly said and believed to be of one and the same substance or
essence " (i 4). First of all the proof from Scripture is detailed,
and passages which are alleged against the equality of the Son are
examined (14 ff). By the way, the puzzle how the Trinity is said
to operate in everything which God operates, and yet particular
actions are attributed exclusively to particular Persons is noted.
With regard to the Holy Spirit, special stress is laid on the use
in connexion with him of the verb Xarpeveiv (which is used of
divine service) : and interesting distinctions are drawn with regard
to the Incarnate Son between the forma Dei and the forma servi,
in explanation of passages in Scripture in which he is spoken of as
less than the Father — some things being said according to ' the
form of God ', and some according to ' the form of a servant '.

To elucidate the relations to the Trinity of the Son and
the Holy Spirit in their operations, he examines the appearances
recorded in the Old Testament, whether they were of the Trinity
or of individual Persons, and decides that though some corpoieal
or outward means were adopted we cannot rashly affirm which
Person it was that ajipcaied.'^

' The next Latin writer on the subject after Hilary was Ambrose, the spiiitual
Father of Augustine, in the year of the Council of Cou.stantinoplo. He answers
obj.ctions ami sets forwanl such ar;^unients as have already been noticed. He
teaches procession from the Son as well as from the Father, but not expressly an
eternal procession from the Son. Augustine completed the presentation of the
doctrine for tlie West. lie had sbitid it shortly in the sermon he preached before a
(.'ouncil at IIii)po in 393 (see dc Fide el Symholo, 16 ff.), and again a few years
later in a Sermon to catechumens (§ 13), and also in his sermons on the Gospel of
St John (see Tract, xcix esp. 6 If.) ; but it was not till alter the year 415 that he
published the treatise On Uie Trinity, at which ho had been working at intorvals
for many years, and in which he gave to the doctrine the fullest expresyion.

' Bk. ii ; the means being further considered in bk. iii.

226 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Just as tlie Son, though said to be sent by the Father, is equal
and consubstantial and co-eternal with the Father — the difference
between the sender and the sent being only that the Son is from
the Father, not the Father from the Son — so too the Holy Spirit
is one with them, since these three are one, and he proceeds
not only from the Father but also from the Son.^ The Lord
himself says of the Spirit ' whom I will send unto you from the
Father ' to shew that the Father is the beginning of the whole
divinity or Deity : and though this sending of the Holy Spirit
is eternal, yet there was a special sending such as had never
been before after the glorification of Christ — a sending which
was made plain by visible signs. In the case of such sensible
manifestations, it is true that the working of the Trinity cannot
be seen as indivisible ; just as it is impossible for men to name
the Three without separation by the intervals of time which
each name, Father — Son — Holy Spirit, occupies ; yet the Three
work indi visibly (§ 30).^ It is possible to predicate of God

^ Bk. iv § 27 ff.

* To the thought of the inseparable operation and intercommunion of the Three
Persons, which Augustine expressed here and again in bk, viii ad init., latex
theologians a}>plied the term irepixij^pv'^'-^- Both senses of the verb x^P^^^t ' move '
and 'contain ', are included in its meaning. The persons interpenetrate each other,
and each contains the other. "The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, while
they are in very deed three Persons, still do not by any means exist as three men
separately and apart from each other, but they intimately cohere together and are
conjoined One with Another, and thus exist One in the Other, and so to speak
mutually run into and penetrate each other" (Bull Def. N.C. bk. ii ch. ix), —
and 80 the numerical unity of substance is maintained. Latin equivalents of the
term are thus either circumincessio (the three mutually pervade each other) or
draiminsessio (the three mutually contain or rest in each other). ' Interpenetration '
or ' coinherence ' are perhaps the nearest English representatives of the term. The
whole Trinity is present in each of the Persons — each is full and complete, and
each includes the others : a notion of personality which is so different from
ordinary human experience that Augustine shrinks from the use of the term at
all (infra v 10). The scriptural basis of the doctrine is to be found in the
Gospel according to St John l^" 10"" and 14'"- " ("the only-begotten Son which is
in the bosom of the Father", and " I am in the I'atlier and the Father in me . . .
the Father that dwelleth in me"): and Athana.sius used it against the Arians
(see Or. c. Ar. ii 33, 41, and especially iii 1-6), and quoted Dionysius of Rome
as expressing the same tliought (in language very near to the later technical terra),
"For it must needs be that with the God of the universe the divine Word is
united, and the Holy Ghost must repose and habitate in God " (^/LK^iXoxwpfU' t^S ^ev
Kal ivoiairdadai — in Deo manere et habitare), and supporting it by the same passages
of Scripture (de Decretis § 26). Similar expression is given to the doctrine in the
Maorostichos (Antioch, 34.5) § ix. "For we have believed that they (the Father
and the Son) are conjoined with one another without medium or interval and exist
inseparably from one another, the Father entire embosoming the Son, and the Son

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 227

according to substance ' — that is in respect to Himself (as good,
great), or 'relatively' — that is, in respect to something not
Himself (as Father in respect to the Son, and Lord in respect
to the Creature). Whatever is spoken of God 'according to
substance ' is spoken of each person severally and together of
the Trinity itself — which is rightly described as one essence,
three hypostases or persons ; though the term ' persons ' is only
used for want of a better way of expressing the facts (bk. v,
§ 10). " For, indeed, since Father is not Son, and Son is not
Father, and the Holy Spirit, who is also called the gift of God,
is neither Father nor Son, they are certainly three. And so it
is said in the plural, ' I and the Father are one ' — for he did
not say ' is one ' as the Sabellians say, but ' are one '. Yet when
it is asked what the three are {quid ires), human utterance is
weighed down by deep poverty of speech. All the same, we
say three ' persons ', not that we wish to say it, but that we may
not be reduced to silence." It is simply, as he says further on
in his essay ,^ recurring to the same subject, " for the sake of
speaking of things that are ineffable, that we may be able in
some way to say what we can in no way say fully " — especially
against the devices of errors of heretics — that the terms ' one
essence and three persons ' are permissible. The persons are not
the Trinity, but the Trinity can be called also (the) Holy Spirit,
because all three are God, and Spirit, and Holy. He is the gift
of both the Father and the Son, the communion of them both,
called specially what they are called in common (§ 12).^ This
communion or unity or holiness, which links each to the other,
is properly called love (vi 7), for it is written ' God is Love '.
And herein may be seen how the Persons in the Deity are
three and not more than three : One who loves Him who is
from Himself ; and One who loves Him from whom He is ; and
Love itself. And in this Trinity is the supreme source of all
things, and the most perfect beauty and the most blessed
delight (§ 12).

After a further consideration of some of the aspects of the
question already reviewed (bk. vii), and a short recapitulation

entire depending upon and adhering to the Father and alone perpetually (continu-
ally) resting in the Father's lap." Hahn* p. 195.

> De Trin. vii §§ 7-10.

'They are together the only beginning (principium) of the Holy Spirit (§ 15).
He is a gift, given in time, but also eternally existent (as a gift may exist before
It is given) (§ 16).

228 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

of the argument (bk. viii), in which he emphasizes the perfect
equality of all the ' Tersons ' and the completeness of each in
respect of Deity (no one in the Trinity, nor two together,
nor even all three together, being greater than each one
severally) ; Augustine passes on to the most characteristic
argument of his essay. On the ground that man is the image
of God, he is led to look for indications of a Trinity in his
constitution — since Scripture also points to this method of
attaining to knowledge of God, the " invisible things of Him
being understood ever since the creation by the things He has
madeV

At the outset he argues that it is by love that we really
arrive at knowledge of the Trinity, and love really implies three
things and is in itself — as it were — a trace of the Trinity.
" Love is of some one that loves, and with love something is
loved. So here are three things : he who loves, and that which
is loved, and love.^ What else then is love but as it were a
life that links together or seeks to link together some two
things — him that loves, to wit, and that which is loved." This,
then, he says, is where we must look for what we are seeking —
we have not found it, but we have found where it is to be
sought (viii 14).

So in the creature, step by step, he seeks through certain
trinities — each of their own appropriate kind, until he comes at
last to the mind of man — traces of that highest Trinity which
we seek when we seek God. And first (bk. ix 3, 4-8) he finds
a trinity in the mind of man, the knowledge with which it
knows itself, and the love with which it loves itself and its own
knowledge.^ These three are one and equal and inseparable ;
they exist substantially and are predicated relatively ; they are
several in themselves, and mutually all in all. The knowledge
of the mind is as it were its offspring and its word concerning
itself, and the offspring is not less than the parent mind, since
the mind knows itself just to the extent of its own being ; ai'.d
the love is not less since it loves itself just to the extent of
its knowledge and of its being.*

> Rom. 1». Cf. Wisd. 13»-» (bk. xv § 3).
' Amans, et quod ainatur, et amor.

* Mens, notitia qua se novit, amor quo se notitiamque suam diligit.

* Nee minor proles, dum tantam se uovrit mens quanta est : nee minor amor dum
tantum se diligit quantum novit et quanta est (iz 18).

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 229

Other trinities may be seen in the mind — in memory, under-
standing, will ^ ; in sight — the object, the act of seeing or vision,
the attention of the mind or the will which combines the two
(though these are not equal nor of one essence, and belong to
the sphere of the outer man which is not an image of God 2);
and in connexion with sight, in the mind itself — the image of
the object seen which is in the memory, the impression formed
from it when the mind's eye is turned to it, the purpose of the
will combining both (but this trinity also — though in the mind
— is really of the outer man, because introduced from bodily
objects which are perceived from without^). Later on in the
treatise * this instance is applied in a somewhat different form,
the example of the Faith or Creed when learnt orally being
taken, and the trinity found in memory (of the sounds of the
words), recollection (when we think thereon), and the will (when
we remember and think) combining both.

Yet another peculiar kind of trinity is found in knowledge ^
— of which there is the higher (wisdom), dealing with things
eternal ; and the lower, of things temporal, in which the whole-
some knowledge of things human is contained, enabling us to so
act in this temporal life as to attain in the end to that which
is eternal. In considering first the lower knowledge, he describes
how man is made in the image of God, and how he turns away
from that image and by gradual steps sinks lower and lower,
sinking often in thought and imagination, even when not intend-
ing to carry the sin out into act. And so, starting from the
incidental premiss that all men desire blessedness, he goes on to
shew how it may be attained by faith in Christ, and so is led
to expound tlie reasons for the Incarnation and the Passion.^
Then, reverting'' to the discussion of the trinity in memory,
intelligence, and will, he declares that it is in the noblest part
of the mind that the Trinity, which is the image of God, is to
be sought — that part of the mind which is the sphere of the
higher knowledge. It is here that he finds the surest indication
of the Holy Trinity — in the inmost being of the mind whicli
remembers and understands and loves itself, but above all
God, and so is brouglit into most intimale relation to Him.
So it is that the constitution of man himself, made in the

' Memoria, intelligentia, voluntas suinictipsius (x).
»xi '2-10. » xi 11 ir. « Bk. xiii.

• Bk. xii. • Bk. liii. ' Bk. xiv.

230 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

image of God, bears witness to the truth of the doctrine of the
Trinity.

The main thesis of the treatise is thus apparently concluded;
but it is of the Trinity itself, not only of evidence for its
existence, tliat Augustine writes ; and in the last book he adds
largely to what he has before said in regard to the Holy Spirit,
particularly as to his relation to the Father and the Son.

The Holy Spirit, he says,^ according to the holy Scriptures,
is neither of the Father alone nor of the Son alone, but of both ;
and so he intimates to us a mutual love wherewith the Father
and the Son reciprocally love one another. The love is, indeed,
proper to each individually and to all collectively ; yet the Holy
Spirit may be specially called love, as the Son only is called
the Word, and the Holy Spirit alone the gift of God, and God
the Father alone He from whom the Word is born and from
whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. He adds ' princi-
pally ' (i.e. as beginning or principle), because we find that the
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also. This was the Father's
purpose and design — he gave this to the Son (namely, that the
Spirit should proceed from him too), not subsequently to his
generation, but by begetting him : He so begat him as that the
common gift should proceed from him also, and the Holy Spirit
be the Spirit of both (that is, the Spirit proceeds from the Son
by virtue of the Father's gift to the Son in his generation —
both alike eternal). The Holy Spirit may thus be specially
called love ; as similarly the Word of God was specially called
also the Wisdom of God, although both Father and Holy Spirit
also are Wisdom. No gift of God is more excellent than love.

And it must not be supposed that the Holy Spirit is less
than the Father and the Son, because they give and he is given.
Even though he were given to no one, he is himself God and
was God, co-eternal with the Father and the Son, before he was
given to any one. And when he is given as a gift of God, it
is in such a way that he himself, as being God, also gives
himself.

It is certain that the procession of the Holy Spirit is from
both Father and Son apart from time. We neither say the
Holy Spirit is begotten nor do we say he is unbegotten (for
the latter term, though not found in the Scriptures, is con-
veniently applied to the Father alone) ; and we abhor the idea

» Bk. XV § 27 ir.

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 231

that he is begotten of both Father and Son, What we say is,
that he proceeds eternally from both, without any kind of
interval of time between the generation of the Son from the
Father and the procession of the Spirit from the Father and the
Son. This the Son and the Spirit each has from the Father.^

This is certain, but we must be on our guard against too
much reasoning. We must not press too far the analogy between
the image of the Trinity in us and the Trinity itself. Many
questions can only be understood when we are in bliss, and no
longer reason but contemplate. It is in love, he implies, rather
than in reason, that the solution of difficulties is to be found.

So in the prayer with which he closes the treatise he asks
for increase of remembrance, understanding, love.^

Mr. Burn draws my attention to the fresh and vigorous treatment of
the doctrine by Niceta of Remesiana in Dacia (near Palanka in Servia),
a great admirer of Basil. His treatise was written, Mr. Burn thinks,
soon after 381, as part of the third book of his Libelli instructionis. (It
is printed in Migne vol. Hi p. 853, under Mai's mistaken title de Spiritua
sancti potentia.) He begins by reference to the puzzles put forward by
some as to whether the Spirit was * horn or not born ', and directs his
argument against those who style him a creature. He appeals to the
words of Scripture to decide all such questions, and makes some inter-
esting applications and interpretations of texts {e.g. Col P^, Rom 8^^^
John 2022 1613, 1 John 2^, 1 Cor U^*). Scripture and all his operations,
whether benignant or awe-inspiring, shew his full Godhead. He is to
be worshipped and glorified with the Father and the Son with one and
the same worship. When we worship one, we worship all; and by so
doing we do not add to the glory of the divine majesty, but thereby we
acquire glory for ourselves. To this faith we must hold fast, and be
true to our profession in the Mysteries ' Holy, holy, holy is the Lord
God of Hosts '.

SUBSTANTIA

Substantia, the verbal ncnm from suhsto, mesins 'that which underlies
a thing', 'that by which anything subsists or exists', 'the essence or
underlying principle by which each res is what it is'. So things which

' Here ho refers to his Sermon on St John's Gospel — in Joh. Tract. xc\x 6 ff.,
where he insists that the saying "proceeds from the Father" does not exchide
procession also from the Son.

> * With Augustine's statement of the doctrine may be compared the statement of
Hilary de Trinilate tsp. ii 29-35, viii 25, ix 73, lii 55.

232 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

l\ave snhsta7itia are contrasted with tliosc which only have an imaginaiy
existence, being fashioned by illusory or unreal thought, like Centaurs
or giants (Seneca Ep. 58) : — a contrast which shews the meaning of
stibstantia to be * real existence '. And again, it is said that before you
can enquire about a man, Who he is, you must have before you his
subsfatiiia (sc. his real existence, the fact that he is) : so that you cannot
make the question of his being a subject of examination (Quintilian
vii 2. 5). That is to say, substantia denotes real existence, as to the
particular form or character of which enquiry may be made. So, too,
substantia and qualitas are distinguished as subjects of investigation
{ib. 3. 6) ; and in this way it comes about that the substantia of a thing
is an easy periphrasis for the thing itself.

A secondary sense of the terra — ' property ', ' patrimony ', ' fortune ' —
has been sufficiently referred to in the text in connexion with Tertullian's
usage (see supra p. 138).

It is in its primary sense that it was adopted for doctrinal purposes
in connexion with the attempt to describe the Godhead. It had to do
duty, as we have seen [supra p. 117), for both ova-La and viroaTaats.
Both words alike are rendered substantia by the Latin translator of
Irenaeus, the sense expressed being the substratum of a thing or being,
having of course particular qualities or form, but conceived of as apart
from its qualities or form.

The regular philosophical sense on which the doctrinal use of the
term is really based is seen, for example, in Tertullian de Anima 11,
where he distinguishes between the soul as substantia and its acts or
operations ; and in the adjectival forms which he employs, for instance,
de Res. Cam. 45 and adv. Prax. 7, 26. [He discusses the relation
between the ' old man ' and the ' new man ' and argues that the differ-
ence is moral not substantial ; that is to say, the substantia man is the
same. And commenting on the ]Monarchian wish to avoid recognition
of the Son as a distinct entity (substantivus), he declares that he is a
substantiva res, whereas ' the power of the Most High ' and the like are
not, but only accidentia substantias. Or again ' faith ' and ' love ' are
not substantiva animae but conceptiva, — that is not the substantia but
the concepts of the subsfantia.'\

This difference which Tertullian defines between substantia and the
nature of substantia (see also supra p. 140, and cf. p. 235) practically held
its ground through the later developements of Latin theology. Sub-
stantia is the term regularly employed to express the being of God —
the Godhead in itself, as a distinct entity. The substantia has its own
natura which is inseparable from it, but the substantia is not the natura.
The retention of the distinction is plainly perceptible in the expression
of the doctrine of the Person of Christ — the union of the Godhead and
the manhood. Latin theologians shrink from speaking of the union of

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 233

the two ' natures ' merely. If they do not actually employ the term
substantia (speaking of the substantia of Godhead and the substantia of
manhood as united in the Person of the Son), they use some other
phrase to represent it rather than natura. Thus forma Dei and forma
servi are preferred by Hilary, as flius Dei and flius hominis by
^ovatian and Augustine ; and Leo, though he freely uses utraque
natura, is careful to mark his full meaning by adding et substantia to
natura, and by interchanging with it the expression utraque forma
{forma conveying a more definite conception of an actual entity — a
substantial existence — than natura). Vincent, too {Commonit. xii, xiii),
owing to this clearness of Latin usage, was able to put the case in
regard to the Christological controversies which Leo had in view
without the ambiguities with which it was confused for Greeks. He
describes the error of Apollinarius as the refusal to recognize in Christ
two substances {duas substantias), the one divine and the other human;
whereas Nestorius, pretending to discriminate the two substances in
Christ, really introduces two persons : and he sets out as the Catholic
faith ' in God one substance, but three persons ; in Christ two
substances, but one person'. Using substantia throughout, defined
either as divina or as humana, and retaining Tertullian's distinction, he
can also speak with perfect lucidity of the natura of the substance.

So too in the Chalcedonian definition of the doctrine, in terms
entirely consonant with the teaching and discrimination of Latin
theologians from Tertullian to Leo, first there is recognized in the
person of Jesus Christ the two substantiae of Godhead and manhood
(he is unius substantiae with the Father secundum deitatem, and also
uniiLS substantiae with us secundum humanitatem), and then it is
declared that the one person exists in the two natures. (See fui-ther
Texts and Studies vol. vii no. 1 pp. 65-70.)

PERSONA— irpo'o-co-n-ov

The history of the word persona outside ecclesiastical use ia clear.
First, it is an actor's mask ; then, by an easy transition, the part the
actor plays, which is represented by his mask ; then, any part or r61e
assumed by any one without regard to its duration. Secondly, it is the
condicio, status, munns whii.li any one has among men in general, and in
particular in civil life. And so it is the man himself so far as he has
this or that persona. Thus slaves, as not possessing any rights of citizen-
ship, were regarded by Roman law as not having persona : they were
airpucTw-iToi or persona carentes. (Cf. the phrase personam amittere ' to
lose rank or status' ami the Vulgate rendering of Trpoa-wirov Xafiftavuv —
viz. renpirere or asjiirnre personam.) It is this second sense of the word
by which ecclesiastical usage is controlled ; and the most important fact

234 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

to notice is that it never mpans what ' person ' means in modern popular
usage, even when it seems to be used very nearly in the sense of
' person ', and when it has no other representative in English. It
always designates status, or character, or part, or function : not, of
course, that it is conceived as separate from some living subject oi
agent, but that attention is fixed on the character or function rather
than on the subject or agent. It is always a person looked at from
some distinctive point of view, a person in particular circumstances ;
that is, it conveys the notion much more of the environment than of
the subject. It expresses in its ecclesiastical usage in a single word
precisely what Basil's rpoTros vTrdp$€(i}<; denoted, and what uTrdcrTao-ts was
ultimately narrowed down to mean.

The history of irpoa-wirov is similar, as to its primary uses, to that of
persona. In the New Testament the regular sense of the word is * face ' :
either literally (of living beings or trop. of e.g. the face of the earth), or
as equivalent to ' presence '. It is also found in the phrase irpoa-iimov
Xafjif3aLV€Lv and cognate expressions, which have been referred to above ;
while it is used in some special senses by St Paul — e.g. (1) the outward
contrasted with the inward, as in 1 Thess 2^'^ where it means nearly
' presence ', and 2 Cor 5^^ where it denotes ' outward show ' or ' de-
meanour' as contrasted with real feeling; (2) the phrase ev Trpoo-coTrw
Xpia-Tov, 2 Cor 2^° 4^, where it stands for * character ' or ' part ' ; (3)
2 Cor 1^^ where it is almost exactly like Tertullian's persona. But
it is pr(jbably as a translation of the Latin term that it is first found in
connexion with Christian doctrine, and there seems to be no reason in
the nature of things why it should not have served Greek theology as
persona ultimately served the Latins. Only, it was entirely spoiled for
doctrinal purposes by the use which Sabellius and his followers made of
it and its derivatives (see supra p. 105).

When it had once been definitely employed to express the conception
of distinctions in the Godhead which were merely temporal and external,
different parts played in the process of self-revelation to the world and
to men by one and the same Person, it was almost impossible that it
should ever be adopted to denote distinctions which were eternal and
rooted in the very being of the Godhead, entirely apart from any relation
to the created universe and tlie human race. Like the Latin persona, it
was just the word that was wanted to express the thought of the three
relations in which the one God always exists, the three distinct spheres
of being — each representing special functions — which together make up
the divine life. There was no reason why it should not have connoted
all the notion of permanent ' personality ' which properly attaches to the
names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It could easily have been safe-
guarded in use from limitation to merely temporary idles (or parts or
characters or functions) assumed simply for particular purposes. But

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 235

Sabellius stole the word away ; and Greek theologians were left without
any suitable way of expressing the conception, till tliey could agree
among themselves to use another term which properly meant something
quite different, and could win general acceptance for the artificial sense
which they put upon the term they used. (See further Texts and
Studies vol. vii no. 1 pp. 70-74.)

Ovaia — 'Y7rooTa(ris

The word ovcrta expresses primarily real existence, actual being —
that which actually is. As used by Plato it was the special characteristic
of the Ideas — the realities (to. ovto) as contrasted with the appearances
on earth (to. <^aivo/xeva) : the Ideas by imitation of which, or participation
in which, things as we know them are what they are. And each class
of things has its own particular ovaLa, namely, the Idea — so far, that is
to Bay, as anything but the Idea can be regarded as existent at all.

But it was Aristotle, rather than Plato, who fixed for later times the
usage of the word. To him (besides having commonly the meaning
* possessions ', ' property ', as substantia in Latin) it is equivalent to to
aval ; but particularly he uses it to express real concrete existence — to
6y, TO ciTrAdis ov. It is the first in the series of categories, ' substance ' :
and to it attach, and from it are distinguished, all conceptions of quantity
or quality, all attributes or properties {avfxjiilirjKOTa). And thus, in
accordance with Aristotle's inductive method, it is primarily and properly
descriptive of individual particular existence — each particular entity (the
TcISf Tt) : and this primary sense is distinguished as -n-puiTyj ovaia. But
inasmuch as there may be many examples of one particular ovcria, it
may signify that which is common to them all — to whole species or
classes : and this secondary sense of the word is distinguished as
o«uT«pa ovcria..

These are the two main usages of the word. It always expresses
substantial existence. It may be used of the whole entity, or of the
' matter ' or the ' form ' of which every perceptible substance is conceived
by Aristotle as consisting. Or it may be used where for the immediate
purpose it seems that the .sense required might be conveyed by (^vai^ or
' nature ' — the sum total of the attributes or properties {a-vfjif^eftijKOTa).
But it is never employed as a mere synonym for ^wVis. It always
means much more, including </)U(ris perhaps, but logically to be dis-
criminated from it.

'YTTocTTatris, as a philosojjhical terra, is a later and much more rare
word. Aristotle only uses it in its literal meaning of 'a standing
beneath ' or ' that which stands beneath ' {i.e. either of the action of
subsiding, or of that which remains as a result of such action, viz.
' sediment '). But the philosophical usaye of the term is derived directly

236 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

and naturally from an onrlier and not uncommon use of the verb of
which it is the noun. The ovcrta was said to exist at the outset, to be
the underlying existence (v^fo-Tavai) ; and so the noun {rn-do-Tacris was a
possible equivalent for ovaia, expressing the essential substratum, the
' foundation ' of a thing, the vehicle of all qualities. The earliest
examples of its use are found in Stoic writers, and thenceforward both
words, ovaia and vTroo-racris, were current without any clear distinction
being drawn between them. But ovcrta was by far the commoner term,
vTrdoTacrts being comparatively rarely found. So Socrates {H.E. iii 7)
could say ' the ancient philosophical writers scarcely noticed this word ',
though ' the more modern ones have frequently used it instead of
ovaia' . It was, however, as has been stated supra p. 117, the equi-
valent of {iTToo-Tao-t? (viz. substantia) which was acclimatized in the Latin
language more readily than the equivalent of ova-ia (viz. essentia), and
therefore substantia was all through the normal term by which Latin
theologians expressed the conceptions for which ovcrta stood.

The LXX translators of the Old Testament employed the word to
express the ' ground or foundation of hope ' ; and it was introduced into
Christian theology by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews. In his
phrase )(apaKTrip t^s VTrocrTcicrccD? avTov (Heb. 1^), vTrdcrracrts is exactly the
equivalent of ouo-ta ('being', 'essence', 'substance', as in the fita ova-ia
or una substantia of later technical theology) ; and so it was expounded
by the later Greek theologians, who would themselves have used ovo-ta
there instead and have kept vTr6aTaaL<i to express the characteristics of
the existence of the ' persons ' of the Trinity. The same metaphysical
conception is seen in the definition of ' faith ' as eATrt^o/Aevtov v7r6aTaaL<i
(Heb. 11^) — viz. that which gives reality to things hoped for, the faculty
by which we are able to treat as realities things which are as yet only
objects of hope — and probably in the other passages in the New Testa-
ment in which vivoaTaaL'i occurs (Heb. 3^*, 2 Cor. 9* W^"^ — in which at
least the meaning ' subject-matter ', ' the matter of ' is possible ; of. the
Vulgate and Tyndale's versions).

So ouo-i'a and vTroVTao-is remain in use side by side. Origen was the
first to attempt to discriminate between them ; but the use of vTroaraai^
as the equivalent of ovaia was too firmly rooted to be much shaken.
The supposition that Dionysius of Alexandria was familiar with a
difl'ereut usage, and that rpcts vTroardaeis meant to him exactly what it
meant to the Cappadocian fathers, is no doubt extremely attractive ; but
the temptation to antedate in this way the develoj)ement of precision of
terminology in this connexion must be resisted. The fragments of the
correspondence between him and Dionysius of Rome that are extant
shew that he had not arrived at the conception of such a clear dis-
tinction. He realized three forms of existence more vividly than one
Bubstautial entity of Deity (see supra p. 114 n. 2). So great was his

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 237

reputation, that if the discrimination had been in any way due to him,
it is impossible that it could have died out in the great theological school
of his see ; and the whole history of the subsequent century proves
conclusively that no more at Alexandria than anywhere else in the East
had the implied precision of terms been attained.

So the framers of the Creed of Nicaea and its anathemas still used
ovaia and vTroorao-ts as synonyms, and as synonyms still the Arianizing
parties in the Church in subsequent years put both words alike under
the ban. (So Athanasius de Deer. 20, repeating the Nicene anathema,
has only i$ erepas ovo-ias ; and in one of his latest writings ad Afros 4,
refuting the objections brought against the words as non-scriptural, he
says " vTToo-Tao-is is ovcria and means nothing else but simply being." And,
though most of the creeds devised as substitutes for the Creed of Nicaea
are content to forbid the use of ovaia without mention of wroo-Tacris,
the Synod of Constantinople in 360 declared against vTroo-Tao-is too,
evidently regarding the words as synonymous — see the Creed in Hahn'
p. 209.)

It was at the Synod of Alexandria in 362 (see supra p. 186), presided
over by Athanasius, that formal recognition was first conceded to the
usage ex the word vTrooracrts which made it possible to speak of the
Trinity as rpci? vTroo-racreis, while still being faithful to the definitions
of the doctrine at Nicaea ; though at the same time the older and
original usage, according to which fua {iTroo-racri? only could be said,
received like recognition (see Ath. ad Antiochenos 5, 6, and Socr. H.E.
iii 7). By this time many * orthodox ' theologians were becoming
accustomed to the usage of the two terms oucria and uiroo-rao-is, whereby
oLcrta expresses the existence or essence or substantial entity of the
Trinity as God, and v7ro(rTao-t9 expresses the existence in a particular
mode, the manner of being of each of the * Persons '. The Cappadocian
fathers, more than any others, contributed to securing currency for this
distinction. Basil of Caesarea, in particular, clearly defines the sense of
viroo-Tao-is as to i^Liii<; Xtyo/xivov — a special and particular sense of ovaia.
It denotes a limitation, a separation of certain circumscribed conceptions
from the general idea. " Not the indefinite conception of ovcria, which,
because what is signified is common to all, finds no fixity, but that
which by means of the special characteristics {or properties) which are
made a{)parent gives fixity and circumscription to that which is common
and uncircumscribed {Ep. 38)." And again {Kp. 214): " Oicria has
the same relation to vn-dcrTao-is as the common has to the particular.
Every one of us both shares in existence by the common term of ova-ia
and by his own properties is such or such an one. In the same
manner, in the matter in question, the term ovaCa is common, like
goodness or Godhead or any similar attribute {i.e. it is not ' gooflncss '
or any attribute) ; while vTrocrrao-it ia contemplated in the special

238 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

property of Fathi'rliood, Sonship, or the power to sanctify." That is
to say, vTroo-rao-is expresses the particular mode of existence or special
function.

So the two terms passed together into Catholic use to express
respectively the one Godhead and the forms of its existence. There is
ui'a oiVi'a and T/Dfis vTroo-rao-cts, or fxia ova-ia iv rpialv viroaTdcrfcriv — one
substance or essence or entity, in three subsistencies or forms or modes or
spheres of existence or consciousness : one God permanently existing in
three eternal modes. The oi<ria of Father and Son and Holy Spirit is
one and the same. Both Father and Son together with the Holy Spirit
are the Godhead. The one Being exists in three forms, or spheres, or
functions. The one God is tri-personal. (See further Texts and Studies
vol. vii no. 1 pp. 74-81.)

CHAPTER XIV

The Christological Controversies — Apollinarianism

The Results of the previous Developements

As a result of all the controversies on which the Church
pronounced at the Council of Constantinople, it may be said
that the Christian conception of God was clearly enough de-
fined. From the observed facts of human experience — the
experiences of the people of Israel recorded in their sacred
books, the experiences of the life on earth of Jesus of Nazareth,
observed and interpreted by his immediate followers and their
successors, the experiences of those same disciples and subse-
quent generations, the experiences of the continuous life of the
Christian society through more than three hundred years — the
deduction had been drawn. As an interpretation of human life,
and of experiences which were felt to connote the workings of
God in the world, the experience of the whole Christian revela-
tion, the doctrine of the Trinity was framed.

The facts of human experience, thus marshalled and ex-
amined, pointed to the existence of one Supreme Being, at once
outside the world and in the world, eternally existing and
manifesting Himself in three modes of existence — three spheres
of being — represented by the three names, Father, Son, and
Holy SjMrit : the three names representing three eternal re-
lations existing within the Godliead, and manifested in operation
in the universe and in the world of human experience.

The three eternal relations or modes in which the One God
simultaneously exists and operates are distinct, and are capable
of being distinguished in human thought and experience, and are
to be attributed respectively to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
These three ' Persons ' together form the One Godhead.

So much of definition of experience and description the
Church had reached. But it cannot be said there was yet

239

240 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

any precise and clear conception of personality. And this difiB-
culty, not even yet surmounted, was at the root of the next great
controversy to which the Church was led.

At the outset of the sketch of the controversies up to this
time, it was stated that the Catholic doctrine of the Person of
Christ, as ultimately framed, took note of four main factors —
his full and perfect divinity, his full and perfect humanity, the
union of the two in one person, the relations existing between
the two when united in the one person.

By the time the Arian controversy ended, the first two
explicitly and the third implicitly of these four factors had been
fully recognized in the doctrine of the Trinity ; but the attempt
to examine the relations existing between the two natures in the
incarnate Son was attended by no less serious troubles. The
uncertainty as to what constituted a ' nature ' was as great as
the uncertainty in regard to a ' person '.

This uncertainty is the keynote to the debates of the fifth
century, in the prelude to which ApoUinarius played the leading
part.f

The Points of Departure of ApoUinarius and His Theories

ApoUinarius ^ had been a chief champion of the Nicene
doctrine against the Arians, and it was in opposition to them

* ApoUinarius, Bishop of Laodicea, in the latter half of the fourth century, was
son of the grammatida (schoolmaster) of Berytus, and afterwards presbyter of
Laodicea, who undertook the composition of Christian works, in imitation of the
old classics, when Julian's educational laws precluded Christians from studying and
teaching the ancient Greek and Latin literature. In this work the son helped hia
father, and also wrote in dnlence of Christianity against Julian and Porphyry,
and against heretics, such as the Arians and Marcellus, besides commentaries on
Scripture and other works, of which only fragments are extant in the answers of
Gregory Naz. Epp. ci, cii (to Cledonius), Gregory of Nyssa Antirrhelicus adv. Apoll.
ami Ep. ad Theophilum adv. Apoll., and Theodoret. Cf. also Epiphanius adv.
Haer. Ixxvii, 'Athanasius' Contra Ai^oll. (Eng. tr. Bright Later Treatises of Hi
Alhanasius, probably not the work of Atlianasius — see Draseke Zeitschri/t /. vriss.-
schaft. Thcologie 1895 i)p. 254 If. — but written wliile the controversy was at its
height), Theodoret Fabulae Haer. iv 7, v 9, 11, and Basil Ep. 263 (very vague).
Jerome was among his jjupils in 374, and he was at first on terms of warm frieud-
sliip with Athauasius and BasU, on account of his learning and sujjjiort of the Nicene
party in the Arian controversy. His, or a similar, doctrine was condemned by a
synod at Alexandria in 362, but the doctrine does not seem to have been widely
known till about 371, and he did not secede from the Church till 375. The condemna-
tion was renewed by synods at Rome, under Damasus, in 377-378, and by the
.Second General Council in 381 ; and imperial decrees were issued prohibiting the
[lublic worship of Apollinariaus 388-428, till they became absorbed in the Church or
the Monophysites. He died in c. 392. See P. Schaff Art. 'ApoUinarius' D.C.B,

APOLLINARIANISM 241

that he was led to devise his peculiar theory. Two motives in
particular determined him.

First, the Arian teaching of the possibility of moral change
in Christ, by which the Logos was subjected to the course of
growth and developement of character, and the decision for good
was in every case the free act of a will that might have chosen
evil. From such a theory of free will and freedom of choice it
seemed to follow that the redemption effected by Christ was
only the work of a finite being, making himself redeemer by his
own free act, and therefore not really effective for the human
race, except as shewing how such redemption might be won.
And no human soul could be entirely free from the taint of
human weakness. Zeal for the full true deity and perfect sin-
lessness of Christ by very nature was thus a foremost motive to
ApolHnarius.

A second motive was conditioned by the ambiguity of ter-

It is also probable that some writings of ApoUinarius were intentionally attri-
buted by his followers to various ' orthodox ' fathers, in order to gain currency for
them. One of the earliest essays in literary criticism deals witli this matter. Under
the name of Leontius of Byzantium (485-543), a contemporary of Justinian, there
is extant (lligne Ixxxvi 2 p. 1948) a critical study of the authorship of writings
attributed to Gregory Thaumaturgus, Julius, Athanasius, which contain teaching
other than that of the Chalcedonian Definition. The writer decides (chiefly on the
ground that they contain sentences which his disciples quoted as from his works)
that three of them were by ApolHnarius — (1) The Kara ixipos TrlaTH Hahn* p. 278,
an exposition of the faith, ascribed to Gregory Thaumaturgus ; (2) some letters
ascribed to Julius of Rome ; (3) a Creed on tlie Incarnation Hahn' p. 266 — ascribed
to Athanasius, accepted as Athanasian, and followed as such by Cyril of Alexandria
— containing the formula //.la (piKTii rou Geov X6you ffeaapKu/x^vT} (one incarnate nature
of the Divine Word), but quoted from by writers against Monojjhysites as a composi-
tion of ApoUinarius. In the judgement of the writer of this study (who seems not to
have been Leontius, but perliajw John of Scytliopolis, c. 500, wlio did investigate
genuine remains of Apollinariusj the fraud passed because the Cluirch was ready to
welcome teaching as to the one nature of the incarnate Son. Tliis example of early
literary criticism has recently been followed by a modern scholar, wlio argues tliat
whole treatises have been so dealt willi, and assigns to ApoUinarius, as well as the
Creed above named and fragments of a work on the Incamalion, tlie correspondence
with Ba.sil {Epp. 3G1-3C4 in Basil's Works), the last two books of Basil's Treatise
against Eunoinius (written c. 360, thoroughly orthodox, especially in regard to the
Holy Spirit), Dialofjius on the Holy Trinity (assigned variously to Athanasius,
Theodoret, and others), and tlie wtpl rpidooj under tlie name of Justin (wliicli clciirly
cannot bo earlier than this time, while (iregory Naz. refers to a trcatisi- of ApoUinarius
on the Trinity), None of these writings, liowever, shew any of the j)eculiar theories
known as ApoUinariaii. See further ' A jiollinarius von Laodicaea' J. Dr.-isi^ke,
7'erle und I'nlersuchunyen (Gebhardt und IJaniack) 1892; and article in Church
Quarterly October 1893. And on the date and autliorsliiii of the work aiivrrsm
frawUs Apollinistanm .see Loofs Texte u. UiU. iii 1, 2. On the oorresijondouce
with Basil see Texts and Studies vii 1 {». 38 ff.

242 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

minology already noted. To ApoUinarius it seemed that a
complete ' nature ' was the same thing as a ' person '. A com-
plete divine nature and a complete human nature joined together
meant two persons joined together. If, therefore, Christ had all
the constituents of humanity, the two complete natures thus
supposed would make two persons, for there could not be a
composition of his person out of two. (The current teaching
of the union of full divinity and full humanity in one person —
two wholes in one whole — he regarded as an absurdity.)

It was this fear of a double personality, and of a human
freedom of choice in Christ, that dominated the thought of
ApoUinarius.

Now, the freedom of choice resided in the mind or spirit, or
rational human ' soul ', in the higher sense of the term.^ This
was the determining and ruling element in human nature,
necessarily instinct with capacities for evil — in virtue of which
developemeut — good or evil — was possible. Furthermore, it
was this that difl'erentiated one man from another — the seat
or centre of the power of self-determination, and therefore
of all real personal distinction — and constituted independent
personality.

If Christ possessed no human soul there would be in his
person no sphere in which freedom of choice could be exercised,
and there would be no human personality to be combined
with the divine. There would be only the divine Logos
himself, as the sole determining power, in the person of the
incarnate Christ.

This, therefore, was the interpretation which commended
itself to ApoUinarius as a way of escape from all the difficulties.
Christ was actually God become man. A real union of the
Logos with a rational human soul there could not be, because
either the human being thus united would preserve his own will
distinct (and so there would be no true union of the divine and
the human), or the human soul would lose its liberty and be,

* He followed the threefold division of man, to which Plato gave currency, into
body, soul (irrational or animal — the principle of life), and spirit (or rational soul,
the controlling and determining principle). Cf. 1 Tliess. 5^, Gal. 5'^. But some of
his opponents (' Athanasius' and Gregory of Nyssa) exjiressly disallowed this three-
fold division, maintaining that Scripture recognized only a 'dichotomy' into body
and soul. (They refer to the account of the Creation of man in Genesis and to tlie
Gospel narrative of the death of the Lord — while his body lay in the grave, he went
with his soul into Hades.) See Adv. Apoll. i 14, and Antirrhet. 8, 35.

APOLLINARIANISM 243

as it were, absorbed.^ The Logos therefore occupies the place of
the human rational soul, taking to himself a human body and
an animal soul, becoming himself the controlling power and
principle thereof, and completely filling and animating the human
elements with the higher life of God. In this way the unity
of the person was preserved,^ though the person was " neither
wholly man nor wholly God, but a blending of God and man " ; ^
and the Scriptural teaching was maintained — " the Word became
flesh " (not spirit), and God was " manifest in the tlesh ".*

Objections to his Theories and his Defence of them

To this theory the obvious objection was soon taken, that
the ' soul ' was the most important element in human nature,
and that, in denying to the person of the Christ a human soul,
Apollinarius was emptying the Incarnation of its meaning and

» See Note ' The Human Will in Christ' infra p. 249.

* It will be noticed that in two particulars Apollinarius was in harmony with
the ultimate verdict of the Church — (1) In rejecting the personality of the human
nature ; (2) in finding the centre of personality in the Logos (see infra p. 294),
It must further be observed that the formula /i/a <pv<ns tov 6eov \6yov aeaapKw-
ftivij, "one incarnate nature of the God-Word", attributed to Apollinarius and
adopted by Cyril (see infra p. 274), is widely different from the formula, "one nature
of the Word incarnate " (tila <pvais rod Oeov \6yov aeeapKwixlvov). The former
phrase includes the 'flesh' in the nature which is defined as one, and so it was
used by Cyril without implying a new nature neither divine nor human (for he
said, iK ivo (pvaewv). But to Apcilliiiarius it probably did connote the idea of a
fresh and uniquely constituted nature. Cyril believed the phrase to have been
used by Athanasius in a treatise cm the Incarnation, which was, however, probably
written by Ai>ollinarius, and ascribed to Athanasius by his followers {see Note
on p. 241 sujira).

* oOre ifOpuiTTOi 3Xos, oCt€ de6^, dXXa deoO Kal dvOpunrov p-i^is. This mode of
expression, 'mixture' or 'blending', had been used in all good faith in earlier
times, e.g. by Tertullian Ajiol. 21 homo dec mixlus, Cyprian de idol, vanit. 11, and
Deus cum homine miscelur, Lactantius Inst, iv 13 Densest el homo, ex ulroqtu <jenere
permixtus. Origcu speaks of tlie union of tlio two natures as an interweaving
(avvvftialvtadai) and a Kpaan or iviKpacn {Contra Cels. iii 41, cf. de Princip. ii 6.3).
So Ircnaeus adv. Ilacr. iii 19.1, and others, down to the two Gregories, wlio both
use the terms avyKpajis and uviKpaais, and nearly ajiproach the idea of a transmu-
tation of the human nature into the divine (as Origen I.e.), though they express
detinitily the duality of tlic natures {rfiuaen fxiv bvo, 0c6i kuI At'Opwiroi). Even
Augustine says, "Man was linked and in some small way commingled with
{commixtus) the Word of God, to elfect the unity of i)erson" {de Trin. v 30).
None of the opponents of Apollinarius cxjness the manner of the union satis-
factorily ; thougli they do maintfiin tlie entirety both of tlie Godiiead and of the
manhood.

♦To this Gregory of Nazianziis rejilied Ep. ci th^it ' llesh ' was hero used for
human nature, the part for the whole ^vcdpKwaii really meant ivav0pil)in)iji%.

244 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

making it unreal.^ If his theory were true, the highest faith
and deepest convictions of Christians were dehisions. God had
not become man : He had only, as it were, put on a garment of
llesh.^ And, further, the spirit or soul, which, as he argued, was
the seat of sin, needs redemption as well as the lower soul and
body of man. That which transgressed was that which stood
most in need of salvation.^

Yet Apollinarius undoubtedly held the person so composed
to be human as well as divine, and maintained that since the
Logos was himself the archetype of all human souls the objec-
tion to his theory could not be upheld. The Logos occupied no
external or foreign position in relation to man, but was the
very truth of human nature. All human souls were in a way
adumbrations of the Logos, and therefore when the Logos him-
self was present in a human body, the very highest and truest
form of human existence was realized.

This extremely interesting and subtle argument met with
less acceptance than might, perhaps, have been expected. The
recognition of the natural aifinity existing between the human
soul and God might have smoothed the way to a really satis-
factory doctrine of the Person of Christ. But the particular
expression which was given to the thought was certainly open to
the gravest suspicions. Apollinarius denied to Christ a human
soul. That was clear ; and the consequences of the denial were
readily appreciated. Against such a mutilated humanity in
Christ the faith of the Church revolted. The Incarnation was
the assumption of the entire human nature — sin only excluded,
as being no part of a perfect human nature;* and the argument
of Apollinarius was ingenious rather than convincing.

' See Additional Note to this chapter on 'The Human Soul in Christ' p. 247.

- Christ was only debi aapKo4>6pos — God clad in flesh (just as later on, by con-
trast, Nestorianisni was said to teach an dvdpuwos 0fo<p6poi — a man bearing with him
God — but on this latter phrase see in/ra p. 276). Ignatius had used the word
<rapKO(p6poi of Christ {ad Smyrn 5).

* See e.g. 'Ath.' contra AjjoU. i 19 ; and the retort of Gregory Naz. ISp. ci 'If
only half Adam fell, then that which Christ assumes and saves may be half also',
and that if Christ could not have had a human soul, because the soul Ls ' under
condemnation ' (through sin), still less could he have assumed a human body :
what he did not assume remains unredeemed. Cf. note following. "Those who do
away with the humanity and the image within cleanse only our outside by means
of their new spectral person " Ep. cii.

• The question how entire manhood could be compatible with entire sinlessness
In Christ is dealt with at length in 'Ath.' coTdra Apoll. bk. ii — the answer being
that the human nature assumed was all that God had made, and this excluded sin,

APOLLINARIANISM 245

He was indeed accused by Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory
of Nyssa ^ of actually teaching that the flesh of the Lord was
pre-existent, that .his body was accordingly of a celestial sub-
stance, not formed from the Virgin, but a portion of the divine
essence clothed in matter. The saying, " No one has ascended
into heaven but he that came down from heaven, the Son of
Man who is in heaven ", he w^as said to have interpreted as if
he was the Son of Man before he came down, and came down
bringing with him his own flesh which he had had in heaven,
beincr, as it were, itself eternal and made co-essential with him.
Such teaching would be, of course, in effect the old Docetism,
and the prospect would be nothing short of a revival of Oriental
mysticism, which would virtually deny Jesus Christ as come in
flesh.*

But in his own words to the Emperor Jovian, he
emphatically condemns as ' insane ' the teaching that the flesh
of Christ is consubstantial (co-essential) with God, and " came
down from heaven ", and therefore was not really derived from
the Virgin.

The wild theory attributed to him, therefore, must have been
an unauthorized inference from his real teaching, possibly made
by his own adherents, going farther than their master, and
applying to the whole human nature what he said of the spirit

which was the work of the Devil. Cf. Greg. Nyss. Ep. adv. A-poll. "Though he
was made sin and a curse on account of us . . . and took our weaknesses upon him,
. . , yet he did not leave the sin and the curse and the weakness encircling him
unhealed. . . . Whatever is weak in our nature, and subject to death, was mingled
with the Godhead and became wliat the Godhead is." St-e infra pp. 246, 247.

' A freed, still in use among the Armenian Christians, is remarkable for the
clear and copious language in which it precludes Apollinarianism : "Came down
from heaven and was incarnate, was miide man, was born of the holy Virgin Mary
through the Holy Spirit completely — so as to take a body and soul and mind,
and everything that there is in man {or all that goes to make a man) really, and not
in seeming . . . went up into heaven in the very body, and sat on the right hand
of the Father, will come in the very body." The Creed is given in Greek in
Hahn* p. ir»l ff., cf. p. 137, and is regarded by Ilort {Two Disucrtations p. 116 flf.)
as the ' Capjiadocian ' Creed at the end of the foiiitli ccntufy, composed perhaps
about 366-369, at Tarsus (where AjioUinarian teaching at Laodicea might well be
known earlier than c].s(;\vh(Ti',) by Silvaniis (the teacher of Basil and of Diodorus),
an'l introduced by Basil into the churches of Cappadocia, anil tlionce into the
Church of Armenia (whose patriarchs were consecrated at Caesarea, the Cappadocian
caj)ital, till the end of the fourth century, the Cluirch owing its origin at the
beginning of the century to Cajijiadocia). For other views of the origin of this
Creed see Hahn* Appendix p. 154.

' See Greg. Naz. Ep. ci, ccii, and Bright St Leo on the Incarnation p. 618.

246 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

ouly.^ This was indeed an inference that might be easily, if
carelessly, drawn from his own assertion, that the tlesh of
Christ — while really derived from the Virgin — might be called
co-essential with the Word, because of its close union with
him ; from the close connexion, on which he insisted, between
all human nature and the Logos who was the means by which it
was originally made ; and from his use of phrases such as ' God
is born ', ' God died ', ' our God is crucified '}

It was the Apollinarian use of phrases such as these that
was peculiarly abhorrent to Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore
of Mopsuestia, the leaders of the thought of the school of
Antioch at the end of the fourth century and the beginning
of the fifth ; and the opposition which they roused was followed
by the years of controversy on which the Church at last pro-
nounce<l at tlie Council of Chalcedon.

It has been stated ^ that the manner of the union of the
two natures in Christ was not satisfactorily expressed by the
opponents of Apollinarian theories. Gregory of Nyssa, in par-
ticular, frequently uses expressions which imply the absorption
of the human into the divine, so that the special characteristics

^ It should, however, be noted that Hilary of Poitiers, in his treatise de Trinitate
(written c. 356-359 in Asia Minor, to expound the teaching of the Church against
Arianism), does tiot hesitate to use the expression 'heavenly body' (corj)us cccleste)
of the body of Christ, and to sny tliat his flesh was from heaven (caro ilia de coelia
est), c 15 ; x 73. The creation of the human soul of Christ was really a work of
the Logos (Hilary held 'creationism' as to the origin of souls), and it was only the
material of the body that he derived from his mother. But the material is at first
a formless mass, and only becomes a body by the operation of the animating form-
giving soul : and this smil was really of his own creation, so that he was himself the
fashioner (conditor) of his body (ipse corporis sui origo est, c 18), and tliorefore it had
a heavenly origin. (He is, however, quite clear that from the Virgin was derived
the earthly material of the body). — See further Dorner D.P.O. Eng. tr. I ii p. 402 ff.

* It was in view of such expressions that the theological principle known as
eommunicatio idiomalum {d.vrl5o<ns IBiwudruu) was finally worked out (see irifra
p. 293), though the conception was already fully expressed by Athanasius Or. c. Ar.
iii 31, and by Tertullian before him. The opponents of ApoUinarius refused to
associate the sufferings of the Christ with his divine nature. The Apollinarians
therefore argued that their opponents held that he wlio was crucified had nothing
divine in his own nature, and that their refusal to associate the sufferings with the
divine nature involved the recognition of two persons — one human and one divine,
one a Man who suffered and one a God who could not suff«r. This inference was, of
course, re])udiated at once, and tlie doctrine was laid down, as clearly as at a later
time, that there was one Person and that he underwent the different experiences in
virtue of his two different natures. See especially 'Ath.' adv. Apoll. and Greg.
Nyss. Antirrhet. 27, 52, 54.

» See p. 243 n. 3, p. 244 n. 4.

APOLLINARIANISM 247

of the huiuiui nature disappear. He says ^" The firstfruits of
the human nature assumed by the almighty Godhead, as one
might say — using a simile — like some drop of vinegar com-
mingled with the infinite ocean, are in the Godhead, but not in
their own peculiar properties. For if it were so, then it would
follow that a duality of Sons might be conceived — if, that is, in
the ineffable Godhead of the Sou some nature of another kind
existing in its own special characteristics were recognized — in
such wise that one part was weak or little or corruptible or
temporary, and the other powerful and great and incorruptible
and eternal." This is to say that the human nature is so over-
powered by the divine, that it no longer remains in any effective
sense an element in the being of the Person of the Incarnate
Son. It is a full and complete human nature that is assumed ;
but the effect of the union is represented here in a manner
inconsistent with any real human probation and developement.
Where can real human experiences come in, if the manhood,
which is the sphere of them, is so transformed ?

Such a presentation of the matter by so distinguished a
theologian shews how much had yet to be done before a satis-
factory doctrine of the Person of Christ could be framed. Other
passages in Gregory no doubt go far to correct the expressions
wliich he uses here, as, for example, when he ridicules Apollinarius
for attributing all the experiences of the Incarnate Person to the
Godhead ; "^ and ^ where he defines /x/^t? (as used by Apollinarius)
to mean ' the union of things which are separated in nature '.
But if this passage were taken by itself it would be Eutychianism
before Eutyches. It as little recognizes for practical purposes a
true human nature in Christ as did the teaching of Apollinarius.
Such conceptions could not be allowed to pass without protest :
there was need for a Nestorius to play his part in the develope-
ment of doctrine and secure once again — even at liis own cost
— the faith of the Church in the manhood as well as the
Godhead of the Saviour of men.

THE HUMAN SOUL IN CHRIST

If the (loctrinft of the Incarnation is not to be pnij)tioci of its true
aignificance, if the full humanity as well as tho full divinity of Jesus ia

' Ef. adv. Apoll. (Migno ilv p. 1276).

• ArUirrhet. 24. Antirrhet. 61.

248 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

to be maintained, it seems to be obvious that he must have had a human
soul as well as a human body : if the term soul be used to mean, as
it is in this connexion, witlioul more modern precision of definition,
the higher element in human nature that controls and determines
thought and action — the mind, the reason, the spirit, the will. A
human nature robbed of this constituent would be merely animal. It
is inconceivable that any of the contemporaries of Jesus and first
preachers of the Christian revelation should have been in any doubt
about the matter. But the thinkers of later generations, under stress
of their sense of the essential evil of matter and all things connected
with the body, formed theories of the person of Christ which excluded
the human nature altogether ; and then the defenders of the doctrine of
the Incarnation were naturally led to lay chief emphasis on the reality
of the human body and its visible experiences. Had the question been
raised, it seems possible, indeed, that their opponents, the ' Gnostics ',
might have accepted the theory of a human soul while still denying
the reality of the human body. But the distinction between soul and
body seems not to have been thought of in this connexion. (Yet see
Tert. de Carne Cliristi § 10.) "The Word became flesh" was the
simplest expression to hand, and this antithesis oifered the readiest
distinction The Word — his essential divinity ; the Flesh — from which
all human characteristics came. So it seems to have been the ' flesh '
which was regarded as the source of all human feelings and experiences
by those who insisted most strongly on the human nature : and the
antithesis ' fleshly and spiritual ' stands for * human and divine.' To
Ignatius, for example, this contrast comes naturally (see the passages
cited eupra p. 121). It was the reality of the body or the flesh that
was denied, and it is in terms of the body and the flesh that he
maintains the human nature. And Irenoeus {adv. Haer. iii 22. 2),
in speaking of his experiences of fatigue and grief and pain, says that
they were signs or tokens of " the flesh, assumed from earth, which he
recapitulated in himself, saving that which he himself had formed ".
So, too, Justin Martyr, anxious to maintain the truth of Christ's
humanity, like that of other men, made use of phrases which ex-
pressed his possession of body or flesh, and of the animal soul (i/'^x'?) >
and it seems certain that he intended to assert his full entire manhood.
But he speaks of him as being constituted out of body, the Logos, and
soul — whence it might be inferred that he regarded the Logos as taking
the place of the rational soul or spirit. [It is, perhaps, possible that he
may have meant body and soul to express the whole human nature,
though he commonly accepts the threefold division of man, in which
' soul ' is used to express the animal principle.]

Tertullian is the first to give unmistakeable expression to the
Catholic conception. It was easier for him to avoid mistakes, as he

APOLLINARIANISM 249

adopted the twofold division of human nature into body and thinking
soul, as animating principle (see de Anima e.g. 27, 51), But he also
maintained the soul to be the real essence of man, and explicitly argued
that if Christ was to be the redeemer of men he must have united to
himself a soul of the same kind as that which belongs peculiarly to men
(of. de Came Christ i 11 ff.).

Origen, as we have seen {supra p. 150), had a definite theory in
regard to the human soul with which the Logos was united.

The Arians were the first to frame an explanation of the person of
Christ which, while admitting as constituents a human body and an
animal soul {4'VX'I "t^^oyos), expressly excluded the rational soul (vov's,
-TTvevfjLa) and supposed its place to be taken by the Logos, thus and so
far anticipating Apollinarius. It was in accordance with this theory
that they preferred the description in the Creed ' made flesh ' ' in-
carnate ' (crapKtoOaTa) to the term ' made man ' {ivavOpM-rrTia-avTo) which
their opponents were constrained to introduce : the ' flesh ' they fully
admitted, but they Icnew that the latter term would pin them down to
the human soul as well, as they could not exclude from * man ' the
very constituent which raises him above all other created things.

It was reserved for Apollinarius to take up their theory in this
particular, and to try to turn it against their teaching in other respects,
while professedly maintaining the full humanity of Christ by the
ingenious argument noted above.

THE HUMAN WILL IN CHRIST

Probably the most important result of the Apollinarian controversy,
as regards the developement of doctrine, was the strengthening of the
conviction that the manhood of the Lord was complete, including a
human soul. This conviction, at least when consciously realized,
involved the recognition of a human will and of the possibility of a real
moral probation and developement, as regards his liuman nature, in
Christ. Such a recognition of a human will seemed to Apollinarians to
Ijc an obstacle to the p(;rsonal unity of the Logos (see sxipra p. 242) —
two whole wills could not coexist together. This was one difficulty
which their opponents had to meet.

They dealt with it sometimes by arguing that the denial of the
human free will led to still greator diniculties. Thus Gregory of Nyssa
(Antirrhet. 45) declared that if the human soul of the Lord did not
possess free will (the power of choice and self-determination), his life
could neither bo a real example and a moral pattern for us, nor could
it effect any gain for the human race. But sometimes a different line
of reasoning was adopted, as by Gregory of Nazianzus (A/>. ci 9), who
admits some incompleteness of the human mind relatively to the divina

250 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

miml. Our mind, he says, is a complete whole (TtXtiov) and possessed
of sovereign power (>;y«/AovtKov) ; that is to say, it has sovereign power
over the animal soul and body. Relatively to the rest of us, it is
sovereign and complete. Ikit absolutely it is not so ; it is God's slave
and subject. In relation to His rule and honour, it is inferior and
incomplete. (So a hill, while complete in itself, is incomplete in com-
parison with a mountain ; and a grain of mustard seed in comparison
with a bean, although it may be larger than any other seed of the same
kind.) So a relative incompleteness of the human mind (soul) is
recognized, in relation to the Godhead of Christ, in virtue of which the
problem of the coexistence in his person of two complete wholes (the
human mind and the divine) is set aside. Viewed absolutely, it is not
a case of one whole crowding out another whole. So the two wills
may be acknowledged without fear that the one must yield place to
the other. (But see also Or. Theol. iv 2.)

But the question had also to be considered, not only in regard to the
unity of person, but also in regard to the freedom of the person from
sin. It was an ethical question as well as a metaphysical problem.
Could the Lord have a human soul (and the human will which it
implied) and yet be sinless (x^P'S a/xaprtas) ?

HOW CAN CHRIST BE 'COMPLETE MAN' AND
'WITHOUT SIN'?

The fullest consideration of this question is to be found in
' Athanasius' adv. Apoll. ii 6 ff . (cf. i 17), in reply to the Apollinarian
objection " If He assumed human nature entire, then assuredly He had
human thoughts. But it is impossible that in human thoughts there
should not be sin. How then wUl Christ be ' without sin '?" The
answer given on the ' orthodox ' side is first — that God is not the maker
of thoughts which lead to sin, and that Christ attached to himself only
what he himself had made. Adam was created rational by nature, free
in thought, without experience of evil, knowing only what was good.
He was capable of falling into sin, but was endowed with power to
withstand it, and in fact had been free from it. It was the Devil who
sowed in the rational and intellectual nature of man thoughts leading to
sin, and so established in man's nature both a law of sin and death as
reigning through sinful action. Thus it became impossible for that
natiire, having sinned voluntarily and incurred condemnation to death,
to recall itself to freedom. Therefore the Son of God assumed this
inward nature of man, not a part of it only, but the whole of it (for sin
was not a part of it — but only a disposition infused by the Devil), and
by his own absolute sinlessness emancipated man's nature henceforward
from sin.

APOLLINARIANISM 251

The ApoUinarians, however, were not to be silenced so easily. They
declared that the nature which had become accustomed to sin, and had
received the transmission of sin, could not possibly be without sin.
That is to say, they argued that human nature had become tainted by
sin — the intellectual nature of man was incapable of escaping sin : and
therefore there was no human nature free from sin for Christ to assume
(such seems to be the meaning of their objection § 8). Its natural bias
was to sin, and the human nature of Christ could only have escaped sin
through the overpowering constraint of his Godhead — a constraint
which would in efl'ect destroy the freedom of will. The writer insists,
on the contrary, that sin is not of the essence of manhood, and that the
victory was won through the human nature which had once been
defeated : Jesus went completely through every form of temptation,
because he assumed all those things that had had experience of tempta-
tion; and it was not with the Godhead, Avhich he kne-w not, but with
man, whom he had long ago seduced and against whom he had ever
since directed his operations, that the Devil engaged in warfare, and,
finding in him no token of the old seed sown in man, was defeated. It
was the form of man as at first created, fiesh without carnal desires and
human thoughts, that the Word restored or renewed in himself. The
will belonged to the Godhead only. (This passage was adduced at a
later time by the Monothelites, but the context shews clearly that the
writer fully recognized a human will in Christ, and only intended to
maintain that all the volitions of the human nature in him were in
harmony with the will of the divine nature.)

ApoUinarians have no right whatever to say ' it is impossible that
human nature which has once been made captive should be set free
from captivity '. In so doing they ascribe impotence to God and power
to the Devil.

Such in brief is the answer which was given. Jt may, perhaps, be
said to fairly meet the Apollinarian objection. But this writer does not
seem to have faced the question " If the huniiiii nature which was
assumed was not a nature so far fallen as to be cajjable of sinning,
although remaining free from sin, how can the Incarnation and the
perfect obedience of the Incarnate Son have effected the redemption of
fallen man? What more did it do than exhibit an example of man as
he was before the Fall, as he might have been if there had been no Fall?
How could a mere example of sinloss humanity, proscrved all throngh
from sin through union with the Godhead, avail to save men whose
nature was already sinful? "

Gregory of Nyssa, however, does seem to regard the human nature
assumed by Christ as fallen (sinful) human nature. So he writes
(Antirrhfit. 26 Migne xlv p. 1180) "For we say that God who is
essentially free from matter and invisible and incorj'oreal, when the time

252 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

of tlie consumiiKition of all things was drawing near, by a special
dispensation of love toward men ; when wickedness had grown to its
greatest ; then, with a view to the destruction of sin, was blended with
human nature, like a Sun as it were making his dwelling in a murky
cave ani by his presence dissipating the darkness by means of his light.
For though he took our filth upon himself, yet he is not himself defiled
by the pollution : but in his own self he purifies the filth. For, it
says, the light shone in the darkness, but the darkness did not over-
power it.^ It is just what happens in the case of medicine. When
curative medicine is brought to bear upon the disease, the ailment yields
and vanishes, but it is not changed into the art of medicine."

And he recognizes progress of the human nature (Jesus) under the
influence of the divine wisdom (Christ) with which it was united (ibid.
28). So again he maintains with reference to Lk. 22*^ ' Not my will,
but Thine be done ', that there was in him the human will which shrank
from pain as well as the divine will (though the latter always prevailed),
the human weakness as well as the divine strength. The Lord made
his own ' the lowly things of human fearfulness ', and gave proof of his
possession of our nature by sharing in its aff"ections (ibid. 32). (Cf.
* Ath.' de Incarn. et c. Arian. 21.) And again {ibid. 53) "In his great
long suffering he endured not to repel from communion with himself
our nature, fallen though it was as the result of sin, but to receive it to
himself to give it life again."

That is to say, the human will, though fallen, is able by union with
the divine will to realize its true power. In this conception the solution
of the problem may be found. J

'THE ATHANASIAN CREED '2

Recent investigation has firmly re-established the traditional view of
the unity of the Quicumque vult as against the theory advocated by
Prof. Swainson and others, that the Creed was composite, formed out of
separate parts — expositions of the doctrine of the Trinity and of the
Incarnation. There are no indications of such patchwork about it:
early commentaries on the Creed as a whole are in existence ; and the
' two-portion ' theory depends on the evidence of mere fragments of
texts and assumptions which are quite inadequate to prove it.

There is also general agreement that it is to the south of Gaul that we
must look for its origin, and great probability that its birthplace and early
home was the famous monastery of Lerinum, founded by Honoratus, of
which Faustus and Vincent and Hilary of Aries were members.

' Tliis seems certainly to be the sense m which Gregory understood the passage
John 1' — ou KariXa^ev contrasted with dvaXa^Jiv above.
»See Iiahn»p. 174.

APOLLINARIANISM 253

It is further recognized that the Creed is prior to Eutychianism,
though some of its phrases are clearly applicable to a similar form of
thought ; but there is still dispute as to whether it is really directed
against Nestorian or against Apollinarian conceptions.

It must suffice here to indicate reasons for the conviction that it
is Apollinarianism that is opposed, and to cite the chief christological
passage from the Creed for examination, as bringing iato focus the
different points in dispute throughout the controversy which has just
been reviewed. It is as follows : —

••' . . . Dominus noster Jesus, Dei filius, Deus pariter et homo est.
Deus est ex substantia Patris ante secula genitus, homo ex
substantia matris in seculo natus : perfectus Deus, perfectua
homo, ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistens, aequalia
Patri secundum divinitatem, minor Patre secundum humani-
tatem. Qui licet Deus sit et homo, non duo tamen, sed unus est
Christus : unus autem non conversione divinitatis La carnem, sed
assumptione humanitatis in Deum ; unus omnino non confusione
substantiae, sed unitate personae. Nam sicut anima rationalis et
caro unus est homo, ita et Deus et homo unus est Christus." J[
Let us see (1) what is opposed, (2) what is maintained.

(1) Opposed is conversion of divinity into flesh, and confusion of
substance (which means ' confusion of God and man ' as passages in
Vincent and Augustine clearly shew). To these charges Nestorians
were certainly not open. ApoUinarians as certainly were, in their
desire to avoid the risk of a double personality.

(2) Maintained is the completeness of the Godhead and of the
manhood (the former being in substance the same as the Father's, the
latter in substance the same as his Mother's), and the assumption of
humanity into God, in such a way that there are not two persons, but
one ; that one being both God and man.

That is to say, we may recognize to the full the two natures
(though it is the inclusive term substantia tliat is used), without fear
that by so doing we shall be involved in recognition of a double
personality.

There is nothing here that would hit Nestorians. The completeness
of the humanity (as well as of the divinity) was a cardinal tenet with
them, and they at any rate did not raise the difficulty of the union of
the two substances in a single person.

The real aim of the Creed is to uphold (1) two complete substances,
(2) united in one person. This is exactly what we should expect from
an opponent of Apollinarianism (see e.g. Vincent Commonit. xii, and cf.
Note on ' Substantia * supra p. 233) ; and the incidental phrases ex
subiitantia matris, in seculo natus, ex anima rationali et humana carne,
and the reference later on ui the Creed to the Dcaccut into Hell (on

254 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

which much stress is laid by writers against ApoUinarius), favour the
conchision that the com])osition of the Creed may bo assigned with
the greatest probability to the period during which Apollinariauism was
rife, preceding the outbreak of Nestorianisui in 428 a.u.

(The best collection of materials for the study of the problems
connected with the Creed is to be found in G. D. W. Ommanney
^4 Critical Dissertation on the Athanasian Creed 1897, side by side
with which should be read A. E. Burn The Athanasian Creed Texts
and Studies vol. iv no. 1, where a lucid statement of the history of
criticism of the Creed is given in the Introduction. Waterland'a
Oritical History is still valuable.)

CHAPTER XV

NESTORIANISM'f

The Theological Schools of Alexandria and Antioch

In these controversies, as in others, considerations which were
really outside the main questions came in to complicate
and embitter the relations between the two parties. Personal
and ecclesiastical rivalries played their usual disconcerting part,
and permanent differences in the mental constitution of men
were reflected in the two great schools of thought which were
engaged. The Alexandrian school had lost much of the scholarly
instinct and interests which had characterized its representatives
in earlier days, and the inheritance had passed to Antioch. The
mystic tendency was to be found at Alexandria, the rational at
Antioch. The theologians of Alexandria fixed their attention
almost entirely on the divine element in the person of Christ,
and so asserted in the strongest terms the unity of the divine
and the human in him. "While confessing the duality, they
emphasised the unity. The human nature was taken into
organic union almost as if it were absorbed with the divine :
though the union was a mystery, incomprehensible. By the
teachers of the school of Antioch, on the other hand, attention
was concentrated in the first place on the human element. The
completeness of the human nature of the Lord was certain, even
if its separate personality was thereby implied. The tendency
at Antioch was thus to separate the natures and ex])luin the
separation — to confess the unity but em])hasi8e the duality.

Cyril, if himself untainted by the extreme conclusions, was
at least an exponent of conceptions that easily led to the view
of Christ as a composite being — a confusion of God and man —
the Logos having absorbed humanity — one person and one
nature. Nestorius, in his teaching, was only carrying on the
traditions of the school of Antioch, which tended to see in

266

256 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Christ a man who bore the divine nature, or the Logos joined
to human nature — two persons and two natures.

Diodorus and Theodore

These traditions had been formed and maintained by the
Ljreat teacher Diodorus of Tarsus (f 394) and his more
famous pupil Theodore, the teacher in turn of Nestorius, and
probably the real originator of ' Nestorianism '. He seems to
reflect both in his life and teaching the best spirit of the
school of Antioch. For ten years after his ordination ^ to the
priesthood by Flavian, Bishop of Antioch, he devoted himself
to the pastoral work of the office, and to assiduous teaching and
writing, first at Antioch and afterwards at Tarsus (c. 383-393).
During this time he established so high a reputation that he
was chosen as Bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia, and until his
death, thirty-six years later (c. 428), his fame as a scholar and
bishop continually grew. He died "in the peace of the Church
and in the height of a great reputation " ; retaining to the last
the warmest afifection of Chrysostom and the highest regard of
the emperor. An excellent scholar, far-famed in his day as a
pillar of the truth and a commentator on the Scriptures,^ and
honoured as a bishop and administrator, he may thus be taken

^ Theodore was born at Antioch, of distinguished parentage, about 350. He
waa a pupil also of the famous sophist Libanius (also a native of Antioch), in
whose school he began his lifelong friendship with that other pupil of Libanius,
whose eloquence won for him the name of Chrysostom (the 'John' who should
have succeeded his master * if the Christians had not stolen him '). In early youth
he was caught by the prevailing enthusiasm for monasticism, and went from the
feet of Libanius to the ascetic and studious life of the cloister ; but his ardour
soon cooled, and he returned to the prospect of office and honours in public life,
and even wished for marriage. Chrysostom succeeded in dissuading him from such
a change of purpose, and at the age of thirty-three his ordination took place
(c. 383).

* He is said to have composed Commentaries on the Psalms (noticeable for their
free investigations into questions of authorship and date), and on other books of the
Old Testament, as well as on the New Testament — some of which are still extant in
Syriac or Latin translations, if not in their original Greek, though of many there are
only fragments left. (He became to the Nestorian — East Syrian — Church the great
exponent and critic of the Scriptures, and his works were at once translated into
Syriac. ) But besides these commentaries he wrote a large number of dogmatic and
controversial treatises, and, in particular, one On the Incarnation, of which frag-
ments are extant ('Against the Incarnation ' an ojiponent a century later styled it).
See Migne P.G. Ixvi and Ixxxvi ; Leontius c. Nest, et Eutych. iii 43 ; and H. B.
Swete Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Minor Ejnstles of St Paul Appendix A vol. ii
pu. 293 tf.

NESTORIANISM 257

as a good representative of the theological thought of the
Eastern Church at the end of the fourth century. The views
to which he gave expression — though some took exception to
them — commended themselves to the Christian scholars of
his time, and shew us the stage in the developement of the
doctrine of the Person of Christ which had then been reached.
It was left for a general council after his death to condemn
his teaching (though not himself^) and to hunt to death his
pupil Xestorius — who was elected Patriarch of Constantinople
in the very year in which Theodore died — when he gave expres-
sion to the same or similar thoughts. Not till a hundred years
after his death was the anathema pronounced which marked him
as a heretic, outside the Catholic Church.*

His characteristic conceptions can be clearly seen in the
fragments, which are still extant, of his work On the Incarnation.

In one of the longest of these ^ he discusses the nature of
the indwelling of God in Christ. It is clear, he argues, that
God does not dwell in all men, for it is promised as a special
privilege to those that are holy (the saints) (Lev, 2 6 ^2). Some
have supposed that the indwelling spoken of is the indwelling
of the ' being' of God. If this were so, the being of God would
have to be limited to those in whom he is said to dwell, if the in-
dwelling is to have any special significance : in which case he would
be outside all else. This, however, is absurd, since He is infinite,
everywhere present, and cannot be locally circumscribed. Or
if we admit that He is everywhere, then by using the expres-
sion ' being' in tliis way, we should have to concede to every-
thing a share in his indwelling too : — to everything, not only to
men, but even to irrational things and those that have no soul

* A confession of faith drawn up by him was laid before the Council of Ephesus
(431), and attacked by Cliarisius, a jirf.shyter of I'liiladelphia. It had, he said,
been sent by the No.storians in Constantinople to soino yuaitodeciinau heretics in
Lydia, who wished to return to the Catholic Church, and had misled them into still
greater errors tlian those from wliich they were to be brought. See Ilahn* pp.
302-308. This creed was regarded by Cyril {Quod unus eat Christus § 728) and
by Marius Mercator (Migne P.L. xlviii p. 877) as tlie recognized statement of the
Nestorian pr)sition.

'At tlio Fifth General Council, at Constantino[)le, in 553 :— a contrast to the
earlier verdict which was voiced in the cry often heard in the churches, "We
believe as Theodore believed ; long live the faith of Theodore I " (Cyril Al. Ep. 69).

* The extant fragments were collected and edited by 0. F. Fritzsch, 1847,
and again by H. B. Swete I.e. This passage is from the seventh book of the
work On the IiuMrnalion, quoted by Leoutius (485-543) c. Nest, el JSutych. ii> *9
(Migne P.O. Ixixvi 1 pp. 1267-1396). f

258 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

{or life). So both alteruaLives are equally absurd, and it is clear
that we must uot speak of the indwelling as of the ' being ' of
God. Others have described the indwelling as the indwelling of
the energy (force, activity, operative power) of God. But this
supposition brings us face to face with precisely the same diili-
culties — the same alternatives. The only way in which the
truth can be expressed is by the use of the term complacency
(or good pleasure or approval).^ The indwelling of God is the
indwelling of the divine approval. With the disposition of
some God is well-pleased ; and in or by His pleasure in them,
His approval. He dwells in them. By nature, as has been
said. He cannot be limited or circumscribed ; Pie is omnipresent :
' near ' and ' far ' are words that cannot be applied to Him.
But in this moral relation He is near some and far from
others. There is a divine aloofness and separation from those
who have not affinity to the divine nature. A divine indwelling
is established in those who are by character, by moral disposition,
worthy of it. Of this ' indwelling ' there are grades : in some
it is closer than in others, according as they have a closer or
less close affinity to him. It is the same indwelling in the
apostles and the just as in Christ. But Theodore repudiates,
as the height of madness, the idea that the indwelling in Christ
was comparable in degree to the indwelling in the saints. For,
in the first place, the fact of his sonship to God, he declares,
removes him to another plane. It means that God united
with Himself entirely the man that was assumed, and prepared
him to partake with Him of all the honour which he who dwelt
in Him — who is son by nature — shares. The sonship thus
brings Christ into a uniquely close relation to God, who dwells
in him in a unique degree. This indwelling furthermore, in
the second place, began, in accordance with the divine fore-
knowledge, with the very first formation of the manhood in
the Virgin's womb (in the case of the ' saints ' the idea seems
to be that they must prove their worthiness first), and shewed
itself in his quick discernment of good and evil and his constant
and easy choice of good and hatred of evil ^ — in all of which

^ The terms used are ovirla, iv^pyeia, and eiSoKla. Cf. the earlier use of the
terms ^eXij/xart, fiovX^, and the like, in ronnexion with the generation of the Son.
So eidoKiq. . . . "^evvT^divTa in the Creed of the Apostolical Constitutions, Hahn '
p. 140.

^ Thus, though contending against Apollinarian denial of moral freedom in
Christ, Theodore does not allow the idea of liberty to result in liberty of choice,

NESTORIANISM 259

he received the co-operation of the divine Word, proportioned to
his own natural disposition. Thus he advanced to the most per-
fect virtue, the pattern of which he afforded us, being appointed
as it were for us a way to that end. And, thirdly, the union
which he enjoys with God is indissoluble.

Such is the general account which Theodore gives of the
relation between the two natures in Christ^ — the human and
the divine. He does not shrink from the term unification —
union (ej/eocrt?), though he often uses a word which means
' conjunction ' (avvdcpeia) rather than ' union.' It was his use of
this term rather than the other to which exception was taken
by his opponents. An extract which we owe to them enables
us to understand his drift. It would be quite unfitting, he says,
to speak of ' mixture ' of the natures, for each retains indis-
solubly its own characteristics. ' Union ' is the proper term,
through which the natures concur to form one person, so that

but ratlier conceives the idea of the higher liberty, which consists in the un-
changeable harmony of the human will with the divine — a kind of liberty which
practically excluded all sin (Hefele Councils vol. iii p. 5). Comp. Augustine's
conception of free will, as freedom to do always that which is right — see in/ra p. 310.

^ Dr. Swete sums up the teaching of Theodore upon this point, as exhibited in
his commentaries on the Pauline epistles, in the following sentences : —

"In Jesus of Nazareth the invisible Word, the Only- Begotten of the Fathur,
manifested Himself, dwelling in the Man, and inseparably united to Him. The
Man Christ ... is thus the visible image of the invisible Godhead ; and on
account of his union with the true Son of God, he possesses the privileges of a
unique adoption, so that to him also the title Son of God belongs. . . . But if
it be askf-d, in what sense God dwelt in this Man, we must reply that it was by a
special <lisposition towards him, a disposition of entire complacency. God, in His
uncircumacribed nature and essence, fills the universe, nay, is all in all ; in Christ
He dwells in the person of the Word liy a moral union, so unexampled and complete,
that the divine Word and the humanity which He assumed are constantly regarded
as being one person. The Man who thus became the habitation of God the Word
received at liis baptism the further indwelling of Goil the Holy Ghost, by whose
power he wrouglit miracles, attained to mora! perfection, ami accomplished all that
was necessary for the salvation of mankind" {'I'luodore of Mopsxustia on the Minor
Epistles of St Paul vol. i pp. Ixxxi ff. ).

And, jiointing out the source of Tlieodore's doctrinal errors, he says: "With
the true estimate of the evil of sin, the necessity for an actual Iiuarualion of the
Eternal Word disappcirs ; a man indissolubly united to God thr(iuf,'h tiie peimanent
indwelling of the Word suffices for tlie work of vanquishing death " (ihid. p. Ixxxvii).

In connexion witli Theo<Jore'8 "defective estimate of sin", it is to be noted that
Marius Mercator charged him witli being one of the originators of I'elagianism, and
that he received Julian of Edanum and other Italian bishoi)S, when they were
banished from their sees by Zosimus in 413 for refusing U> accept the condemnation
of Pelagius and Coelcstius (see infra p. 320 n. 2). Theodore, however, afterwards
coiii:urred in the condemnation of Julian.

260 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

what the Lord says in the case of husband and wife, " They
are no longer two, but one tlesh ", we too might reasonably
say of the conception of union, " they are no more two persons
but one " — the natures of course being distinguished. For just
as in the case of marriage, the fact that they are said to be
one tlesh does not prevent their being numerically two (the
sense in which they are styled ' one ' is evident) ; so in Ihe
case before us the unity of the person does not preclude the
difference of the natures (the fact that the person is one
does not prevent the natures being different). This is how the
matter stands — When we consider the natures separately, we say
that the nature of the divine Word is complete, and the person is
complete, for we cannot speak of a distinct existence {vTrocrraai^;)
as impersonal ; and we say that the human nature and person
likewise is complete : when, however, we have regard to the con-
junction of the two, then we say that there is one person.

The conception of personality may not be very precise —
the difference between ' nature ' and ' person ' not exact or
definitive — but Theodore certainly means to recognize (and other
passages have the same effect) the divine and the human nature
in Christ, and the unity of his person. The one person has
for its constituents the divine Word (the God-Word) and the
humanity — each in its entirety ; the person resulting from the
union of the two is one.^

When his exposition was represented as implying that there
were two sons (the human element in Christ was son in one sense,
and the divine element — the God-Word — in the fullest sense), he
expressly repudiated this inference from his teaching. His main
desire had been to provide for a free moral developement in the
Saviour's manhood, and to preclude the errors of Apollinarian
theories.

The Outbreak of the Controversy — Nestoriiis at Constantinople

Such were the literary and theological traditions in which
Nestorius was trained. This was the environment in which, as

^ Dorner's view is that "Theodore never really arrived at the conception of
volitions and thoughts, which were at once divine and human (divine-human) : for
he supposed the two natures (represented hy him, at the same time, also as two
persons), as to their inmost essence, to continue separate and distinct . . . Strictly
■peaking, the two jicrsons were one only in outward appearance, as the image of
marriage shews ! " {DocL of the. Per son of Christ Eng. tx. Div. ii vol. i p. 47).

NESTORIANISM 261

ft member of tlie monastery of Euprepius near Autioch, he won
so great a reputation for eloquence and austerity that he was
elected Patriarch of Constantinople; and thither he went in 428
with his chaplain Anastasius, a presbyter of Antioch, and an
adherent of Theodore's views. At Constantinople he at once
began an active campaicjn against heresies, which was sure to
rouse up animosities ; but it was apparently ^ his chaplain who
actually kindled the flame, by preaching against the use of the
title ' Theotokos ' ^ applied to the Virgin Mary. The title had
been in use for many years,^ but now apparently, as a result of
the increasing tendency to pay her homage, it was being brought
into new prominence ; and when Anastasius declaimed against
it, " Let no one call Mary ' Theotokos ' ; for Mary was but a
woman, and it is impossible that God should be born of a
woman ", the fanatical feelings of the crowd were stirred, and the
title became at once the watchword of a party.

Nestorius followed up his chaplain's attack.* ' Theotokos '
was held to savour of heathenism and to be opposed to the
scriptural phrases which could be applied.^ Mary was mother
of the human nature only. God alone was Theotokos. All
that could be properly be said of Mary was that she was the
receptacle of God and gave birth to Christ.® The divine and
human natures were distinctly separated. There was only a
* conjunction ' of them — an ' indwelling ' of the Godhead in the

* So Socrates II. E. vii 32 relates. The exact circumstances are not quite certain.

' GeorA/coy (Lat. deipara, dei gcTietrix) — ' Jlother of God ' is the common English
translation, but the word meaas more precisely 'who gave birth to God' — God-
bearer. Cf. German 'Gottesgebiirerin '. It is not really equivalent to /J-rjTrjp Oeov
which was used at a later time. As Dr. Robertson writes — "In the Greek word
OtordKOf tlie comjioneiit Oe^j is logically a predicate, and as such is absolutely
justified and covcn-d by the Ciitholic doctrine. On the other hand, in the English
phrase Mollifr of God, 'God' is jiraiticiilly a subject rather than a predicate, and
therefore includes logically the person of the Father." See also infra p. 2G2.

'It had been used by Origeu, Alexander of Alexandria, Eusebius {V.C. iii),
Athanasius {e.g. Or. c. Ar. iii 331, Cyril (Cat. x 19), and others.

* The sermons of Nestorius (five adv. dei gmiHru-cm Mariam and four adv.
hoAresim I'elaginnam) are extant in a Latin translation in the works of Marius
Mercat^ir, an African orthodox layman, who was in Constantinople at the time and
took great interest in the controversy. His other works were diligently destroyed,
and only fragments are extant as quotations in the writings of opponents, e.g. in
the Acts of the C'lUiifil of E[)hesuH, and in Cyril Al., (!s|)0(i.illy his five bool<g
against the blusjihemy of Nf^storius. The twelve anathemas in answer to Cyril*
are only extant in the translation of J^Iarius.

* e.g. the dirurwp a^iiTwp nf Hob. 7*.

* Tlie terms that could bo used were 0fo36xof and xP^ffrorhKot.

262 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

man, resulting in a moral and sympathetic union. ** I separate
the natures, but the reverence I pay them is joint", are the
words in which Nestorius defended his teaching.^

Such a union is rightly described as ' mechanical ' and as
due to the arbitrary exertion of the divine power, by which
natures incongruous and incompatible in their essence liad been
brought together in an artiticial alliance rather than a living
union.

The Title &eor6Ko<i

To refuse to the Mother of the Lord the title * Theotokos '
was doubtless to deny her a title of honour that was rightly
hers ; but it w.is much more than this. The English translation
' Mother of God ' brings into undue prominence the thought of
the glory of her motherhood ; the Greek term fixes attention
rather on the Godhead of him who was born. To deny that she
was Theotokos was really to deny that he who was born of her
was God ^ as well as man. The abruptness of the English
phrase does not attach to the Greek, which effectually guards
the interpretation of the revelation in Christ that sees in him
Very God made man, and teaches that the Son of God in
assuming manhood from the Virgin lost nothing of the Godhead
which was eternally his. At the same time it is worthy of note
that it guards equally well against an opposite error from that
which is now before us — he who was born of Mary must have
been man as well as God.

Cyril of Alexandria — Denunciation of the Nestorian Teaching

The natural deduction from the denial of the title was
indeed speedily made. Cyril ^ of Alexandria declared that some
of his monks refused to call Christ God, styling him only the
instrument of divinity ; and later on he charged Nestorius with
denying the divinity of Christ. At Easter 429 he issued
an elaborate exposition of the doctrine, and stirred up the

* Separo naturas, sed conjungoreverentiam. Cf. the reply of Noetus supra p. 104.
' See on thia point and for the whole question the admirable notes to Bright'a

Sermons of Leo on the Incaraaiio'n (note 3 pp. 127, 128), and his Waymarks in
Church Eistvry, pp. 180, 181.

* For the history and character of Cyril see the Church Histories and W.
Bright's article in D.C.B. He was certainly the best theologian of all who were
engaged in this controveisy. 5

NESTORIANISM 263

Egyptian monks and clergy iu Constantinople and the ladies
of the court, and engaged in a heated correspondence with
Nestorius. Throughout the controversy, though Cyril had no
doubt the better case, his methods of conducting it were most
unamiable ; and he cannot be acquitted of the suspicion of being
prompted by worldly motives, and jealousy of the rising see of
Constantinople, as well as by the desire for theological truth.
To Nestorius Apollinarianism was a ' red rag ', and he was less
dignified in manner than his chief assailant ; but impetuous as he
was, he would have accepted, instead of ' Theotokos ', a term that
perhaps sufficiently defined the theory,^ had the controversy been
less d outrance. As it was, Cyril secured from Celestine, the
Bishop of Eome, the formal condemnation of Nestorius, by a
Council held in August 430 ; and, having ratified the sentence at
a Council of his own at Alexandria, he sent it to Constantinople iu
November, with a long expository letter and a dozen anathemas,
which constituted an attack upon the whole school of Antioch.*
The letter, though couched in somewhat arrogant and dictatorial
terms, is of high importance as a statement of the doctrine which
is the basis of the anathemas. Nestorius responded to it by
twelve counter-anathemas.'

Cyril's Anathemas and the Answers of Nestorms

These two sets of anathemas reveal sufficiently clearly the
points at issue.

L Cyril maintains that Emmanuel * (the Incarnate Son) is
truly God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is ' Theotokos ' —
for she has generated (in fleshly wise) the Word of God who has
become flesh. Nestorius replies that he who is Emmanuel is not
to be called God the Word, but rather ' God with us ', in the
sense that, by the fact of his union with our constituents
received from the Virgin, he dwelt in the nature which is like
ours ; and the Holy Virgin is not to be called Mother ' of God

' Viz. XpiffToriKoi or 0€o86xoi.

'The Icltcr is given in Heurtloy de Fide et Symbolo as tho 'third letter' to
Nestorius pp. 182ff, It ia fi\ao known &a tho Ejdstola Synodica. Tim anathemas are
given in Ilahn* pp. 312-.'51G with tho Latin transliition of Marius Mercator. (TJio
Knglisli in IIi;fule Conncih iii j>. .SI IT. who, liowovor, follows a (litferent text.)

•These are only extant in the Latin translation of Marius Mercator — Habu *
pp. 316-:n8.

* 'Qud with us' — i.e. the Incarnate Person, both Go<l and man.

2C4 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

the Word ', but ' of him who is Emmanuel '. Nor is God the
Word liimself to be said to be changed into flesh, which he
received for the purpose of manifesting his deity, so that he
might be found in bearing as a man,

ii. Cyril maintains that the Word of God the Father was
hypostatically united with flesh, and with His own flesh is one
Christ — one and the same God and man together. Nestorius
replies by an anathema on any one who, "in the conjunction of
the Word of God which was made with the flesh, says that a
change from place to place of the divine essence was made, and
that the flesh was able to contain the divine nature, and that it
was partially united to the flesh ; or again ascribes to the flesh an
infinite extension, so that it could contain (or receive) God,
though the divine nature cannot be contained within the limits
of the flesh 'V and says that the same nature is both God
and man.

iii. Cyril condemns the view of those who m the case of the
one Christ divide the hypostases (? persons or substances) after
the union, conjoining them only by a conjunction of dignity, or
by an arbitrary act of authority or power, and not rather by a
concurrence or combination of them such as effects a ' natural '
union. Nestorius insists that Christ, who is Emmanuel, is not
to be called one in regard to nature, but in regard to the
conjunction (of the natures) ; and that out of both ' substances '
(that of the God-Word and that of the man assumed by
him) there is one combination — the Son, and that the sub-
stances still preserve this combination without being ' confused '.
[Nestorius probably used both ovaia and hypostasis} He under-
stood Cyril to mean a union into one nature, though he
really meant a real union into one being, one hypostasis, as
opposed to a moral or external union. Nestorius was anxious to
uphold the permanent distinction between the divine and the
human, and to repudiate any mixture or merging of one in the
other, and to him there were still two hypostases in the one

* The Latin is very obscure "in infinitum incircumscriptara divinae naturae
coextenderit camem ad capiendum Deum ". Perhaps the Greek was direplypa,<f)oy ttjs
Betas (pv(Tfms.

' In the corresponding anathema of Cyril, Marius M. translates virda-raa-ii by
substantia, though in others he has subsistentia. If Nestorius wrote virddraffis (and
not oiiffia), it was probably in tbe sense of ovala, according to the older usage ;
and so it was rightly rendered by substantia. (Marius M. has essentia once —
Anatb. ii.)

NESTORIANISM 265

Christ. Cyril meant nearly what we mean by person, Nestorius
meant what Latins meant by substantia.]

iv. The Scriptures contain sayings about Christ by himself,
and by others of him, some of which seem to apply to him as
man, some as the Word. Cyril condemns the method of
interpretation which would separate these sayings into two
classes, and apply them respectively to the two persons or
hypostases (the man and the Word) conceived of separately from
each other.^ Nestorius replies that Christ is of both natures, and
that to apply these sayings, as though they were written of one
nature, is to attribute to the very Word of God human affections
and passions.

y, vi, vii, viiL Cyril protests against calling Christ ' a God-bear-
ing man ' ^ (rather than truly God and the one Son by nature),
or calling the Word the God or Lord of Christ ; or saying that
in Jesus as man the Divine Word operated, and that the glory of
the Only-begotten was attached to him as something foreign. Nor
may we say that the man who was assumed is to be worshipped
and glorified together with the Divine Word, and together with
him be called God, as distinct from him (diO'erent from that in
which he is) ; but one worship and one doxology is to be oUered
to ' Emmanuel '. Nestorius, on the other hand, declares it
anathema to say that after the assumption of man the Son of
God IB naturally (by nature) one ; or after the Incarnation to
name as God the Word anyone but Christ, and to say that the
' form of a servant ' which was with God the Word did not have
a beginning but was uncreated as He is, instead of acknowledging
it to have been created by him as its natural lord and creator
and Goil. Again, we must not say that the man who was created
of the Virgin is the Only-begotten who was born from the womb
of his Father before the Day-star ; whereas he is acknowledged
by the title of Only-begotten by reason of liis union with him
who is by nature the Only-begotten of the Father. And, on the
question of worship, Nestorius replies that it cannot be offered to
the ' form of a servant ' itself, which is reverenced only in virtue
of the fellowsliip by which it is conjoined and linked together with
the blessed and naturally sovi^reign nature (if the Only-begotten.

ix. Cyril repudiates the U^aching tliat the one Lord Jesus
Christ received glory from tlie Sy^irit, and used the power which he

' Cf. on this point Leo's Lrtler to Flaman § 5, infra p. 290.
* See note on 0eo(popos avOfjonroi infra p. 27fi.

266 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

had through him as other than his own (external), and received
from him the power of action against unclean s])irits, and of
performing his miracles on men ; and declares that the spirit
through which he wrought these signs was ' his very own '.
(Tliis is against the Autiochene teaching with regard to the Holy
Spirit, especially Theodore's — see snpra p. 216 n.) The anathema
of Nestorius, on the other hand, is directed against those who say
that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial with the ' form of a
servant,' and do not rather explain the miracles of healing and
the power of driving out spirits by the connexion and con-
junction which exist between the Spirit and God the Word from
his very conception,

X. Cyril condemns the view that it was not the Word of
God himself who became our high-priest and apostle, but the
' man born of a woman ', regarded separately as distinct from the
Word ; and also the view that he offered the sacrifice for himself
as well as for us. Nestorius declares that the high-priesthood
and apostleship are Emmanuel's rather than the Word's, and
that the parts of the oblation ought to be separately attributed to
him who united and to him who was united, assigning to God
what is God's and to man what is man's.^

xi, xii. In conclusion, Cyril requires the confession that the
Lord's flesh is life-giving and belongs to the Word of God the
Father. It must not be regarded as belonging to some other,
who is merely conjoined to Him or enjoys a divine indwelling :
it is life-giving in that it has become the Word's own — the
Word's who has power to bring all things to life. And we must
confess that the Word of God sutfered in the flesh, and was
crucified in the flesh, and tasted death in the flesh, and became
first-born from the dead. Nestorius, on the other hand, insists
that the flesh which was united to the Word of God is not life-
giving by any property of its own nature ; that God the Word
was not made flesh as touching his ' substance ' ; and that the
sutferincs of the flesh must not be attributed to the Word of
God and the flesh in which he was made together, without
discriminating between the degrees of honour which belong to
the different natures.

' This means apparently that the Logos, who unites, offers the sacrifice of the
manhood, which is united. But Hefele seems to understand the anatliema
differently, and certainly in an earlier sermon Nestorius had protebted against the
idea that God could act as IVv'h Priest.

NESTORIANISM 267

The Significance of these Anathemas — the Reception given to them

It is clear that, in regard to nearly all the points involved,
each of the disputants was setting in the most unfavourable
light what he regarded as the natural premisses or conclusions of
his opponent's teaching. Scarcely ever does Nestorius meet the
anathema by a direct negative. He suspects that there is at
the back of it an idea which he regarded as false, and it is this
latent error that he denounces. In the same way the anathemas
of Cyril seem to deal more with possible inferences from
Nestorian teaching than with the actual tenets of Nestorius.
These anathemas of Cyril were indeed by no means universally
acceptable.^ They were read and approved, it is true, with
the letter to which they were appended, at the Council of
Ephesus ; but a request that the same approval should be given
at Chalcedon was passed over.

Cyril's Dogmatic Letter

Greater authority attaclies to an earlier letter (the * Second '
or ' Dogmatic ' Letter, written in the first months of the year
430),'^ which was formally sanctioned by both Councils. Cyril
sets himself the task of expounding what the Creed really means
by the ' Word of God ' being ' incarnate and made man ', and
what it does not mean.

It does not mean that there was any alteration in the nature
of the Word, or that it was changed into man as a whole (body and
soul) ; but rather that " the Word united hypostatically to himself
flesh ensouled (animate) with a reasonable soul, and in a manner
indescribable and inconceivable, became man, and was called
'Son of man', not simply by an act of volition or complacence,
nor yet in the sense that he had merely adopted a role ; but
that while tlie natures which are brouglit together to form
the true unity are difTerent, out of both is one Christ and Son.
Not that the difrerence of the natures is destroyed by reason of
the union ; but rather that the Godhead and the manhood, by

•At the time itself they were BUppostd to ho ' ApollinariiHi' (esp. the tliird
and tli(! twelfth), and as Hiich were opiioHid hy the Autioclieno school in general,
and particularly by John of Autioch and Thcodorct of Cyrrhua (on whom aoe
infra pp. '284, 285).

'The letter is given in full in Hourtley d* Fide tt Symbolo p. 182 (F., aud the
greater part iu llahn * p. <ilO.

268 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

means of their inexpressible and mysterious concurrence to form
a union, have produced for ua the one Lord and Sou Jesus
Christ." It is in this sense that, though existing before the ages
and having an eternal generation from the Father, he is said to
have had also a generation of the flesh, since for our sakes and
on account of our salvation he united human nature with
himself as a hypostasis and came forth from a woman. This
does not mean " that in the first place an ordinary man was
generated of the holy Virgin, and that afterwards the Word
came down upon him " ; but it means that, " since a union was
elfected in the womb itself, he is said to have undergone a
fleshly generation, inasmuch as he made his own the generation
of his own flesh ".

The sense in which he suffered and rose again is similarly
explained. The divinity, inasmuch as it is also incorporeal, cannot
suffer, and it was not in regard to his own nature that the divine
Word suffered blows, or piercings of nails, or the other wounds.
" But since it was the body which had become his own that
Buffered these things, he himself is said to have suffered on our
behalf. For he who cannot suffer was in the body that was
suffering." In like manner the Word of God is by nature
immortal and incorruptible, and life and life-giving. " But
inasmuch as it was his own body which by the grace of God tasted
death on behalf of everyone, he himself is said to have suffered
that death on behalf of us — not, of course, that he experienced
death as regards his own nature — it were madness to say or
think such a thing — but that . . . his flesh tasted death."
Similarly it was his body that was raised again, and so the
resurrection is called his.

The Logos with the flesh and body which are his own is
absolutely one, and so it is one Christ and Lord that we confess ;
and as one and the same we worship him {i.e. not as though we
worshipped a man together with the Logos) — not making any
distinction in this respect between the Logos and the manhood.
Indeed, if any one takes objection to the hypostatic union, either
as incomprehensible or as unseemly, he cannot escape the error
of speaking of * two sons ' ; but the one Lord Jesus Christ must
not be divided into two sons. Nothing is gained either by
speaking ominously of a union of persons — " for Scripture has
not said that the Logos united to himself the person of man, but
that he became flesh ; and to say that the Logos became flesh is

NESTORIANISM 26S

precisely to say that he partook of blood and of flesh just as
we do." That is to say, the manhood which he assumed was
impersonal, but the mode and the result of the union was
personal.^ Furthermore, he remained God all through, and the
human generation in time did not in any way detract from the
divine generation in eternity. " He made our body his own and
came forth from a woman as man, not having lost his being
God and having been born of God his Father, but even in the
assumption of flesh remaining (continuing to be) what he was."^
Such, Cyril declares, has always been the accurate account of
the faith of the Church, and, in conclusion, he adds an explana-
tion of the use of the term ' Theotokos ' as meaning what he
has expressed. " It was in this sense that the holy fathers have
been bold to speak of the Holy Virgin as ' Theotokos ' : not in
the sense that the nature of the Logos, or his deity, received from
the Holy Virgin the beginning of its being ; but in the sense
that the holy body was born of her and rationally ensouled
(received a rational soul) ; and therefore the Logos, being hypos-
tatically united to this body, is said to have been born as regards
the flesh." That is to say, the Virgin is the Bearer of God,
because she bore him who is God as well as man, though she is
the Mother of the Saviour in regard to his humanity only.

Earlier Teacldng in the Church on the Subject. Tertullian,

Origen, AthanasiiLS

With regard to the main issue there can be no doubt that
Cyril was right in claiming for this teaching the support of the
fathers of the Church. He was indeed using almost the very
words of Tertullian ' of old, and of the greatest of the teachers of
Alexandria before his own time.

Origen, without any sense of saying anything that was not
universally allowed, declared that the Logos " while made man
remained the God which he was " * — and ayain, " the Sou of

*o^

' See Note on 'Tlie Iinpersonalily of the Hiiiiiaii Nature of Tlie Lord ' p. 204.

• See Note on 'The K^futris ' j). 294.

•Tertullian (as we have alreiirly Bf;cn supra p. 144) had boon the first to give
expression to the doctrine. Leo, at a later time, is simply restjiting liis teacliing
almost in his very words. See esp. e.g. culv. Prax. 11, " Dens autem ncque desinit
esse, iicijuo alind potest esse. Sermo autem dous, ct seniio dounni manet in aevum,
perseverando scilicet in sua forma." Cf. also Greg. Naz. 2'heol. Or. iv. esp. 20 ff.

* Origeu dt Priiicip. preface, § 4.

270 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

God, through whom all things were created, is named Jesus
Christ and the Sou of man. For the Son of God is said to have
died — in respect, namely, of that nature which could admit of
death ; and he who is announced to be about to come in the
glory of God the Father with the holy angels is called the
Son of man. And for this reason, all through the Scriptures,
not only are human predicates applied to the divine nature,
but the human nature is adorned by appellations of divine
dignity." ^

And, with regard to the sufferings and other experiences of
the human nature, Athanasius wrote: ^ "For this reason the special
properties of the tiesh, such as to hunger, to thirst, to be weary,
and the like of which the flesh is capable, are predicated of him
(or are described as his) — because he was in it ; while, on the
other hand, the works which are proper to the Logos himself,
such as to raise the dead, to restore sight to the blind, and to
cure the woman with an issue of blood, he did through his own
body. The Logos endured the infirmities of the flesh as his
own, for the flesh was his ; and the flesh ministered to the
works of the Godhead, because the Godhead was in it, for
the body was God's. . . . When the flesh suffered the Logos
was not external to it, and therefore the passion is said to
be his ; and when he wrought divinely the works of his Father,
the flesh was not external to him, but in the body itself the
Lord did them." And he proceeds to give instances — ^just the
same as those which Leo afterwards adduced — to shew how,
though the different experiences and works were accomplished
by one and the same divine and human person, it was in
virtue now of the manhood and now of the Godhead.^

The Council of Ephesus, 431, and the Victory of Cyril

The emperor, Theodosius, was under the influence of Nestorius,
and accused Cyril of disturbing the peace and trying to sow

' Origen de Princip. ii 6 3. Hefele {Councils vol. iii p. 8) cites from the Com-
mentary on the Epistle to the Ilomans the note, "Through the indissoluble unity
of the Word and the flesh, everything v^hich is proper to the flesh is ascribed also
to the Word, and what is proper to the Word is predicated of the flesh."

* Ath. Or. e. Ar. iii 31-33 ; cf. iv 6, 7 ; and incidentally, de Sent. Dionys. 26
" For he himself permits the special properties of the flesh to be predicated of him,
that it may be shewn that the body was not another's but his very own."

• Cf. also EpiphaniuB Ancorat. 36 and 95 ; adfv. Haer. liix 24, 42, Ixxii 23.

NESTORIANISM 271

sedition ; but by general consent a council was summoned to deal
with the questions at issue, to meet at Ephesus at Pentecost in
the following year.

Nestorius with his bishops, and Cyril attended by as many
as fifty of his, arrived at Ephesus before the time appointed, and
within a few days of Pentecost there were gathered together
most of those who had been summoned. But there were still
some very important absentees. John, the Metropolitan of
Antioch, and the bishops of his province, had been delayed on the
journey, and sent word that they were coming as quickly as
they could. When, however, the days went by and they did
not arrive,^ Cyril and his friends determined to open the Synod ;
and in spite of the protests of the imperial commissioner and
some seventy bishops (including Theodoret of Cyrrhus), and the
refusal of Nestorius to appear, a session was held (on June 22nd)
from early morning into the night, and the excommunication of
Nestorius was decreed by a unanimous vote of two hundred.
Some acts of violence against Nestorius and his friends were
committed by the people of Ephesus, but they were provided
with a guard by the imperial commissioner. A few days later,
John of Antioch arrived with forty Syrian bishops, and at once
held a council and deposed Cyril and Memnou of Ephesus for
their disorderly proceedings. Cyril's party continued to hold
sessions, and both sides endeavoured to secure the emperor's
support, the Antiochenes, in particular, charging Cyril with
Apollinarianism and violence and injustice. The emperor decided
to confirm the depositions on both sides, and early in August
Cyril and Memnon, as well as Nestorius, were arrested at Ephesus
and imprisoned. The majority and their friends at once made
fresh representations to the emperor ; and at last, after receiving
deputies from both sides at Chalcedon, he ordered the release
and restoration of Cyril and of Memnon ; while Nestorius was
to remain at his old mc^nastery of Euprepius, whither he
had already been sent, and a new bishop was appointed in his
place.

Cyril had thus, j^artly by the inherent merits of his cause,

* It ifl rei>orted (wee Hefele Councils vol. iii p. 45) that two bishops of the
province of Antioch Baid that .John liail bidden them tell Cyril not to wait for
hini, and it hits been inferred that John wished not to bo ]>rusent at the cou-
dernnation of his former i>rir>8t and friend. Hut, aa thi^ same two bishops signed
the protc.-ft against the 8ub!ic<iuent proceedings of Cyril, thn account must be
received with suspicion.

272 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

but partly also by the aid of bribes or customary proscnts^ to
some of the great officials of the Court, secured his own position
iu the East, while he had been strong all through in the support
of the West, through the Bishop of Kome.

Terms of Agreement hetween Cyril and the Antiochenes.
The Union Creed

But the Antiochenes were by no means satisfied, and Cyril
saw that it was necessary to divide them if possible, and to
win over the Metropolitan — the natural leader of the Syrian
opposition. He and those who were most anxious for peace and
concord were steadfastly determined not to recognize Cyril till
he had given satisfactory explanations, and with this end in
view, after much discussion, an envoy (Paul of Emesa) was
despatched to Alexandria in 433, bearing with him a form of
creed to serve as a test, which Cyril was to be required to accept.
This creed ^ — intended to unite the Antiochenes and to be an
Eirenicon to their opponents — contains the following declarations
on the points at issue : " We confess therefore our Lord Jesus
Christ the Son of God, the only begotten, complete God and
complete man, of a rational soul and body : begotten of his
Father as touching his Godhead before the ages, but all the
same in the last days, on account of us and on account of our
salvation, of Mary the Virgin as touching his manhood : co-
essential with the Father as touching his Godhead and all the
same co-essential with us as touching his manhood : for there has
been effected a union of two natures — therefore we confess one
Christ, one Son, one Lord. In accordance with this conception
of the unconfused union we confess the Holy Virgin to be the
bearer of God (Theotokos), because God the Word was incarnate
and made man, and from the very conception united to himself
the temple which was received from her. And of the expressions
of evangelists and apostles concerning the Lord, we know that
theologians apply some generally as referring to one person, and
discriminate others as referring to two natures ; and those which

^ So his apologists [e.y. Hefele'l prefer to style them. The abbot Eutyches first
comes before us as Cyril's agent in this matter. The monks of Constantinople, under
Dalmatrus the Archimandrite, were also strong and even violent allies.

* See Hahn * p. 215. In the main it was the same as one previously sent to the
emperor, probably composed by Theodoret.

NESTORIANISM 273

are of a divine character they refer to the Godhead of Christ,
and those that are lowly to his manhood."

This statement certainly seems to favour the Antiochene
rather than the Alexandrian point of view — but the title
Theotokos is expressly admitted, and ' union ' is used instead of
• conjunction ' ; and Cyril accepted the Creed and embodied it in
his reply, John on his part agreeing to the judgement pro-
nounced against Nestorius, and anathematizing his * infamous
doctrines '. Cyril further defended himself in his letter ^ against
misrepresentations, and particularly requested John to join in
checking the senseless ideas of a mixture or blending of the
Logos with the flesh, or of any change at all in the divine
nature, "for that remains ever what it is and never can be
changed ".

Dissatisfaction with the Definitions on hath sides. Cyril's
Vindication of them

The ' union ' which was thus brought about failed to satisfy
many on both sides. Of Cyril's former adherents there were
Bome who thought that he was now accepting Nestorian errors ;
some merely misunderstood the terms which were used ; while
others — the forerunners of Monophysite conceptions — consciously
disapproved of the teaching which Cyril represents. Accordingly,
in a series of letters,^ he defended the ' union ', insisting that
there were two natures, and yet there was a complete but uncon-
fused union of tlie two, and that the doctrinal statement agreed
upon simply excluded misapprehensions of the doctrine which he
himself had constantly repudiated. The Nestorians were right
in teaching two natures ; their error lay in their not acknow-
ledging a real union of the two. So, now that the Orientals
agreed in allowing no separation of the natures, only teaching a
distinction between them in thought, they were really accepting
what he himself meant by the ])hrase " one incarnate nature of
the Logos ". So, too, with regard to the predications in Scripture,
they did not say " one class refer only to the Logos of God, the
other only to the Son of man " ; but tliey said " the one refer
only to the Godliead, the other to the manhood " — and in saying

' Tlie letter known aa LaeUntur Coeli (Ileurtley de Fide et Syviholo p.
199 (T.).

* To Acacins Ep. 40, Eiilo;;iii8 Ep. 44, Valiriaii Ep. f.O, and Succesau.s J5> 46

(Migne Ixxvii i». Ittl ff.). See Hefele Councils vol. iii p. 140 II.

274 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

80 they were rif:;ht, ascribing both alike to the one Son (who is
both Son of God and Son of man).

Inasmuch as Cyril thus clearly recognizes the distinction
between the natures, and insists that there is no kind of mixture
of one with the other (though holding the union to be so com-
plete that in the incarnate Christ the distinction is apprehended
rather in our own thought than in his person), it seems to be
certain that the expression " one incarnate nature of the Word "
is intended to denote the unity of the person. The centre of
this personality was the Logos who " remained always what he
was " before the Incarnation.

And this was the teaching for which a large number of the
' Nestorian ' bishops were not prepared. It seemed to them to
endanger the full recognition of the manhood of Christ. They
would not anathematize Nestorius ; they would not accept the
compromise in which apparently some were able to acquiesce
without giving up their old ideas ; and they would not recognize
Cyril as orthodox.

The Strength and the Weakness of Nestorianism

The real strength of Nestorianism lay in its clear perception
of the reality of the human nature of the Lord. The Saviour
of men really went through the normal experiences of the life
which man must live. At a time in the developement of doctrine
— in the work of interpretation of the Person of Christ — when
there was once again danger lest the full and complete humanity
of the Kedeemer should fail to win theoretic recognition, and
an interpretation of his Person should be accepted which would
practically be a denial of the Incarnation in its true significance,
Nestorianism rendered service to the Church. It insisted that
the human experiences of the Lord were really human. But
what it gave with one hand it took away with the other. Its
theory failed to cover the deepest conviction of the Christian
consciousness that in Jesus God and man had really been
brought together in a vital and permanent union, never hence-
forward to be dissolved : that the chasm between God and man
had been bridged over, so that all who were united with Jesus
were united with God Himself. The Nestorian theory only
provided for an external union, v/hich was understood to be an
alliance of two disljinct beings. And so the Incarnation was as

NESTORIANISM 275

much emptied of its meaning as it was by any theory which
failed to provide recognition either for the complete manhood
or for the complete Godhead of the Saviour. But though
Nestorianism was inevitably condemned, the Church had still to
seek for a clearer conception of the relation between the God-
head and the manhood and of their union in one Person.

Nestorians were at all events convinced that Jesus Christ
was both God and man ; that in him the experiences of both
natures were fully represented. Nor can they be accused of
exaggerating the distinction between the divine and the human
natures and functions. They did not realize that distinction too
vividly ; but they failed to realize the idea of God becoming
man — one who was eternally God entering upon the sphere of
human life. In this respect at all events a fundamental issue
was made clear by Cyril. The Catholic interpretation of the
Gospel is based on the idea of God condescending to be born as
man ; a divine Person stoops to assume human nature and Hve a
human life, without ceasing to be divine. About this conception
there is a unity which is never for a moment in danger of
dissolution. But the very starting-point of Nestorian thought
excluded the possibility of unity. Indeed, Nestorians started not
from one point, but from two, and the lines of their thought ran
always parallel, side by side. There was Man, and there was
God. Both were persona, and the conjunction in which the
two were brought together was only one of relation (a'^ercKTf
a-vvd<peLa). And 80 they never reached a clear conception of a
Person living in two spheres of consciousness and experience.^
To this conception Cyril seems really to have attained, though
there were some difficulties of terminology which he did not
altogether overcome.

As a theory of the Person of Christ, Nestorianism is weak
and inadequate, so far as it fails to realize the union of manhood
and Godhead as actually effected in a single Person who lived
the hfe of men. But us against any theory which in any way in
effect, if not intentionally, tends to annul the entirety of the
manhood of Jesus, Nestorianism is strong, and makes its appeal
direct to the heart of men. It is a mistake to regard it as
merely ' rationalistic *.

* They 'could not see that the distinctinn between the two spheres of existence
might be maintained without ali.indoning or denying the unity of their Bubiu»t'
(W. bright The Age of the Fat/iera vol. ii p. *J81).

276 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

And 80 it won and retained its hold over great numbers of
men.

Suppression of Nestorianism luithin the limits of the Empire

Against those who were not to be won over by explanations
and negotiations, the Patriarch of Antioch at last appealed for the
aid of the civil power. Nestorius in 435 was turned out of his
monastery and banished to Petra in Arabia, and a little later to
Ptolemais, a kind of Siberia, to which the worst criminals were
seiit.^ The emperor ordered all his writings to be burnt, and
his adherents all the more eagerly disseminated those of Diodorus
and Theodore, and translated them into other languages (Syriac,
Armenian, and Persian). Many bishops were deposed and expelled
from their sees, and, in consequence of the stringent measures
adopted, the Nestorian heresy was soon suppressed throughout the
whole of the Roman Empire. For a time it found a refuge in
the school of Edessa, but, when this famous centre of theological
learning was closed by the Emperor Zeno in the year 489,
Nestorianism lost its last hold in the Empire.^

By these means the controversy was silenced for the time.
But the theological tendencies which promj)ted it were too
opposed to admit of easy combination, and on the death of Cyril
the extreme champions of the oneness of the natures, whom he
had been able to keep in check, broke loose ; and, when the
controversy which resulted was closed, the Church had lost
another band of enthusiastic, if mistaken, Christians.

In a note on the use of the title ^eoc^opo? liy Ignatius, as a second
name for himself (6 koI 6io4>opo<;) Lightfoot writes {Apostolic Fathers,
Ignatius yo\. ii p. 21) "This word would be equally appropriate to the
true Christian, whether taken in its active sense {0{ocf)6po<; hearing Ood,
dad with God) or in its passive sense {d€64>opo<; home along by Ood,
inspired by God) " ; citing in support of his comment the words of
Clement Al. (Strom, vii 13) ^cios apa 6 yvwcm/co? koI ^St; dyios, 6eo(f)opu>v

Kttl 6eOff)OpOVfJ.€VO^.

But he proceeds to shew that Ignatius certainly used the word in

• He was still alive in 439 when Socrates wrote his history, and a Coptic MS. of
the life of Dioscorus says lie was summoned to the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
It seems unlikely that he lived so long, but when and where he died is unknown.

> See Additional Note— "The Nestorian Church " p. 279.

NESTORIANISM 277

the active sense (as other similar compounds such as vao<{>6poSf -xpia-To-
<f)6po<;, <rapKO(f>6po^, veK/3o<^opos) ; and that it was so interpreted universally
till a very late date, when the legend grew up that Ignatius was the
very child whom our Lord took up in his arms (Mark 9^^ and lis).
He also cites passages proving that the metaphor of ' bearing God ' or
' bearing Christ ' was familiar to early Christian writers, and that it is
this sense rather than that of * wearing God ' as a robe that is intended,
though the Syriac translator rendered it 'God-clad' and St Paul's
metaphor of ' putting on Christ ' might suggest that image.

The word has also commonly, if not universally, been understood in
the active sense in the phrase avOpoiiros 6eo(f)opo<; as used in the Christo-
logical controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries, and so it has been
taken in the foregoing account to mean 'a man who bears God with
him', implying that the man, so to say, was prior in time, and was
favoured with the special choice of God, who is pleased to dwell in him
— a man in whom God dwells.

But Dr Robertson writes that he holds that this is a mistake, and
that the word is here passive in sense, * God-borne' i.e. inspired.^

There is only room here for a brief statement of the question.

The phrase seems to be first used by Apollinarians as a taunt which
they cast at the doctrine of their opponents, charging them with
worshipping an arOpwTro'i 6€o<f>6pos, and maintaining that the trur
object of worship was rather a 6io<; o-ap/co<^opos. (See Greg. Naz. Ep.
102 wlvere the allusion is brought in incidentally to shew the absurdity
of the Apollinarian position by an interchange of crdp^ and avOpw-n-os in
one of their own expressions.) Tke antithesis shews that the word is
used in the active sense.

It is again as a taunt that we meet it next, though in a sense the
tables are turned. Apollinnrians said that the Christ of the 'orthodox*
was a ' God-bearing man ' ; but now it is Nestorians against whom the
charge is brought that they preach a ^co^opos av^pwTros, and this by
Cyril who was himself suspected — not without reason as far as his
language went — of Aj)olliiiarian tendencies. The historical antecedents
of the phrase suggest, accordingly, that it is the active sense that is still
intended — ' a man bearing with him God '. It was certainly understood
and used in this sense by later writers (see passages cited in Suicer's
Thesaurus) ; and thus interpreted it expresses concisely the objections
which are constantly reiterated against Nestorians — viz. that they made
the manhood (the man) the starting-point, so to say, of their doctrine,
and conceived of Christ as a man, with whom God was joined in some

' It must be noted that, whether tlio coiiii)ound is active or passive, the general
Bense ' insiiiied ' wouM hold. If active, the idea is that of a nuiu wlio bears within
him God, and so hu^ with him a divine guide. If ]iassive, the idea is that of a
man who is upheld and sustained by the divine light and strength.

278 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

other way than in that of a real union (o-wa^eia, not cvoxri?) ; so that
his Person was composed, as it were, of a man and a God — the Son of
Man and the Son of God. So their opponents argued that the sense in
which they applied the term 'God' to the individual human person
whom they called Christ could not exclude the notion of two Sons.
The idea of the indwelling of God kut €v8oKiav in a human being
was the source of their doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ.^
And so their Christ was fairly described by the nickname avOpumoi
6f-o<^6po<;,

If the word be passive — ^coc^opos — it would not convey this sense.
In the term ' a God-borne man * God is put first. There is God, and he
takes up and bears with him a man. The objection that the doctrine
implied two persons might still hold good, but the point of view would
not be the same as that from which opponents of Nestorianism set out.

But, nevertheless, it seems to have been in the passive sense that
Cyril applied it to the Nestorian teaching. Dr Robertson points out
that the anathemas must be interpreted by the 'covering' letter to
which they were appended. That letter is the substratum of the
anathemas. And, in the passage in the letter which corresponds in
positive exposition to the statements which are negatived in the
anathemas, Cyril quotes two sayings which are apparently the sayings
of Nestorius — (1) Sia tov (f)opovvTa rov (fiopovfj-evov ae/Jo), Sta tov aoparov
irpocrKW(x> Tov opM/xtvov, (2) 6 \r)(f)6€i'i tw XafSovri (Tvy)(prjixaTit,(L 6c6%.
(That is, ' On account of him that boars I reverence him that is borne ;
on account of him that is unseen I worship him that is seen ', and ' He
that is taken up is called God (shares in the name of God) along with
him that took him up '.) In these sayings there is no doubt that the
active agency is ascribed to God throughout. It is God that bears, man
that is borne. It is God that took U[), man that was taken up. The name
God, which properly belongs only to him that takes, is extended by
virtue of the new association to him that is taken. The crvoToix'^a of
ideas is unmistakeable. The ' man ' is, as it were, passive throughout.
And the phrases in the anathemas, which repudiate such ideas, are at
least patient of the same interpretation (viz. 6e6<fiopoi dvdpoyiros — a>s
avOpwTrov ivrjpyrjaOai trapa. tou 6tov Xoyov tov '\rj(Tovv — tov a.vaX'r](f>6(VTa
av6p(DTrov <rv fj-TT pocrKVV€L(T 6 ai Sctv t<3 ^€(3 Aoyw . . . koI (rvy)(pr]fjLaTi^eLV

OtOV OJS tT€pOV €V iTipU)).

We must therefore recognize that Cyril meant 6t6<{>opoi, in the

^ See supra Theodore's exposition of the doctrine.

* Dr. Robertson also points out tliat in the instance from the Excerpta Theodoti
27 (t6 Oeo^opof yiveaOai rbv 6.vdpwirov wpoaex^^ ivepyovixevov vir6 tov Kvptou Kal
KaOdvep ffw/xa avroD yiv6/jL€vov) which Lightfoot quotes in support of the active
sense, he has overlooked the drift of the passage, and that the word ia there
passive {6e6<popo)'), being explained by fvepyov/j^yov inrb tov KvpLov,

NESTORIANISM 279

passive sense. As applied to Nestorian teaching the phrase 6e64)opo<i
av6pumo<i is probably his own coinage. It is not probable that Nestorius
or his followers would have chosen it as their own expression of their
doctrine, though the saying of Nestorius — if it be his, which Cyril
quotes, would seem to give him justification for the phrase.

But in the active sense, 6eo(f>6po? av^pcoTros, the phrase was so
convenient and concise an expression of the Nestorian doctrine, as
commonly understood, that it was seized upon and regularly used in
later times as a label for the famous heresy. And therefore, though —
as Dr Robertson has convinced me — with some sacrifice of historical
accuracy, I have given the phrase the sense which it has universally
been believed to bear, from the days of Marius Mercator (see supra
p. 261 n. 4), who slips in the gloss id est, Deum ferentem, down to
the present time.

THE NESTORIAN (EAST-SYRIAN) CHURCH

The expelled bishops laid the foundation of the great East-Syrian
Church. A temporary refuge was found by Nestorians in the great
school of Edessa, which had been famous for generations as the literary
centre of Christianity for Armenia, Syria, Chaldaea, and Persia. At the
time of the Council of Ephesus (431) its head was a Persian, Ibas, an
ardent disciple of Theodore of Mopsuestia. After the Council he was
expelled by the bishop Rabulas (who had himself been Nestorian at
first), and spread translations of Theodore's works among the Christians
in Persia. In 435 he was elected Bishop of Edessa, in succession to
Rabulas, and a great stimulus was given to Nestorianism. The school
was finally dissolved by the Emperor Zeno in 489, but it was transferred
(to flourish more freely than ever) to Nisibis, where already, under
Barsumas, a Nestorian school had been founded, and the support of the
Persian king was secured for Nestorian Christians only. In spite of
occassional persecution, Nestorian schools and missionaries rapidly spread
in Persia and India, and even far into China (where a bilingual inscrip-
tion in Chinese and Syriac, found by the Jesuits at Singanfu, relates
that a Nestorian missionary laboured as far back as the year 636). The
Nestorian Church, strongly established in this way by the end of the
fifth century, and always famous for its educational and missionary
enthusiasm, had become in the eloventh and twelfth centuries the
largest Christian body in the world — the Christian Church of the far
East. The Patriarch (or Catholicos) resided at Seleucia Ctcsii)hon, and
later at Bagdad, and was acknowledged by twenty-five metropolitans (or
archbishops) as their s{)iritual head. The Khalifs of Bagdad protected
their Christian subjects, and important offices of state were often filled
by them ; but when a Tartar race of sovnrp.igns succeeded, bitter perse-

280 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

cution broke out, and at last the invasion of Tamerlane in the fourteenth
century spread universal devastation, and almost blotted out the Church.
Only a fragment — a nation as well as a Church — survived ; and, in spite
of almost incredible persecution and suffering, still survives in the moun-
tains and plains of Kurdistan (partly in Turkey and partly in Persia).
The Euphrates valley expedition of 1835 first brought their existence to
the knowledge of the West, and, in response to repeated appeals from
the Catholicos for help. Archbishop Benson founded an educational
mission to restore and build up, if possible, free from Nestorian error,
something of their ancient state. [See ** Archbishop's Mission to the
Assyrian Christians" An7uial Report, published by the S.P.C.K.]

CHAPTER XVI

EUTYCHIANISM

The difficulty of finding a suitable expression of the union of
the two natures in the person of Jesus Christ, which should
recognize fully the earliest conviction, that, though one person,
he was yet both God and man, was shewn again within a few
years of the condemnation of Nestorian teaching. This time
it was teaching of an opposite kind that called for correction.

Cyril died in 444, and was succeeded by Dioscorus, who
had, in an exaggerated form, all the bad qualities which have
been attributed to Cyril, without his undoubted learning.^ The
Archbishop of Constantinople was Flavian, a moderate man,
averse from controversy, desiring peace and quiet for the Church.
But peace was not to be had when followers of Cyril were not
content to use his language and abide by the qualifications which
explained it. On the contrary, there were some who seem
to have made it their business to scent out traces of Nestorianism
in men who were reputed orthodox, and bo to wound their good
name.

The Teaching of Eutyches — his Condemnation

It was one of these who caused the renewal of the strife —
Eutyches, who had been an enthusiastic follower of Cyril, and
was archimandrite of a monastery outside Constantinople, and
high in the imperial favour. He had fallen under suspicion of
ApoUinarian tendencies already, and at an ordinary synod of
thirty-two bishops, held at Constantinople in November 448, a
charge was brought against him by Eusebius, Bishop of Dory-
laeum — a former friend and ally in the contest against

' He seems to have been violent, rapacious, and scandalously immoral (see the
evidence adduced at the Council of Chalcedon — Ilcfele Councils vol. iii 323 ff.). He
brought all kinds of charges against Cyril, and roufiscated his money and property
on the ground that he had impoverished the Church.

282 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Nestoriauism — that he confounded the natures, and scandalized
many of the faithful by his teaching. Eutyches was invited to
attend before the synod and offer explanations. Again and
again he refused to appear, and sent evasive answers to the
messengers who were despatched to summon him ; but at last
he came. The question was put to him : " Dost thou confess the
existence of two natures even after the incarnation, and that
Christ is of one essence (ofioovcriov) with us after the flesh ? "
After trying to evade a direct answer, Eutyches declared that he
had never hitherto used the latter phrase (though the Virgin from
whom the flesh was received was of one essence with us), but
that he would do so, if required by the synod. (He had really
held the human nature to be assimilated, deified, by the Logos ;
so that the body was no longer of the same essence as ours, but
a divine body ^ — so the human nature was as it were transmuted
into the divine.) And at last he was obliged to admit that he
confessed that the Lord was of two natures before the union,
but after the union he confessed one nature. When required to
anathematize all views opposed to the one declared by the
synod (that Christ was of one essence with us as regards the
flesh, and of two natures), he answered that though he would
accept the manner of speech required, he found it neither in
Holy Scriptures nor in the Fathers, and that therefore he could
not pronounce the anathema which would condemn the Fathers.
And he appealed to the writings of Athanasius and Cyril
in support of his own teaching,^ saying, ' before the union they
speak of two natures, but after the union only of one ' — though
all the same he repudiated all change and conversion of one
into the other. As it was only in so equivocal a fashion that
Eutyches would accept the test, the synod decided that he did
not really hold the orthodox faith and pronounced his deposition
and excommunication.

Appeal to the West and Counter- Attack on Flavian

Eutyches maintained his ground and offered a stubborn
resistance. Enjoying already the emperor's sympathy, he

' This view was represented as if he said that the Logos had brought his body
from heaven (dfudev). This he denied that he lield.

' Some of the writings on which he depended were really Apollinarian, fraudu-
lently ascribed to others. See supra p. 241 n«te.

EUTYCHIANISM 283

wrote to Leo, the Bishop of Eome, in ingratiating terms, and
tried to secure his support. Leo, however, waited till he had
heard the other side, and then wrote brielly to Flavian, con-
demning Eutyches, and promising full and complete directions
in the matter. Feeling ran high in Constantinople. The
emperor supported Eutyches and required of Flavian a pro-
fession of belief, in answer to the charges of Eutcyhes. Flavian
in reply drew up a statement,^ in which he declared his faith
in the twofold generation of him who was " perfect God and
perfect man, ... of one essence with the Father as regards his
Godhead, and of one essence with his mother as regards his
manhood. For while we confess Christ in two natures after
the incarnation from the Holy Virgin and the being made man,
we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord, in one subsistence and
in one person ; and we do not refuse to speak of one nature of
God the Word, if it be understood to be one nature incarnate
and made man, inasmuch as our Lord Jesus Christ is one and
the same (person) out of both (natures)." Flavian here was
careful to use the phrase ' one nature ' with the qualification
which Cyril too had added, ' one incarnate nature '. Eutyches,
on the contrary, did not shrink from acknowledging ' one
nature of the incarnate God made man '.

The Council of Ephesus

Against the wish of Leo and of Flavian, Theodosius ii
summoned a Council to meet at Ephesus, and, with the liope of
determining the judgment of this Council, Leo wrote to Flavian
the letter he had promised before.^ The letter was written on
June 13, and the Council met in August, with Dioscorus as
president. Dioscorus was attended by a strong body of
Egyptian bishops and monks, wlio all behaved with scandalous
violence. They cried out against Eusebius for dividing Christ
— ' Burn him alive ; as he divides Clirist, let him be divided
himself I ' Flavian was ' mobbed ' by the monks of Barsumas ;
Dioscorus refused to have the letter of Leo read ; the state-
ments of Eutyches were received with applause. The Council

* Hahn ' p. 320. Tho letter containing it wsw sent to the emporor in the spring
of 449.

* Plahn' p. 321 ff. An English tranHlation in Bright St. Leo on the Incarnation,
and in the English translation of Ilofele {Cmmcils vol. iii 22.''» IF.). See vn/ra u. 288.

284 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

asserted that after the iucaruation the distinction between the
two natures no longer existed. Eutyches was declared orthodox
and restored, and all his opponents were deposed, Flatian
appealed against the decision, supported by the Koman legates,
who protested and retired in haste. The signatures of many of
the bishops were extorted by threats and physical force. It
seems certain from the evidence, even when allowance is made
for some exaggeration, that the result was only reached by
insolent intimidation which proceeded to personal violence ; and
when the news reached Leo, he at once denounced the action of
Dioscorus, and later on declared that a Council characterized by
such ' brigandage ' ^ was no true Council at all.

Victory of the Eutychians throiigh the Emperor's Support

Theodosius, however, supported Dioscorus and his party, and
applauded the decision of the Council. He denounced Flavian,
Eusebius, and the others as Nestorians, and deposed and exiled
them.2 Theodoret, who had not been at the Council, was included
in this sentence, and his writings were forbidden to be read.

The result of the stringent edict which was issued was
hopeless dissension in the East. Egypt, Thrace, and Palestine,
on the one side, held with Dioscorus and the emperor ; on the
other side, Syria, Pontus, and Asia protested against the treat-
ment of Flavian and the acquittal of Eutyches. With them
was Rome ; and Leo, excommunicated by Dioscorus, excommuni-
cated him in turn and demanded a new Council. As long as
Theodosius lived nothing could be done, though the sympathies
of Pulcheria were on the other side. His death in July of the
year following the Eobber Synod (450) opened the way to the
end of the wretched wrangle.

The Council of Chalcedon

Pulcheria and her husband, Marcian, favoured the cause
which Leo represented, and the exiled bishops were recalled.

' ' Latrocinium ' Ep. 95 (to Pulcheria), dated July 20, 451 : — hence the name by
which the Council is known to history, ' the Robber Synod ' {avvo5o% XrjcrTpiKri).

* Some accounts declare that Flavian died three days after the Council from
the results of the violence of which he was the victim, and at Chalcedon Barsumaa
was denounced as his murderer. Other accounts say he was exiled and died at
Ejiipa, a city of Lydia, perhaps by a violent death.

EUTYCHIANISM 285

A synod was held at Constantinople, at which the bishop,
Anatolius, signed Leo's letter to Flavian — by this time widely
known and warmly welcomed by such men as Theodoret and
other leaders of the Antiochenes ; and a General Council was
summoned to be held at Nicaea.^ Thither in the summer of
451 the bishops and the papal legates journeyed; but to suit
the convenience of the emperor (whose presence was required
at the capital) the Council was transferred to Chalcedon. A
number of sessions were held between the 8th October and
the 1st of November, about six hundred bishops and others
being present.^

At the outset the papal legates protested against the
presence of Dioscorus, and the commissioners (who were in
charge of the business arrangements) directed him to sit apart
from the others, as not entitled to vote. All the documents
relating to the case were read. While this was proceeding, the
introduction of Theodoret, by command of the emperor, caused
a violent outbreak of angry protests from the party of Dio-
scorus (who taunted him as ' the Jew, the enemy of God ') and
counter-accusations from his friends.^ Quiet was with difliculty
restored by the commissioners, who declared " such vulgar shouts
were not becoming in bishops, and could do no good ". Over the
proceedings at Ephesus a heated debate took place, and many
of the bishops who had been present disavowed tlieir share in
the decisions, declaring that they had been induced, through fear
of the violence of Dioscorus and his monks, to act in violation
of their real belief and judgement. Dioscorus declared that
Flavian had been justly condemned, because he maintained that
there were two natures after the union ; whereas he could prove
from Athanasius, Gregory, and Cyril, that after the union we
ought to speak of only one incarnate nature of the Logos. " 1
am rejected ", he cried, " with the Fathers ; but I defend the
doctrine of the Fathers, and swerve from it in no respect." He

* Leo now wialiod to dispense with a Counnil, ami simply by his legates, in con-
junction with Anatolius, receive into communion all susjK-cted bishops who would
make profession of the orthoilox faith. Even earlier ho had apparently wished to
adojit this course, and only to hold a Council if it failed.

' Vet the West was represented oidy by the Roman legates and two African
bishops.

• Theodoret had written a dialogue (satirizing the monks, Cyril's .MUi)iiorter8,
and accusing the whole y>arty of being mere Apollinarians) between 'Kpaviirri^^ (a
8eraj)-collector — one who jiicka up scraps of heresies, like Kutyches) and 'Of>66-
5o£of.

286 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

was willing to accept the expression ' of two natures ' (t.«.
formed out of the two), but not to say ' two natures ' still {i.e.
existing in two natures), since after the union there were no
longer two.

Ey the close of the first session a large majority of the
Council agreed that Flavian had been unjustly deposed, and
that it was right that the same punishment should be meted
out to Dioscorus.

At the second session the Creed of Nicaea was read and
received with enthusiasm as the belief of all, and the Creed
then first attributed to the Council of Constantinople was
approved, and after it the second letter of Cyril to Nestorius
and his letter to John of Antioch. Then came the letter of
Leo to Flavian, in a Greek translation. This too was received
with approval as the faith of the Fathers — " Peter has spoken
by Leo ; thus Cyril taught ! Anathema to him who believes
otherwise." But the letter did not pass at once. Some pas-
sages seemed to some of the bishops ' Nestorian ', and it was
only after discussion and explanation that it was accepted.^

At the third session, on October 13, the formal deposition
of Dioscorus was pronounced, and at the fourth the condemna-
tion of Eutychianism was renewed.^ At the fifth session, on
October 22, a definition of the faith was agreed to, not to add
to the faith in any way or substitute a new confession for the
old ones (which a canon of the Council of Ephesus forbade), but
to refute the innovations of Nestorius and Eutyches.^ The
formula was drawn up by a committee of bishops in consulta-
tion, and begins with a declaration of the sufficiency of the
Creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople, had not some attempted
to do away with the preaching of the truth and to pervert the
mystery of the incarnation of the Lord, and denied the terra
God-bearer as used of the Virgin ; while others introduced a
confusion and mixture, and senselessly imagined that there was
only one nature of the flesh and of the Godhead, and rashly
maintained that the divine nature of the Only-begotten was

* Discussion, and ultimate acceptance on its merits, was not quite what Leo
would have wished.

* Dioscorus, deposed and exiled, died in Paphlagonia in September 454. Eu-
tjches was also exiled, but probably died before the sentence was carried out.

* The statement is given in Heurtley de Fide et Symbolo p. 23 fiF., a translation
and part of the Greek in Hefele Councils vol. iii p. 346 if., and the decisive clausea
of the definition in Hahn* p. 166.

EUTYCHIANISM 287

become passible by the confusion or mixture. Therefore, the
synod " opposes those who seek to rend the mystery of the
incarnation into a duality of Sons, and excludes from participa-
tion in the holy rites {or from the sacred congregation) those
who dare to say that the Godhead of the Only-begotten is
capable of suffering. It sets itself against those who imagine
a mixture or confusion in regard to the two natures of Christ,
and drives away those who foolishly maintain that the form of
a servant which was assumed from us is of a heavenly essence
or any other than ours ; and it anathematizes those who fancy
two natures of the Lord before the union and imagine only one
after the union.

" Following, therefore, the holy Fathers ", the declaration
runs, " we confess and all teach with one accord one and the
same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once perfect (complete) in
Godhead and perfect (complete) in manhood, truly God and
truly man, and, further, of a reasonable soul and body ; of one
essence with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the
same time of one essence with us as regards his manhood, in
all respects like us, apart from sin ; as regards his Godhead
begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his
manhood — on account of us and our salvation — begotten in the
last days of Mary the Virgin, bearer of God ; one and the same
Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, proclaimed in two natures,
without confusion, without change, without division, without
separation ; the difference of the natures being in no way
destroyed on account of the union, but rather the peculiar
property of each nature being preserved and concurring in one
person and one hypostasis — not as though parted or divided
into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten
God the Logos, Lord, Jesus Christ, even as the prophets from
of old and the Lord Jesus Christ taught us concerning him,
and the Creed of llie Fathers lias handed down to us."

In this definition the Churcli at length pronounced a final
verdict on both extremes of Christologicul opinion, clearly
repudiating Apollinarian, Nestorian, and Eutychian teaching,
and stating positively in few words the relation between the
two natures in the one person : — the relation which was more
fully expressed in tlie statements of Cyril and Leo, to which, by
recognition on this occasion, couciliar authority was given.

238 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

The Letter of Leo to Flavian

The letter of Leo well supplements the earlier statement of
Cyril, and a summary of it may elucidate some points in the
controversy which it helped to close.^

It is written all through in the tone of calm judicial decision
and direction, and treats Eutyches as imprudent and lacking in
sound judgement and understanding of the Scriptures. The very
Creed itself refutes him : old as he is, he does not comprehend
what every catechumen in the world confesses. To declare
belief in " God the Father all-ruling and in Jesus Christ His only
Son, our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit and ^ the Virgin
Mary " is really to overthrow the devices of almost all heretics.
These three clauses declare the Son to be God derived from God,^
co-eternal and co-e(|ual and co-essential with the Father. The
temporal nativity in no way detracted from the divine and
eternal nativity, and added nothing to it, but was solely concerned
with the restoration of man and the need for the assumption of our
nature by one whom sin could not stain nor death keep in his hold.*

' The Letter is often styled the ' Tome ' of Leo — the term t4/xos, meaning a sectca
or a concise statement, being commonly applied to synodical letters — cf. Athanasius,
Tomus ad Antiochenos, It is given in Heurtlcy de Fidi et Symbolo, and in Hahn* pp.
821-330 (Translation in Hefele Councils vol. iii p. 225 ff. and Bright »S'^ Leo on the In-
carnation p. 109 ff.). Dorner {Doct. of Person of Christ Div. ii. vol. i p. 85) describes
Leo as "more skilled in the composition of formulas of a full-toned liturgical char-
acter than capable of contributing to the scientific developement of a doctrine ", bi»t
at all events he was able to give very clear expression to the doctrine which he
received.

* The Latin text has et. Hefele suggests ex, but the simple co-ordination of the
Holy Spirit and the Virgin is no doubt original in the Roman Creed — see the forms
in Hahn » p. 22 ff.

* He uses the Nicene phrase 'de Deo Deus', which was not in the Constantinopolitan
Creed, but was eventually inserted in the West, e.g. at Toledo in 589.

* The actual birth as well as the conception took place without loss of virginity.
The title aei irdpdevos is found as early as Clement of Alexandria {Strom, vii 16)
who reports that some in his day said the fact was known by examination ;
anyhow he deems it true. On the other hand, Tertullian about the same time says
she was virgo till the birth, but that the birth made her mulier, and that St Paul
implied this, "cum non ex virgine sed ex muliere editum filium dei pronuntiavit,
agnovit adapertae vulvae nuptialeni passionem " ; and so he says, " etsi virgo concepit,
in partu suo nupsit" (de came Christi 23). The doctrine here laid down by Leo
seems to have been generally held in the Church from early times (Tertullian I.e.
and Helvidius in the fourth century being exceptions — though doubtless finding
followers). Athanasius uses the title Or. c. Ar. ii 70, and Augustine declares she
was ' virgo concipiens, virgo pariens, virgo moriens ' Cat. rvd. 40. The best account
of the different theories will be found ih J. B. Mayor's edition of the Epistle of St
Jaines. See also Bright .S^^ Leo on the Incarnation p. 137.

EUTYCHIANISM 289

If the Creed was not enough he might have turned to the
pages of Scripture and have learnt that as the Word was
made flesh, and born from the Virgin's womb, so as to have the
form of man, so he had also a true body like his mother, " That
generation peerlessly marvellous and marvellously peerless is
not to be understood as though through the new mode of the
creation the peculiar properties of the kind (man, or the
human race) were done away." It is true that the Holy Spirit
gave fruitfulness to the Virgin, but it was from her body that
the Lord's body was produced, animated by a reasonable soul
(^§ i, ii). "Thus the properties of each nature and essence
were preserved entire, and went together to form one person ;
and so humility was taken up by majesty, weakness by strength,
mortality by eternity ; and for the purpose of paying the debt
which we had incurred, the nature that is inviolable was
united to the nature that can suffer, in order that the con-
ditions of our restoration might be satisfied, and one and the
same Mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ,
might be able to die in respect of the one and not able to die in
respect of the other.^ Accordingly, there was born true God in
the entire and perfect nature of true man, complete in his own
properties, complete in ours. By ' ours ' we mean those which
the Creator formed in us at the beginning — and which he took
upon him to restore. For of those properties which the deceiver
brought into our nature, and man by the deception allowed to
enter, there was no trace in the Saviour. And it must not be
supposed that by entering into fellowship with human weaknesses
he became a sharer in our sins. He took upon him the form of
a servant without the defilement of sin, making the human greater
and not detracting from the divine ; for that ' emptying of him-
self '* by which the invisible presented himself as visible, and
the Creator and Lord of all things willed to be one of the
mortal, was a condescension of conii)assion and not a failure
of power. He who, while continuing in the form (essential
character) of God, made man, was made man in the form
of a servant. For each nature keeps its own characteristics
without diminution, and as the form of God does not annul
the form of a servant, so the form of a servant does nob
impair the form of God " (§ iii).

' See Note ' Cnminunicatio Idioniatutn ' p. 293.
• See Note 'TLe Kivi^att' p. 294,

290 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

The Son of God in this way comes down to this lower world
from his heavenly throne without retiring from his Father's
glory — born by a new order and form of birth, " continuing to be
eternally while beginning to be in time." But the new order, the
new nativity, in no way implies a nature unlike ours. He is
true God, but also true man, with flesh derived from his human
mother ; and " in the unity which results there is no deception,
while the lowliness of man and the majesty of Deity are alter-
nated ; ^ for just as the Godhead is not changed by its compassion,
so the manhood is not swallowed up by its acquired dignity.
For each of the ' forms ' (sc. the form of God and the form of a
servant) acts in communion with the other its appropriate part
— the Word effecting what is proper to the Word and the flesh
carrying out what is proper to the flesh. The one shines out
brightly in miracles, the other submits to insults.^ Just as the
Word does not retire from equality in the glory of the Father,
so the flesh does not desert the nature of our kind (species).
For one and the same person ... is truly Son of God and truly
Son of Man." Leo then goes on to point out how the char-
acteristics of the two natures are respectively shewn in the
different experiences of the one person — which are conditioned
now by the one nature, now by the other. "It does not", he
says, " belong to the same nature to say ' I and the Father are
one ', and to say ' the Father is greater than I' . For although
in the Lord Jesus Christ there is one person of God and man,
yet there is one source of the contumely which Godhead and
manhood share, and another source of the glory which they also
share. From our properties comes to him the manhood inferior
to the Father ; from the Father he has the divinity equal with the
Father (§ iv).^ On account, therefore, of this unity of person,
which is to be understood to exist in both natures, we read, on
the one hand, that the Son of Man came down from heaven, since
the Son of God took upon him flesh from the Virgin from whom
he was born ; and, on the other hand, the Son of God is said to
have been crucified and buried, inasmuch as he suffered thus not
in the divinity itself (in which the Only-begotten is co-eternal

' ' Invicem sunt'— this j>robably means 'are by turns', as explained in the follow-
ing attribution of dilTerent operations to the different natures : now one and now the
other is active. But a jjossible meaning would perhaps be ' ' are mutually or recipro-
cally ", which would give the sense "have penetrated each other" (as Hefele tr.).

' See Note ' Communicatio Idiomatum ' p. 293.

EUTYCHIANISM 291

and co-essential with the Father) but in the weakness of human
nature." Passages are cited from the New Testament to shew
that experiences only possible in virtue of the human nature are
predicated of the one person, under the title which is his in virtue
of his deity ; and experiences only possible in virtue of the divine
nature are predicated under the title which belongs to him as
human.^ And farUier evidence is adduced to prove that the
distinction of the natures remained in the one person even after
the resurrection. It was just to prove that the assumption of
manhood was permanent, and that the divine and the human
natures still remained in their distinct and individual characters,
that the Lord delayed his ascension forty days, and conversed
and ate with his disciples, and shewed the marks of his passion
saying, " See my hands and my feet, that it is I. Touch and see,
for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see that I have ". And
so we should be saved from the error of identifying the Word
and the flesh, and should confess both Word and flesh together
to be one Son of God. The blessed Apostle John declares :
" Every spirit which confesses Jesus Christ to have come in
flesh is of God ; and every spirit which parts (divides or unmakes)
Jesus is not of God, and this is anti-Christ " ; ^ and to ' part '
Christ is just to separate the human nature from him, and by

' The two passages are 1 Cor. 2^ " for if they had known they would never have
crucified the Lord of majesty " — a passage that Augustine had previously cited {de
Trin. i 28) as shewing that the filias hominis propter formani servi and the Filius
Dei propter Dei fornuim are one and the same — and Matt. 16^' "who do men say
that I the Son of Man am ? "

' 1 John 4' 'qui solvit Jesum' = 8 Xuei rhv 'lr]croui>. No extant Greek MS. has
this reading, but Socrates {If.E. vii 32) says it was so written in the ancient co]iies,
which were altered by those who wished to separate the deity from the manhood in
the Incarnation, and that ancient commentators noted that the epistle had been
tampered with to further this design. Of Greek fatliors Irenaeus and Origen alone
attest the reading (in both cases wo have only the Latin translation) ; Irenaeus quot-
ing the passage against those who imagine a plurality of gods and fathers, and divide
into many the Son of God ; and Origen, while maintaining the characteristics of each
'substance*, disclaiming any partition such as this passage has in view (see Iron.
adv. Ifaer. iii 16, 8 and Orig. ad loc.). The reading is also fouml in Augustine {Horn,
in 1 John 6'*, but elsewhere he treats the reading as qui non conjitctur or qjii nryat),
Fulgentius, Lucifer, Tertullian (adv. Afnrc. v 16 and cf. de Came Christi 21, as
Irenaeus supra), and in the Vulgate. Wostcott an<l Ilort and the Revisers place it in
the margin.

The Texlus JirMptu.i fl fi^i 6fio\oy«t (Lat. qui non confiteiur) besides having the
support of all Greek M.SS. and the versions other than the Vulgate, seems to bo
impliefJ by Polycarj), Cyril, Tlicodoret, Thoophylact, Cyprian, Didymus {lat.).
(Unless the text is exactly quoted it might be that the writer was only drawinjz tlie
negative conclusion to which the first clause points.)

292 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

shameless fancies to make void the mystery through which alone
we have been saved. " For the Catholic Church lives and grows
by this faith — that in Christ Jesus there is neither humanity
without true divinity, nor divinity without true humanity "
(§v).

In conclusion Leo comments on the impiety and absurdity
of the saying of Eutyches — " I confess that our Lord was
of two natures before the union ; but after the union I
confess one nature " ; and insists that it is as wicked and
shocking to say that the Only-begotten Son of God was of
two natures before the Incarnation (when of course he was
God only and not man) as to assert one only nature in him
after the Word was made fiesh (§ vi).

The Later History of Eutychianism — the Monophysites f[

Thus was the Creed of the Church defined ; and " writing,
composing, devising, or teaching any other creed " was forbidden
under penalties — bishops and clergy to be deposed, monks and
laymen anathematized. The Eutychian conception was, however,
by no means suppressed. Large bodies of Christians refused to
accept the doctrine of two natures as proclaimed at Chalcedon,
though ready to condemn the teaching that the human nature
was absorbed in the divine. Accordingly, numerous secessions
from the Church took place, the seceders asserting one nature
only (though not explaining the manner of the union) and being
therefore styled Monopliysites. In Palestine and in Egypt
serious rioting and bloodshed followed — large numbers of the
monks and others endeavouring to drive out the bishops who
accepted the Council ; and when, after many years, some measure
of peace and unity was restored to the Church, she had lost her
hold upon wide districts which had been hers before.^

^ For the details of the history see Hefele Councils vol. iii p. 449 ff. Nearly
a hundred years after the Council of Chalcedon (in 541) Monophysitism was
strenuously revived and organized by a Syrian monk, named Jacob Baradai, and
Monophysite bishops were appointed wherever it was possible. In particular he
revived the Monophysite patriarchate of Autioch, which is still the centre of all the
Monophysite chuiches of Syria and other Eastern provinces. From him the name
'Jacobite* Christians, adopted by all Monophysites, was derived. Monophysites
have maintained their j)Osition down to the present time — (1) in parts of Syria,
Mesopotamia, Asia ilinor, Cyprus, and Palestine — subject to the Patriarch of
Antioch (who now resides near Bagdad) ; but some of these were united with Borne
in 1646 and a patriarchate of 'Catholic' Syrians CUniates') was established at

EUTYCHIANISM 293

COMMUNICATIO IDIOMATUMf

To three passages in Leo's letter (pp. 289 u. 1, 290 n. 2) objection was
taken at the Council by the Bishops of lUyricum and Palestine, on the
ground that they seemed to express a certain separation of the divine and
the human in Christ. But the objection was dropped when almost iden-
tical statements were cited from Cyril's letters, and the papal legates de-
clared that they did not admit any such separation, and anathematized all
who did, and protested their belief in one and the same Lord and Son of
God. The passages together in their context express what is commonly
called the communicatio idiomatum (dcTiSocris tojv iBna/xdTwv, or twv ovo/xd-
T<ov). But this technical term is used in somewhat ditferent senses. The
teaching of Cyril and Leo (which alone has the authority of a General
Council, and is in harmony with the teaching of Origen and Athanasius
referred to in connexion with Cyril's letters p. 269 supra), is clear.
There is one person, and there are two natures. These two natures,
though truly (mysteriously) united in the one person, remain distinct,
each retaining its own properties. The properties of each nature belong
to and are rightly predicated of the one person — he exists at the same
time in the divine nature and in the human nature, he lives always in
both spheres. The experiences which are strictly divine, and the experi-
ences which are strictly human, are alike his experiences. But they are
his in virtue of the different natures — the one set of experiences because
he is divine, the other set of experiences because he is human. Further-
more, the one person has different appellations, corresponding to the
different natures. In virtue of the divine nature he is the Son of God ;
In virtue of the human nature he is styled Son of man. It does not
matter by which name he is called — it is one and the same person only
to whom reference is made : and therefore the experiences which the
one person undergoes in virtue of his divine nature may be predicated
of the Son of Man ; and equally the experiences which he undergoes in
virtue of his human nature may be predicated of the Son of God. This
is all that Cyril and Leo say ; and if the term communicatio idiomatum
be applied to their (the Chalcedoiiian) teaching, it must be only in this
sense. The one person shares equally in both names and the properties
and experiences of both natures.

At a later time, the union of the two natures being thought of as so

Aleppo; (2) in Artnfinia, uiiflcr the Patriiirchato of Etshmindsin (in 1439 some of
these wen.' uniterl with Roino aiid tliose IJiiiatf.s liave tlieir piitriarcli at Constantin-
ople) ; (3) in Egypt, where out ol liatred to tlie Byzantines they gave uj) Greclt and
adopted the vernacular (so failed Coi)ts or Coptic Christians), iinil in 040 helped the
Saracens and wor<! reinstati'l hy them : they nuniher now more th.m 100,000 ; (4) in
Abyssinia, which was under the Patriarch a to of Alexandria and bo was Lnvol««d in
the MoDophysite heresy.
ii

294 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

close, they were held to interpenetrato each other in so intimate a union
(the fellowship of each with the other to he so complete) that the properties
of one might be predicated of the otiier. It is difficult to discriminate
this conception from the mixture of natures which has been repudiated,
but in any case it cannot claim support from Cyril, Leo, or Chalcedon.
Dorner notes that the doctrine of a real communicatio idiomatum, as
taught by the Lutheran Church, is not in harmony with Leo's letter ;
but the fact is sometimes ignored.

CHRIST'S HUMAN NATURE IMPERSONAL

The solution of the Nestorian difficulties, so far as it was a
solution, was reached, as we have seen, in the teaching that it was
not the person of a man that was assumed by the Logos, but man ;
i.e. human nature, human characteristics and attributes, which could
be taken up by the divine Person, the Logos, and entered upon and
made his own.

This teaching is fully expressed in the passages quoted supra,
especially perhaps in Cyril's letter p. 268. Later expressions of it and
the introduction of more abstract terms have not tended to elucidate
the doctrine further {e.g. the term awTroa-Tao-ia to express this ' imper-
sonal existence ' of the human nature of Christ, and Ivvnoaraaia to
express its existence in the Person of the God-Word), f

The centre of personality of Ilim who was God first and became man
is necessarily to be found in the Godhead. That must be personal,
and the manhood must therefore be impersonal. (See further Note
'Communicatio Idiomatum' p. 293.) In no other way apparently could
the Nestorian theories be excluded, and in no other way, it seemed,
eould the redemptive work of Christ be effective for the whole human
race. Otherwise it would have been one individual only who was
redeemed.

The Person who enters upon the conditions of human life, and
accepts the limitation of his divine life which is involved by those
conditions, is divine ; but all the human experiences are his, and in that
sense he is human too.

The enquiry as to what constituted personality was not pushed.
The existence of a human will in Christ was recognized, but its recogni-
tion was not regarded as incompatible with the doctrine.

THE /ceVcucrtsf

The doctrine of the kcVoxtis can only be touched upon here so far as
concerns the history of the Christological controversies of the fourth and

EUTYCHIANISM 295

fifth centuries.^ It was not, apparently, till that time that enquiry was
much directed to the consideration of the extent and character of the
limitation of the divine powers which the Incarnation necessitated, and
even then the enquiry is made in another form. For it is this question
in effect that lies at the hack of the discussion as to the human soul and
will in Christ and the relation between the two natures.^

The general idea of a kcvoxti^ no doubt is implied in all the ' orthodox '
attempts at interpretation of the Person of Christ, all through the period
which has been reviewed, as it is also in the New Testament. He who
was God became man. The Infinite condescended to be in some way
limited, and to enter upon the sphere of human life and experiences,
and in so doing to forgo in some sense the full exercise of the Godhead
which was his. This idea underlies the teaching of most of the books
of the New Testament, though it is to St Paul that the particular
expression of it is due (see especially Phil. 2^'^ os iv fj-optprj deov inrdpxoiv
. . . iavTOv €K€ywcrev . . . Kat . . . CTaTrctvcjcrcv eaTrrov yevo/ACvos ^Tn^KOOs, and
2 Cor. 8® c7rToj;(evcr€v TrXovaios wv — cf. Rom. 8^).

St Paul's expression of the doctrine is merely incidental, and the
purpose with which he introduces it is to press upon the Philippians the
ideal of humility and renunciation of selfish aims. It is to a moral
rather than a metaphysical motive that the statement is due.

St Paul declares of Christ Jesus that he was originally and essenti-
ally God, living under divine conditions (the fJi-opfftr] deov) on an equality
with God ; but that he was willing to forgo (ovx ap-rrayixov rjyrjaaTo) this
life on an equality with God. So he * emptied ' himself and took tke
life of service with its conditions (the fxopcfir} 8ov\ov), and came to exist
in the likeness of men. That is the first great act of the /ceVwo-is. It is
followed, so to speak, by a second stage. Having entered upon the
external conditions of human life {axqp-a.TL evpeOeU is dv6po)iro<i), he
' lowered ' himself and became subject even unto death, and that deatli
on the cross.

Whatever th(^ precise meaning of fiopff)!] may be, there is clearly
implied here that the p.op(j>r) 6tov is for the time renounced, in order
that the fxopffir] 8ovAou may bo assumed and the life may bo lived us
man. A limitation is voluntarily chosen and accepted. And a further
lowering or humbling takes place, till the lowest level is reached in a

■ It may bo noted that thn chief subjoct of enquiry is not the {)articular aspect of
the matter wbicli has most on;,Mge(I attention in recent times, namely, the limitu-
tion of our Lorrl's knowled^i' as man. I'.ut h<o Iienacus (uiv. Ihur. ii 28. 6-8,
Atl)aii(LsiuB Or. c. Ar. iii 42 (T., Basil Ep. 236, Greg. Naz. Or. Theol. iv 15.

* Arian or Ari.iniziiig thinkers Ijad seized upon N.T. [lassii^'os bearing on the
question as proof ili.it Christ wiia not really Ooil, without nt't^mptin;,' to umierst-ind
them as expressive of the limitation of the Godhead under cuuditions of human
existence.

296 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

death which is shameful in the eyes of men. It is all to bo followed,
as St Paul goes on to say, by a corresponding exaltation. But this only
serves to mark more plainly the reality of the previous renunciation
and emptying and humbling.

As to what was the exact nature and extent of the eelf-limitation of
the divine majesty, St Paul says nothing. Only it is clear that the
KfVwcris is regarded by him as a moral act of God and Christ, a free act
of will, a voluntary humiliation and self-surrender culminating in the
death on the crocs. It is to this passage that all later expressions go
back.

Only a few can be cited here.

One of the earliest references to the question is made by Irenaeus
(adv. Haer. iii 19. 3). " For just as he was man in order that he might
be tempted, so too he was Logos in order that he might be glorified.
When he was being tempted and crucified and dying, the Logos
remained quiescent {r](Tvxo^tovTo<; rov \6yov) ; when he was overcoming
and enduring and performing deeds of kindness and rising again and
being taken up, the Logos aided the human nature {a-uyyivofxivov t<3

Here we have a definite expression of the conception that the
Godhead was in abeyance during the processes and experiences proper
to the manhood. Free play, so to speak, was allowed the human nature.
The Logos forbore to exercise his functions. But at the same time he
was there. In these few words Irenaeus expresses, perhaps, as much of
explanation of the problem as is attainable.^ Hilary's later and more
elaborate statement of the theory is on the same lines.

But another point of view is represented by Origen.

As Origen describes it (see contra Celsum iv 15), though the kcvoxtis
is conditioned by God's great love for men, its special purpose is to
render the divine glory comprehensible to men. So far, at all events,
the Incarnation was a weakening and obscuring of the divine glory
(cf. C. Bigg Christian Platonists p. 262). "That which came down to
men ", he writes, " was originally in the form of God (i.e. existed at the
beginning as God — cv /Jiop(f>rj deov irnjpxe) ; and because of his love
toward men he emptied himself (eauTov efc/vwcrcv), in order that he might
be able to be comprehended by men (Jva ^wprjOrjvai inr avdpwirwv Swrjdy) ;
. . . and he humbled himself (tavrov cTaTretvajcrcv). . . . Out of con-
descension to such as cannot look upon the dazzling radiance of the

* Reference should be made to Tertullian's reply {adv. Marc, ii 27) to the
criticisms of Marcion in regard to the ' unworthy ' characteristics of the God of
the O.T. In attributing all these to the Son who represented God to men always,
Tertullian seems to conceive of a ' kenotic ' process, a limitation for the purpose of
revelation, dating from the first example of it in the creation of the universe and
of m&n.

EUTYCHIANISM 297

Godhead, he becomes as it were flesh, being spoken of in corporeal
fashion, until he that received him in this guise, being lifted up little by
little by the Word, becomes able to contemplate also what I may call his
inherent Godhead (jijv Trporjyovfievrjv fxop<l>rjv, referring to ev fiopcfyrj 6tov
vTnypx* which precedes)."

In these two sentences the KcVwo-ts is described. But the chapter in
which they occur is concerned with the objection of Celsus that the
Incarnation involved a change in the being of God and exposed him to
7ra6o5, and in meeting that objection Origen lays stress on the perman-
ence of the divine state along with the kcVcoo-is. When the immortal
God- Word took upon him a mortal body and a human soul, he did not
undergo any change or transformation (aWdmaOaL koI p.iTairXaTT(.(r6a.i),
or any passage from good to evil, or from blessedness to the reverse ;
but "remaining essentially (t^ oicria) the Word, he is not affected by
any of the things by which the body or the soul are affected ". Even a
physician may come into contact with things dreadful and unpleasant,
and be unaffected by them ; but whereas the physician may fall a
victim, ?ie, while healing the wounds of our souls, is himself proof
against all disease.

The theory of the ko'wctis is thus very little worked out by Origen.
It is little more than a veiling of the divine majesty which he expresses
by it, and he goes far towards representing it as something quite
external, and he describes it elsewhere (ibid, iv 19) as a device which
would not have been chosen by God of set purpose but was made
necessary by the circumstances of the case.

It is a much more reasoned theory that is expressed by Hilary (see
de Trinitate ix 14, xi 48, 49, xii 6, and Dorner Doctrine of the Person
of Christ Eng. tr. div. i ii p. 405 If.). He definitely considers (de Trin.
ix 14) the question how it is possible for him who is God to begin with,
and who does not cease to be God, to take the 'form of a servant',
through which he was obedient even unto death. He who is 'in the
form of a servant ' is one and the same person as he who is ' in the form
of God '. Taking the form of a servant and remaining in the form of
God are different things — the one form is incompatible with the other
form ; and ho who remained in the form of God could take the form of
a servant only by a process of self-renunciation {per evacuationem 8uam).
(The form of God excludes obedience unto death, the form of a servant
excludes the form of God.)

But it is obvious that it is one and the same Person all through, who
emptied {exinanivit) himself and who took the form of a servant (fot
only one who already subsists can take).

Therefore the renunciation (evaniaiio) of the form does not involve
the abolition of the nature, for he who renounces himself docs not lose
his own existence {non caret aese), and he who takes is still there

298 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

(inanet). In renouncing and in taking he is himself. In this there is a
mystery (sacramentum), but there is nothing to prevent him remaining
in existence while renouncing, and existing while taking. Accordingly,
the renunciation of 'the form of God' goes just far enough to make
'the form of a servant' possible; it does not go so far that Christ,
who was in the form of God, does not continue to be Christ; foir it
was none other than Christ who took tho form of a servant. The
change of 'fashion' {habitus, i.e. outward visible guise) which the
body denotes, and the assumption of human nature, did not destroy
the nature of the divinity which still continued. The renunciation
of self was such that remaining Spiritus Christus he became Christus
homo.

By forma Hilary seems to mean mode of existence ; by natura the
sum total of attributes. He does not use the word substantia in this
context ; but the thought seems to be that substantially he cannot be
other than God — such he remains all through, and as such he must
always have the attributes of God (the divine natura). But God can
exist in different modes, and he gives up the divine mode of existence so
far as is necessary in order to enter on the human mode of existence
{forma servi). He personally accepts a limitation. The ' emptying ' of
himself {exinanitio) takes place just so far as to make the true assump-
tion of the humanity possible; and the renunciation of the use and
enjoyment of the forma Dei is a continuous process all through his life
on earth. He ' tempers ' himself to the form of human fashion. He is
always forgoing the forma Dei, while all the time the divine natura,
which is absolutely his, is — under that limitation — in operation for the
benefit of mankind. (See ibid, xi 48.)

It cannot be said that the extent of the limitation is clearly
defined by Hilary. And when, elsewhere {ibid, x 47, 48), he con-
siders in what sense the only-begotten God could undergo the
sufferings of men, he has been understood to speak of our Lord's
body as endued with impassibility {indolentia), and of his soul as
not obnoxious to human afl'ections of fear, grief, and the like. His
language is not quite satisfactory ; he seems to denote the suffer-
ings as ours rather than his, while the triumph through and over
them is his. He draws a distinction between suffering and feeling
pain {pati and dolere), feeling pain on behalf of us and feeling pain
as we feel it {pro nobis dolet, non doloris nostri dolet sensu). But his
saying qiiidquid patitur, non sibi patitur gives the clue to his meaning,
and he would probably have accepted Cyril's explanation of the matter
(see supra p. 268).

He is only trying to guard the impassibility of the Godhead in itself,
while recognizing the sull'erings of the Incarnate God in his human
nature ; and he styles it all a sacramenluin or a sacramentum dispensa-

EUTYCHIANISM 299

tionig,^ and a voluntary act. Hilary's whole presentation of the matter
recognizes the ' mystery ' or the ' economy ' as ethical, the outcome of
free volition and self-sacrificing love ; ^ the manifestation not of weak-
ness but of immeasureable and unfailing strength.

What further advance was made in the enquiry during the
Apollinarian controversy may be in some measure gathered from
the discussion as to the human soul and will in Christ (see Notes
mpra pp. 247, 249).

The opponents of Nestorianism were chiefly concerned to assert the
single personality, and the icevwcrts is only touched on from this point of
view.

Thus Cyril expresses his conception in the following words (Ep. iii
ad Nestorium) : " The only-begotten Word of God himself, he that was
begotten of the very substance of the Father . . ., he by means of
whom all things came into being . . ., for the sake of our salvation
came down, and lowered himself to a condition of self-renunciation
{KaSiU tavTov £(s K€v(t)criv)." But he goes on at once to add, "and he
came forth man from woman, not having put away from him {or ' lost ')
what he was (ovx o-n-ep rjv dirojSefSXrjKw^), but although he came into
being sharing flesh and blood, even in that state remaining what he was
(kuI ovT(ji /j.efj.evrjKw'; oirep rjv), namely, God both in nature and in reality
. . . for he is unchangeable and unalterable, perpetually remaining
always the same, according to the Scriptures. But while visible, and an
infant, and in swaddling-clothes, and still in the bosom of the virgin
who bare him, he was filling all creation, as God, and was seated by the
side of Him who begat him." (Cf. also Cyril's letter to John of Antioch
— Heurtley p. 202.)

Nor did the subsequent Eutychian controversy contribute much to
the elucidation of this particular problem.

Leo's letter to Flavian does not do more, in this respect, than assert
concisely the maintenance of the personal identity and of the divine
power through the process of the Incarnation, while declaring it to be
an act of condescension. (Set; the passage siipra p. 289 Lat. humana
augens, divina non minuens . . . exinanitio ilia . . . inclinatio fuit
muerationis, non defeclio potestatis : . . . qui vianens in forma Dei
fecit hominem, idem in forma servi f actus est homo ; . . , tenet sine de-
feciu proprielatem suam utraque nalura.) By this act of compassionate
condescension he made himself visible and voluntarily subjected him-
self to the conditions of human life. But Leo does not define the extent

' These considerationa should correct Harnnck's depreciating criticism {DO.
Eng. tr. vol. iv p. 140) "When dealing witli tlie idi-a of self-huniilintion, Hilary
always tal<cs back in tlie sfconfl stat<'niput wliat he has asserted iu the 6rst, so that
the unchaiigealilcnesa of God may not sufTor."

»Cf. Johu 10'«.

300 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

or character of the limitation which the ' emptying ' involves. He ia
content with an edifying statement, and there is no such attempt at
accurate scholarly discrimination of terms as Hilary made. (Leo
apparently regards the forma Dei and the forma servi as existing
together side by side, whereas Hilary declared that the two 'forms'
could not coexist.)

Hilary's statement remains the one direct attempt which was
made during this period to understand and explain the nature of the

(Augustine deals with the matter in part de Trin. v 17 and vii 5.
See further on the whole subject Ottley Doctrine of the Incarnation
vol. ii p. 285 IT., and Gore Dissertations ' The Consciousness of our
Lord'.)

CHAPTER XVII

Pelagianism

Nowhere probably in the course of the history of doctrines are
fundamental antitheses more sharply marked than in the contro-
versies of the fifth century, as to the nature of man and sin and
grace. The different conceptions which then emerged seem to
be due to different points of view, corresponding to deep-
rooted differences of individual constitution and experience. One
man is inclined to natural explanations, another to supernatural ;
one to lay stress on the human power of good, another on the
human power of evil and inability to secure the good. The two
tendencies may be detected in ancient philosophies and religions,
and they are seen as clearly when men began to face the facts of
their experience in the light of the Christian revelation. Conscious
of sin and of the need of a force that was not his own to save him
from himself, and at the same time conscious of power of his own
which he must exercise himself; conscious of personal responsibility,
and, at the same time, of almost irresistible forces marshalled
against him — how was the Christian to express his experiences
in terms consistent with the doctrine of God which he had learnt?
The problem was scarcely faced till the time of Augustine.
The antithesis which St. Paul had recognized when he urged tlie
Philipiiians, " Work out your own salvation, for it is God that
worketh in you ", was not made the subject of theoretic treatment.
Free will and guiding grace went side by side in the thought, as
in the life, of Christian men. Both are apparently recognized
by the writers of the New Testament : on the one hand, the
gracious purpose of God, and, on the other, man's power to fulfil
or to defeat (iod's purpose. Sometimes Church teachers laid
more stress on the corrujition of man's nature, on the opposition
between grace and nature, and on the all-essentiiil need of tlie
divine <^race. Sometimes, against what seemccl an extravagantly
Buperuuturul tendency, they gave special i)roniiuence to human

302 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

freedom and power of self-recovery. But the relation between
free will and grace, and the exact nature and origin of sin in
individuals, were not reasoned out. The question did not attract
the attention of the Church as a whole, and did not become
prominent enough to call for authoritative settlement. But
various individual opinions were formed and expressed on
questions which really lie at the root of the whole matter ;
such questions as the origin of the soul and the effects of the
Fall. A short review of early thought and teaching in the
Church, in regard to these subjects, will be the best introduction
to the consideration of the controversy which was roused by the
teaching of Augustine and Pelagius.

Origin of the Soul — Different Theories

Three different theories of the origin of the soul were held
in the early Church — Pre-existence, Creationisnx, Traducianism.

(a) ' Pre-existence ' was taught by Origen. All human souls
were created at the beginning of creation, before the worlds, as
angelic spirits. They sinned (except the one which remained
pure and was in Jesus^, and in consequence of their apostasy
were transferred into material bodies. This existence is thus
only a disciplinary process, on the completion of which the soul,
having passed if necessary through many bodily lives, will be
restored to its original condition. The bodies of men come
into being in the ordinary course of physical propagation.

This theory seems to carry with it the theories of Metem-
psychosis (as regards human beings) and Anamnesis (Transmigra-
tion of souls and Eecollection) ; but Origen makes little use of
either. It was no doubt suggested to him by Platonism, though
he defended it on scriptural authority.^

The theory secures individual responsibility and accounts
for ' original ' sin * ; but it makes the soul the real man, and

^E.g., particularly, John 9', "Mister, who did sin, this man or his parents,
that he was born blind t", and the allegorical account in Genesis of the fall of the
linilc pre-existent spirit from the higher to the lower sphere, and tlie hope of
restoration (Rorn. 8'") ; and he explained the choice of Jacob in preference to Esau
as the result of merit acquired in a preceding stage of existence (of. Rom. 9^^"-).

' In his later works, during his life at Caesarea, Origen seems to have accepted
the Church theory of original sin, in consequence, however, of the prevalent
practice of infant baptism, rather than of his own theory of ' pre-existence '. >»««i
Bigg Christian Platonials pp. 202, 203.

PELAGIANISM 303

the body merely a temporary prison — no constituent element
of humanity. Further, it is an extreme form of individualism ;
each soul being a pure unit created by a distinct fiat, and
having no connexion with other souls, there is no created
species, no common human nature, no solidarity of mankind.^

(&) ' Creationism ' was the prevalent theory among the
Eastern fathers, and was held by Jerome and Hilary. Each
individual soul was a new creation by God de nihilo (at the time of
birth, or whenever individual existence begins) and was joined to
a body derived by natural process of generation from the parents.^

Thus the physical part of every man is derived by procrea-
tion and propagation from the originally created physical nature
of the first man — and so the solidarity of the physical nature is
upheld, going back to the first creative act. But the spiritual
part is a new divine act and must therefore be pure, and so evil
must have its seat in the body only, that is, in matter.^

(c) ' Traducianism ' was generally accepted in the West (Leo
{Ep. 15) asserted that it was part of the Catholic faith), and in
the East by Gregory of Nyssa. Tertullian, in particular, gave
forcible expression to the theory. The first man bore within
him the germ of all mankind ; his soul was the fountain-head
of all human souls ; all varieties of individual human nature
were only different modifications of that one original spiritual
substance. Creation was finally and completely accomplished on
the sixth day. As the body is derived from the bodies of the
parents, so the soul is derived from the souls of the parents —
body and soul together being formed by natural generation.*

This theory entirely accounts for the unity of mankind and
the transmission of sin through the parents {tradux animae
tradiix peccati). All human nature became corrupt in the original
father of the race and inherits a bias to evil. This is the vitium
originis, the blemish or taint in the stock whicli necessarily
affects tlie oflHpring, so that all are born with its stain upon
them. But against this theory objections are urged, that it

' This tlipory was condemncfl by the Council of Constantinople in 540.
'So Jcror7io nd r<trnmachi}un " (!o'l is (Lilly fa.sliioninj; souls" — supported by
John 5", Psalm 33", Zech. 12', and Hilary Tract on I's. <»1 § 3.

• And infanta before committing any actual olfenco would bo sinless ; see Angus-
tine on the theory, infra p. 304.

* The biblical basis of this theory was St I'aul's teaching on the connexion of
the race with Adarn and the origin of sin, Rom. 5'^" ; cf. 1 Cor. 15", Epb. 2»,
Heb. 7", Pa. 51», Gen. 5».

304 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

makes man the product of previous circumstances, allows no
room for individual free will, and seems to materialize the soul.

Augustine, who probably contributed most to its currency,
nowhere definitely teaches it. But the view which he held of
sin and its origin and transmission seems to imply the trans-
mission of the soul that sins. He argues {de Anima bk. 1,
against a work of Vincentius Victor on Creationism) that no texts
demonstrate Creationism, and insists that anyone holding that
theory must avoid the four following errors — (i) that souls so
created are made sinful by an infusion of a sinful disposition, not
truly their own, at the moment of birth ; (ii) that infants are
destitute of original sin and do not need baptism ; (iii) that souls
sinned previously, and therefore are imprisoned in sinful flesh ;
(iv) that souls of those who die in infancy are only punishable
for sins which it is foreknown they would have committed later.
All passages from the Holy Scriptures prove, he says, that God
is the creator, giver, framer of the human soul ; but How —
whether by in-breathing it newly created or by the traduction of
it from the parent — they nowhere say.

In the Middle Ages Traducianism fell into disrepute, as con-
flicting with the soul's immortality, and materializing it, and not
being needed by the form of anthropology which then prevailed — a
form which was more closely allied to Greek than to Latin thought.^

These different theories would involve different conceptions
of the atonement. According to the first, evil is a fall from a
higher to a lower state of being, and the atonement would be
spiritual but individual — a rescue of individual souls one by
one from the material bodies in which they were imprisoned.
According to the second, evil is material, and the atonement
would concern the physical nature only, unless the soul be
regarded as becoming tainted by its association with the body.
According to the third, evil is inherent in body and soul alike,
and the atonement would be an almost magical ' new creation '.

Note. — Though it is no part of the purpose of this sketch of the
history of doctrine to justify or criticize the doctrines which are dealt
with, it may be pointed out that the Traducian theory is the only one
which modern biological knowledge supports. Though it is impossible
to dissect a man in any stage of his existence into body and soul, it is
impossible to point to any moment when the soul begins to be. From
the first, in human experience, both are one, and both alike are — as one

' See infra pp. 307, 326.

PELAGIANISM 305

— derived from the parents. The whole man is derived from the
parents. But if it be right to speak of body and soul as his constituents,
it is not right to declare that this process ' materializes ' the soul. It is
at least as probable that it is all through the soul — in its growth — that
determines the body, as that the body determines the soul. The matter
cannot be proved either way, and in the present stage of knowledge,
when such terms as ' spirit ' and * matter ' and the relations between
them are so ambiguous, it is impossible to feel confidence in the current
criticisms of the Traducian theory.

Different Conceptions of the Fall and its Effects

Similarly, different conceptions of the effects of the Fall were
current. On the whole, in the early Church, in spite of a keen
sense of the opposition between the ideal and the real, the more
hopeful view of human nature and its capacities prevailed. Of
sin and its origin there was no exact idea (so that the Gnostics
could refer it either to the Demiurge or to matter).^ The
accounts in the ' Mosaic ' books were the historical foundation —
some (as Tertullian) regarding them as strictly literal, others
(Origen, Irenaeus, the Gnostics) as allegorical, while Augustine
held the story of the Fall to be both historical and symbolic. In
any case the temptation was regarded as a real temptation to sin,
and the transgression of the command as a fall from a state of
innocence which was followed by disasters to the human race,
death and physical evils being the result ; ^ though the more
spiritual view was put forward by such men as Origen, who
wrote on one of the key-passages, " The separation of the soul
from God, which is caused by sin, is called death " ^

Individual sin, however, was still regarded as the free act of
man's will : rather a re])etition than a necessary consequence of
the first sin — not simply the result of a hereditary tendency.
The Fall was not regarded as destroying human freedom of will.
The power of self-determination, held to be inherent in the

* 8in, tliou^h in some aense a hr.t of universal exporienco, cannot be said to
have oeen fully rcalizcfl till it was felt (as by Jews and Christians) na an olfcuce
against an Eternal Ilolinnss. Tho true idea of sin was first grasped side by side
with the idea of redemption. The idea of rpdonijition iniplic^s a sense of being
rescued from some alien power, and, at the same time, a sense of possessing caj)acity
for the higher life to which such a rescue leads. It implies, that is, the corruption
of human nature from a state in which it in capable of reaching holiness, so that
in its present state it needs some stimulus to its innate capacity, to enable it to
regain and realize the condition which it lias lost.

' Cf. Iren. a>lv. Ilaer. iii 23 ; v 15, 17, '23. » Origin otv Rom. lib. vi § 6.

306 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Imman soul, was the manifestation of the image of God in man
To this freedom of man to choose good or evil the early apolo-
gists and Fathers, and even Tertullian, unanimously testify. Thus
Justin says,^ " If it has been fixed by fate that one man shall be
good and another bad, the one is not acceptable, the other not
blameable. And, again, if the human race has not power by a
free moral choice to tlee from the evil and to choose the good, it
is not responsible for any results, whatever they may be ". And
Origen declared that if the voluntary character of virtue were
destroyed, the very thing itself was destroyed.^ As in sin, so
too in the work of redemption, man had his part to play — his
own free will to exercise : " As the physician offers health to
those that work with him with a view to health, so too God
offers eternal salvation to those that work with him with a view
to knowledge and right conduct." ' This moral power of choice
in all men was, for example, strenuously maintained against the
Gnostic teaching, that capacity for redemption and power of
moral freedom belonged only to one class of men (the irvev-
fMUTiKoi), and that the schism in man was something necessary
in the evolution of existence.* Tertullian, approaching the
problem from the Traducian theory, was the first to use the
expression vitmm originis to describe the stain or blemish or
defect from which man's nature suffered since the Fall ; so that
while his true nature is good, evil has become a second nature
to him. But this ' original sin * he did not regard as involving
guilt — in urging delay of baptism he asks what need there is

* Apol. i 43 ; cf. Tatian. Or. 7 ; Athenag. Leg. 31 (God did not create us as
sheep or bnite beasts, so it is not natural that we should will to do evil {iOe\o-
Ko-Kflv)) ; Theophilus ad Aulol. ii 27.

' 0. Cels. iv 3, » Clem. Al. Strom, vii 7.

* The Gnostics were the first to frame the dilerana — "If the first man was
created perfect, how could he sin ? If lie was created imperfect, God is Himself the
author of sin." It cannot be said that any sufficient answer was given on the side
of the Church. Clement, indeed, denied that man was created perfect, declaring
that he was made with the capacity for virtue, but that its cultivation depended
on himself (Stromateis vi 12). And others drew a distinction between the tlKiLv
(the imagf, the original capacities wliich were indestructible), and the o/moIoxth tov
Oeov (the likeness of God, which was to be realized by the right use of these capaci-
ties in due developement). The perfection was ' ideal ', and there was also freedom of
the will ; and it was in the will that tlie source of sin was found, the actual develop-
ment of the innate capacity falling short of the ideal. Most of the fathers also
held that for the realization of the ideal there was needed a third principle, which
was supernatural in character, namely, fellowship with God, so that without this
co-operation man could not attain to his destiny.

PELAGIANISM 307

for ' innocent ' children to hurry to the remission of sins.^ And
though laying stress on the moral depravity of man resulting
from inherited sin, and on the need of the grace of God to
effect his redemption, he expressly taught the inherent capacity
of the soul for communion with God in virtue of its proper
nature.^ Origen, by his theory of the origin of human souls,
according to which they were all stained by sin in a previous
stage of existence, might seen to favour the idea of original
sin ; * but his assertion of the freedom of the will is in strong
contrast with Augustine's teaching, and he maintained that guilt
arises only when men yield to sinful inclinations.* The moral
powers might be enfeebled by the Fall, but with one voice, up to
the time of Augustine, the teachers of the Church declared they
were not lost. So the Cappadocian fathers taught, and Chry-
sostom. Gregory of Nyssa definitely finds in the freedom of the
will the explanation of the fact that the grace of faith does not
come upon all men alike. The call, he declares,^ comes with equal
meaning to all, and makes no distinction (this was the lesson of the
gift of tongues), but " He who exercises control over the universe,
because of His exceeding regard for man, permitted something to
be under our own control, of which each of us alone is master.
This is the will {irpoalpeai'^), a thing that cannot be enslaved,
but is of self-determining power, since it is seated in the liberty
of thought and mind {hiuvoLo) ". If force were used, all merit
would be gone. " If the will remains without the capacity of
action, virtue necessarily disappears, since it is shackled by the
paralysis (uKtvijaca, lack of initiative) of the will." Whatever
stress was laid on the need for the introduction into human nature
of a new principle,^ it was reserved for Augustine to represent
man as unable to even will what was good and right.'

' De baptismo 18.

' Sef! e.y. de anima 40, 41, and tho treatise on the testimonium animae not.
Christ id II 11^.

• Sie df, Princ. iii 5. 4 ; hut see also supra p. 302 n. 2.

• Sec de Princ. iii 2. 2, iii 4 ; cf. Basil Ilcxhaem. ii .'>, vi 7.

•Greg. Nyss. Or. Cat. xxx, xxxi ; cf. Antirrhet. xxix (Mi;,'iie xlv p. UPS).

• As, e.g., by Athana.sins. Man had admitted corruption into his nature and beiTif^
and had passed into a state of moral death — it was therefore necessary thatiucorrnp-
tion and life should be united with that nature before it could recover. See tho de
Incarnatione.

' According to Augustine hini.self, the Church of Christ had always held the
doctrines he tauglit, and any sayings of tho fathers that seemed to favour Pelagian
conceiitions were but ohilfr dicta, the Pelagian irifcrenees from wliich would have
been repudiatf;d at once (Pelagianis noudum litigantibus securius loqucbantur).

308 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

The Teadiing of Augustine

Augustine was, it is true, the first great teacher who dealt with
anthropology — tlie developeinent of which was peculiarly Western,
as the result of practical experience and needs. The conception
of redemption implies at once a sense of moral insufficiency and
a sense of moral freedom on the part of those who seek redemp-
tion — a freedom which recognizes its own guilt and appropriates
the means of redemption. According as the one or the other
sense is the more active, Christianity appears either as a new
creation, a new element in life, changing and eimobling the
entire nature, or, as a higher power, calling out all that is best
in human nature and freeing it from impediments to its due and
destined developement. Those who experience a sudden crisis,
or from a turbulent consciousness of guilt, are brought to the
sense of pardon and peace, naturally tend to the former con-
ception, while those who reach the goal by a more quiet and
gradual process will recognize the latter conception as true to
the facts they know.

The two courses and tendencies are represented in Augustine
and Pelagius respectively. Of Augustine it has been well said,
that " he could do neither good nor evil by halves. From a
dissolute youth he recoiled into extreme asceticism, and from
metaphysical freedom into the most stringent system of authority.
He was the staunchest champion of orthodoxy ... he did not
sufficiently respect the claims of conscience. . . . He sacrificed
the moral element to God's sovereignty, which he maintained
unflinchingly." ^ He was specially conscious of the difficulty of
the struggle for holiness, of the opposition between that which
issued from nature left to itself, estranged from God, and the
fruits of the new divine principle of life imparted by union
with Christ. Different stages in the developement of his views
may be detected, but the final form they assumed is the most
characteristic, and has been the most influential. Justice can
hardly be done to the views of so profound a thinker in a
summary ; but the ideas of human nature, of sin, and of grace
which dominated his thought, may be concisely stated in their
main aspects.

* De Pressense, Art. ' Angiistine ' D.C.B. — an excellent appreciation of Augustine,
in which full weight is also given to otlier elements in his nature, especially his
"love for Christ and for the aouls of hia brother men ".

PELAGIANISM 309

As to huniau nature, he held the 'fall' of man to have been
complete, so that the power of spiritual good is entirely lost, and
ever afterwards he wills nothing but evil and can do nothing
but evil.^ The fall was not limited to Adam — in him all have
sinned ^ and all have been condemned. By birth all receive the
taint of the ancient death which he deserved.^ Adam, as the
stem of the human family, infected and corrupted his entire
posterity. The whole race shares his guilt, and cannot by any
efforts of its own escape the penalty which is due. It shares
his guilt, because it was already in existence potentially in him,
80 that it really sinned when he sinned. It is only by a very
resurrection — a second creation in elfect — that it can recover
the divine life which it had in Adam before the Fall.

As to sin, he held that human nature as originally created,
was free from sin, designed for communion with God and able to
realize the end of its being, though having also the capacity for sin.
Sin was contrary to the law of human nature, but ever since the
first sin it has been present in every one as a disease eating out
all true life, and only a radical cure can overcome it. A new
life must be given to men, planted in them afresh.

As to grace, he maintained that this power to recover life,
which is really a new gift of life, is entirely the free gift of God
drawing men to Christ.* No human power can deliver man from

* Action follows the strongest motive. This is given either by God or by Nature.
Nature being tainted, the strongest motive must always bo evil, prior to God's gift
of grace.

' So he interpreted Rom. 5'- ' in quo omnes peccaverunt' — a possible meaning of
the Latin but not of the Greek i<f> y. See contra dtias epp. Pel. ivc.4§7. But
the concpption of a 'race' life and a 'race' guilt (iu wliich every individual is
involved) does not depend only on a mistaken interpretation of this passage.
Augustine conceived of Adam as originally perfect (tho 'original righteousness' of
the race), iio.sHf.s.sing free will {lihernvi arhitriuvi), but caj)ablo of using his freeflom
to the injury of liis liighest interests. He nnglit liavo persevered had he wislied ;
his will was free, so as to be able to wish well or ill {de Corrept. et Oratia 11) ; but
since, thronj^h freewill, he deserted God, lie exjierienced the just judgement of (Jod —
was condemned with his wlidle stock, which was tlien contained in him and sinned
with him (shared in his sin) (ih. 10), and so lost tlie gift of original rigliteousuess
which c'«uld only be restored Ijy a second gift of suiicrnatural grace.

* Augustine found the support of tradition for tho doctrine of original sin in the
rite of exorcLsin, which ho believed to be of apostolic origin (c. Jidinn. vi 5 11).

* At an earlier time Augustine had held that tho first step by which man was
qualified to receive tho gilt of grace waa his own act, the act of faith on his own
part (de Prcuded. iii 7). Of. what he says, wlicn reviewing the histmy of his thought,
Jlelracl. it i 1 "to solve this question wo laboured iji the cause of freedom of the
liuman will but the grace of God won tho day".

310 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

his hereditary depravity. In the process man is completely
passive — as passive as the infant child in baptism. In a sense
it is true to say, that the human will plays no part in it at all ;
it has no power of initiative, and when the new gift is given it
has no power of resistance. But, on the other hand, it is evident
that this was not Augustine's real meaning. The grace given is
a new gift ; and it renews the will in such a way that the will
is set free to choose the good and to follow it unswervingly.
And the grace thus given is irresistible, in the sense that the
will, which has thus had true freedom restored to it, has no
desire to resist the good.

Of all Augustine's most characteristic conceptions, none
perhaps is more significant than this conception of true freedom
as connoting inability to sin. Man is only really free when
nothing that could injure him has any power over him. The
highest virtue is the fixed habit of good, when man feels no
wish to sin and cannot sin. Then and then only does man
enjoy true freedom of will. The finest expression to this thought
is given incidentally, in writing of the eternal felicity and per-
petual sabbath of ' the city of God ',^ when evil will have lost
all power of attraction. " It is not the case that they wUl not
have free will, because sins will not have power to delight them.
Nay, the will will be more truly free, when it is set free from
the delight of sinning to enjoy the unchangeable delight of not
sinning. For the first free will which was given^ to man, when
he was first created upright, had power not to sin, but had
power also to sin. This latest free will, however, will be all the
more powerful because it will not have power to sin — this too
by the gift of God, not by its own unaided nature. For it is
one thing to be God, and another thing to partake of God. God
by his very nature is not able to sin ; but one who partakes of
God has received from Him the inability to sin. . . . Because
man's nature sinned when it was able to sin, it is set free by a

* Z>« CivilcUe Dei xxii 30. To some extent it is true that there is here a
paradox, or a confusion of sense. There is never really freedom of will. Prior to
grace, man can only do evil ; afier grace given, he cannot do evil. This confusion
of sense is plainly seen in another passage De gratia et libera arbitrio 15. "The
will {voluntas) in us is always free, but it is not always good. It is either free from
righteousness (justitia) when it serves sin, and then it is evil : or it is free from sin
when it serves righteousness, and then it is good. But the grace of God is always
good, and through this it comes about that a man is of good will who before was of
evil will." 'Free 'here simply means unimpeded by any power that thwarts the
inclination.

PELAGIANISM 311

more bounteous gift of grace, to lead it to that liberty in which
it is not able to sin. Just as the first immortality, which Adam
lost by sinning, was the ability to escape death, and the latest
immortality will be the inability to die ; so the first free will
was the ability to escape sin, the latest the inability to sin.
The desire for piety and equity will be as incapable of being
lost as is the desire for happiness. For, assuredly, by sinning we
retained neither piety nor happiness, and yet even when happi-
ness was lost we did not lose the desire for happiness. I
suppose it will not be said that God Himself has not free will,
because He cannot sin."

This conception of freedom, the heata nccessitas non peccandi —
well summed up in the motto of Jansenism, Dei servitus vera
libertas, and the familiar phrase of the ' Collect for Peace ', whose
service is perfect freedom — was supported, or accompanied, by other
novel teaching : novel at all events in the form it assumed.
Clearly the question had to be faced, if man has entirely lost
the power of self-recovery and self-determination, and salvation
depends absolutely on the free gift of God ; what is it that
determines the disposal of this gift ? To this question Augustine
could only answer that the diflerence between men, in their
reception of the divine grace, depends on the decree of pre-
destination which determines the number of the elect who are
to replace the fallen angels. God's will, God's call, alone decides
the matter. All men are debtors. He has a right to remit
some debts and to demand payment of others. We cannot
know the reason of His choice : why the gift of grace, the new
principle of life which restores to men their true free will, is
given to some and withheld from others. By the divine decree,
without reference to future conduct, some are elected as vasa
misericordiae to redemption ( praedestinatio), and others are left
as vasa irae to condemnation {reprohatio). Tiie latter are simply
left.^ The former are kept faithful by the further gift of
'perseverance' by wliich fresh supplies of grace are bestowed —
this again being beyond man's conipreheusion. " Why to one

' So Aiif,'iistine put tho matter. In this respect, at all events, lio wonld not po
beyond the wnrdfl of St. I'mil, who .speaks of tiio " vpssels of nicify " as "afore ])ri'-
pared unto glory " Ity Ood, but of tho " vcssel.s of wrath " as " fitted to destruction "
without attributing the fitness directly to God (Rom. Q^'''^). But naturally some
of hiH followers (notably the monks of Adrumctum in North Africa) applicsl to tho
vana irae the pohitive principle, and taught tho twofold i)redeatination (praeiUstijialio
duplex) to sin and evil, a.s well as to life.

312 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

of two pious men perseverance to the end is given, and is not
given to the other, is only known to God's mysterious counsels.
Yet this much ought to be regarded as certain by believers —
the one is of the number of those predestinated (to life), the
other is not." ^

The two ideas of predestination and of grace are clearly
expounded in his letter to Sixtus,^ a priest of the Roman
Church. He sets forth the conception of a Will absolute, which
out of a * mass ' of souls, all alike deserving of perdition (massa
perditionis) on account of original sin (apart from sins of their
own commission), selected a minority to be vessels of divine
mercy, and abandoned the majority as vessels of wrath, without
any regard to foreseen moral character.^ The purpose of God
thus formed cannot be frustrated. The grace which is given is
irresistible and indefectible. It must achieve its object : it cannot
fail. The souls of those predestinated or elected to salvation it
so bends to its own pleasure, as literally to make them respond
and obey.*

The plain assertion of St Paul that " God wills all men to
be saved " he interpreted as meaning that he is no respecter of
persons, and that all classes, ages, and conditions of mankind, are
to be found among the elect.

Opposition of Pelagius — his Antecedents

' Pelagianism ' was really a reaction against Augustine's system
and the tendency which it represents. The experiences of
Pelagius, in all the circumstances of his life, had been very

^ The divine counsels are inscrutable. Again and again Augustine is brought to
this confession of human ignorance ; but he is very far from admitting anything
arbitrary or unjust in the methods and acts of God. All are the outcome of justice,
wisdom, and love, and are governed by an eternal purpose of good. Yet how
' predestination ' is consistent with the love of God, he does not expressly attempt
to shew.

» Written in 417 or 418. JE^. 194.

' In earlier years he had regarded the choice as conditional on man's free will
and faith, foreknown by God — see the reference in de praedest. 7 ; but the doctrine
of grace, as described above, requires a doctrine of predestination independent of
man's initiative.

* The relation between free will and grace is also set forth in the letter to
Vitalis, Ep. 217 (Migne xxxiii p. 978 ff.), especially ch. vi, where he insists that
the doctrine of grace in no way destroys the freedom of the will, inasmuch aa it is
grace only which makes the will free to choose and to do what is good — the con-
ception which has been referred to supra p. 310.

PELAGIANISM 313

dilTerent from Augustine's ; and it seemed to him that such
conceptions as Augustine's were alike unscriptural and immoral.
It is said that he was greatly shocked when a bishop quoted
to him from the Confessions of Augustine,^ which had just been
publislied, the famous prayer, Da quod juhes et jule quod vis
(give what Thou biddest and bid what Thou wilt), since it seemed
to exclude man's part in his own salvation. But his point of
view was altogether different. A monk of Britain and a layman,
he had lived all his life in the peace and solitude of a monastery,
a regular life under the shelter of the cloister walls. He had
probably passed through a quiet course of developement, without
experience of the darker sides of human existence and the depth
of evil to which human nature can sink. He had not been
called on to engage in any such struggles as those which
Augustine went through ; and the character built up by his
experience was predominantly sober and discreet, well-balanced
on the whole, although perforce somewhat lacking in sympathy
with emotions in which he had had no share. Of learning and
moral earnestness he had full measure.

The weakness of the monastic ideal has often been pointed
out. Like all other rules of life, though designed to govern the
inner man, it is in danger of concentrating attention on the sur-
face of life. Individual sins are battled against and conquered,
and outbreaks of sinful impulses checked by constant watchful-
ness. The conquest of sins may be mistaken for the conquest
of sin. Again, high moral ideals have diU'crent effects on
dilTerent temperaments. Some are led by them to deeper self-
examination and inner spiritual life, to fuller realization of the
opposition between the ideal outside and the actual within.
They are stimulated to seek to remove the opposition, and yet,
distrusting self, to realize the need of the aid of a power not
their own. Others, conscious of victory over the temptations of
sense, of successes already eHected in the struggle, may be led
to confide in their own moral efforts and to think they have
produced great results, while really the evil may be in no true
sense eradicated.

' Confess. X 40. Cf. what Aiigiistino Bays about it de dono persev. 20, 53
(Migno 7'./,. xlv p. ]02fi). Ho (IcffmlH tlio ]irayiT on Ww. ground Unit Goil's chief
Command to man is to believe in Him, and that failh in Ilim is HIh own gift, and
that by grnce He turns the wills of men, even when actively hostile, to the faitL
which He requires.

314 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

The Chief Principles maintained hy Pelagius

If Pelagius rose above the worse consequences of the monastic
ideals, yet the life he had led no doubt exerted an influence on
his views. One far-going principle, which resulted from the life
of obedience to detailed rules,^ was the distinction he drew
between what was enjoined ( praecepta — obligatory) and what was
only recommended as an object of higher perfection {consilia —
optional). By abstaining from what was permitted you could
become entitled to a higher reward, there being different grades
of merit and of Christian perfection.

On the study of Scripture Pelagius laid great stress, insisting
wherever possible on the literal interpretation of its teaching.
" If you choose to understand precepts as allegories, emptying
them of all their power, you open the way to sin to all." The
injunction " Be ye perfect even as your Father which is in
heaven is perfect ", was enough to prove that perfection is possible
for men. What the Lord said, he meant. The giving of the
command presupposes the power to obey it. And when the
apostle declared to the Christians of Colossae that the purpose
of the reconciliation which God designed was to present them
" holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight " (Col. 1^*),
Pelagius rejects with scorn the notion that he knew he had
enjoined on them what was impossible.

But his principles were really evolved in opposition also to
the practical evils of the time. Much of the Christianity of
those days was very worldly. The distinction between the
spiritual and the secular was employed as an excuse for a lower
standard of life. The corruption and weakness of human nature
was used as a plea for indulgence. " We say ", Pelagius replies,
" it is hard, it is difficult ; we cannot, we are but men. ... Oh
what blind madness ! It is God we impeach ! " * And so his

^ But see infra p. 353, Note 'The Doctrine of Merit'.

' In the letter to Deinctrias (§§ 7, 8 Migue P.L. xxx p. 22) he insists that the
Scriptures never excuse those who sin, on the ground that they cannot help them-
selves, but put the burden on their lack of will {peccantes ubique crimine voluntatis
gravant, ncm, excusant necessitate naturae) : all through they write alike of good and
of evil as voluntary. And he exi)lains that his anxiety to defend 'the good' of
nature is due to his desire to repudiate the idea that we are driven to evil through
the defect of nature, whereas we really do neither good nor evil except by the
exercise of our owti ^vill — we are always free to do one of two things. (This is his
conception of the freedom of the will — the power of choosing at any moment one
course or another, good or evil.) He says that the argument involved in the plea

PELAGIANISM 315

first concern was to make men see that they were not in want
of any of the faculties which are necessary for the fulfilment of
the divine law. Even among pagans there were great examples
of virtue which proved how much human nature unaided could
do. It was not their nature, but their will, that was to blame.
Men had it in their power to reach perfection, if they would
use the forces which they had at hand. The power and freedom
of choice possessed by men he specially emphasized against the
doctrine of irresistible grace and predestination. It is the use
which is made of it which determines the issue, whether a man
succumbs to or conquers temptations.

And thus, in the interest of the power of self-determination,
and against the fatalistic acquiescence in a low morality, he was
led to deny the ' corruption ' of human nature — a doctrine which
seemed to him to encourage moral indolence. " Neither sin nor
virtue is inborn, but the one as well as the other developes
itself in the use of freedom and is to be put to the account
only of him who exercises this freedom." Each individual is a
moral personality in himself, apart from others, endowed by the
Creator with reason and free will ; and the only connexion
between the sin of Adam and the sin of men is the connexion
between example and imitation. He could not acknowledge sin
propagated by generation {j^eccatum ex traduce), and believed the
Boul to be a new creation from God, contemporaneous with the
body and therefore untainted and pure (Creationism). God has
given all the power to reach perfection — they have only to will
and to work it out. The widespread existence of sin in the
world is due to education and example. Augustine, on the
other hand, with a much stronger sense of the solidarity of the
human race, regarded the sin of Adam as involving so vast a
change as to affect his whole posterity.^

that we have no power to fulfil the divine commands (it is hard, it is dilTicult . . .
§ 16) really implies that God ordors tis what is impossible for us to do, and tlion
condemns us for not doing it ; as thoiigli lie sought our |iunishiiient rather than our
salvation. Ho is jn.ttus and pius— it is inipossiblo tliat a theory which has sucii
consequences can be true.

' Pelagius iijijarently rcoognizwl no criterion of sin but .iits which are the
products of the individual's own volition. For tlio.se only is he responsible.
'Hereditary' sin would therefore be impossible. A<igustine, on the contrary, with
a strong sense of the solidarity of the race, regar(ie<i sin as present since the fall, in
the disposition or nature of man, prior to any individual conscious act. The
individual's volition was exercised once for aU by Adam, and every man had
inherited ever since an evil disposition, the acts of which must necessarily be evlL

316 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

These two uegations of Pelafjius — (1) the denial of the
necessity of supernatural and directly assisting; grace for any true
service of God on the part of man ; and (2) the denial of the
transmission of a fault and corruption of nature, and also of
physical death, to the descendants of the first man in consequence
of his transgression — found expression in the commentaries he com-
posed on the Epistles of St Paul,^ and attracted attention during a
visit which he paid to Kome in the early years of the fifth ceutui-y.

The Pelagian Controversy — CoeUstius

Pelagius was little inclined for controversy, but while at
Rome he converted to the monastic life an advocate, Coolestius,
who eagerly adopted his ideas and wished to defend and propa-
gate them against all others. It was Coelestius, rather than
Pelagius himself, who was the immediate cause of the outbreak
of the controversy. Three stages in it may be noted.^

The First Stage at Carthage. — The scene of the first stage
was Africa. Pelagius was on his travels to the East, and
left Rome with Coelestius in the year 409, and after a stay
in Sicily went to Carthage in the year 411. When he left,
Coelestius stayed Ijehind and wished for ordination to the
priesthood there, but rumours of his peculiar views were
current, and a discussion ensued at a synod held at Carthage
in 412 (or possibly the previous year). He was charged
with six heretical propositions,^ the chief and centre of which
were — (a) that the sin of Adam had injured himself only
and not the whole human race, and (&) that children come into

The origin of siu is thus not separated from volition, and though the volition of the
individual is determined by the sin of the first man, yet he is himself responsible.
It is from a disposition or nature already sinful that sinful acts proceed.

* Migne P.L. pp. xxx 645-902. On the curioua literary history of this book see
Art. 'Pelagius' D.C.B.

' See Art, ' Pelagius ' D. C.B., and Hefele Councils vol. ii pp. 446 ff. See also, for
the whole question. Art. ' Augustine ' by Dr. Robertson in the new volume of D. C.B,

* These were — 1. Adam was created mortal, and would have died whether he
had sinned or not. 2. The sin of Adam injured himself alone, not the human race.
3. Little children, bom into the world, are in the condition in wliich Adam was
before the Fall. 4. It is not through the death or the fall of Adam that the whole
race of men dies, nor through^the resurrection of Chri.st that the whole race of men
rises again. 5. The law, as well as the gospel, conducts to the kingdom of heaven.
6. Even before the coming of the Lord there were men who were free from sin. (In
another account, 5 is combined with 6, and in its place is given — Infants, although
they be not baptized, have eternal life.)

PELAGIANISM 317

life in the same condition in which Adam was before the Fall,
Against the accusation, he insisted that the orthodox were not
agreed upon the manner in which the soul was propagated, and
whether sin was inherited or not. The issue was merely specula-
tive and not a matter of faith. It was an open question in the
Church. It was enough that he maintained the necessity of
baptism. For the bishops, however, this was not enough ; and, as
he refused to condemn the views attributed to him, he was ex-
cluded from communion. Against the sentence he appealed to
the judgement of his native Church, and going on to Ephesus
obtained the ordination which he wished.^

The Second Stage in FalestiTie. — The scene of the next stage
of the controversy was Palestine, whither Pelagius had gone.
There he found an opponent in Jerome,^ and in a Spanish priest",
Orosius, sent to Bethlehem by Augustine to stay the progress of
Pelagian teaching. Accordingly, at a synod at Jerusalem in 415
under the bishop, John, he was called on to explain, Orosius
reported what had happened at Carthage, and said that Pelagius
taught " that man can live without sin, in obedience to the
divine commands, if he pleases." Pelagius admitted that he
taught so ; and God's command to Abraham to walk before him and
be perfect (Gen. 17^) was cited by the bishop himself, as pre-
supposing the possibility of perfection in a man. But, in reply
to questions, Pelagius declared that he did not exclude the help
of God, but held tliat everyone who strove for it received from
God the power to be entirely sinless. In the East, at all events
at this time, men were not accustomed to fine distinctions be-
tween grace and free will, and were not anxious to define precisely
the limits of each agency, and were not prepared to accept with-
out discussion the decisions of the synod to which Orosius
appealed.^ They were satisfied by general statements of belief

' Soon after this a book of Pelagius de Natura was given to Augustine, and he
replietl to it in his tracts* Natura H Crania (which contains all tliat is extant of the
work which it answors). He had jircviously written the tract de. Spirilu ft Litera.

' Jerome was in agreement with Augustine, and referred Pelagianisiii to the
influence of Origen and Rnfinns, and wrote against it. See ad <Jte.iipho>Uem { Ep, 183,
Migne P.L. xxii j). 1 147) and DinlinjuH contra 7'«f/af/m7tos(Migno /'. A. ixiii 41l.5-.''i90).

* Tliey resented aa a rudeness the curt rcjily i'rl.igiuH made ( Wliat have I to do
with Augustine t), when asked if he had really proitoundod the doctrine which
Augustine opposed ; but tliey were not ready to consider oven the support of his
great name decisive. The lii.shop of .lerusalein had licen ' suspect ' for 'Origenistic '
leanings, and therefore was not likely to he a persona grata \d Jerome or Augustine.
See his defence— Hahu ^ ji. 2f4.

318 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

ill the need of divine assistance, and were ready to admit
Pelagius as orthodox when he assented to the need.^ Orosius,
however, demanded that, as the question had originated in the
West,' it should be left to the Latins to determine ; and deputies
and letters were sent to Innocent, Bishop of Kome, requesting
him to hear and decide the case.

Nevertheless, a few months later in the same year, Pelagius
appeared before a second synod in Palestine, at Diospolis or
Lydda, to answer to a paper of complaints put in against him
by two Gallican bishops, who had been driven from their sees
and made their way to Palestine.^ Many of the theses alleged
against him he was able to explain to the satisfaction of the
Palestinian bishops ; others he declared he did not teach, although
Coelestius might maintain them. For these he had not to
answer ; but he was ready to declare that he rejected them, and to
anathematize all who opposed the doctrines of the holy Catholic
Church.* He acknowledged and maintained both grace and free
will, and professed that his assertion that " man, if he pleases, can
be perfectly free from sin " was meant to apply to one who was
converted — such an one being able to live without sin by his own
efforts and God's grace, although not free from temptation to sin.
This was enough for the synod. It declared Pelagius worthy of
communion, and earned from Jerome the epithet * miserable '.'

The Third Stage — Appeal to Rome. — So far, Pelagius had
won the victory ; but his opponents were not to be silenced.
In North Africa they would not rest content with these de-
cisions of the East. Two synods met in the following year

' The difference between Pelagius and Augustine is tolerably clear. Pelagius
regarded the grace of God as an essential aid, a reinforcement from without, to
second the efforts which were put forth by the free will of man. To Augustine
grace was a new creative principle of life, which generates as an abiding good that
freedom of the will which is entirely lost in the natural man. What it meant ex-
actly to Pelagius is not clear. He does not seem to have conceived it as an inner
spiritual illumination, but rather as some external stimulus applied to the natural
faculties — so that Augustine could represent him as recognizing little more than the
influence of teaching and example in it ('law and doctrine' — de gratia Christi 11).

2 Orosius could only speak Latin, and the bishop only Greek ; so misunder-
standings might easily arise.

• Heros of Aries and Lazarus of Aix. They were perhaps ' put up * by Jerome.

• Hereby he was said to have anathematized himself. His desire was for peace
and freedom from doctrinal disputes. The practical moral aspect of the question was
what he really cared for.

• The treatise of Augustine de gestis Pelagii deals with the proceedings at this
synod.

PELAGIANISM 319

(416),^ and renewed the previous condemnation of Coelestius,
and announced their decisions to the Bishop of Rome, Innocent I,
begging him to help to stay the spread of the Pelagian errors.

In its third stage, accordingly, the controversy was enacted
mainly at Rome. The bishop accepted fully the African view,
praised the synods for their action, and confirmed the sentence of
excommunication pronounced against Pelagius and Coelestius. But
immediately afterwards Innocent died ; and Zosimus, his successor,
received from Coelestius in person,^ and from Pelagius by letter,'
confessions of faith, by which he declared that they had completely
justified themselves ; and he wrote to the African bishops, blaming
them for their hasty condemnation (Sept. 417), and declaring that
the opponents of Pelagius and Coelestius were wicked slanderers.

The Fourth Stage — Final Condemnation hy Councils in Africa
and at Rome. — The African bishops assembled in all haste in synod
(late in 417 or early in 418), and protested that Zosimus had
been misled, that " he should hold to the sentence pronounced
by Innocent against Pelagius and Coelestius, until both of them
distinctly acknowledged that for every single good action we need
the help of the grace of God through Jesus Christ ; and this not
only to perceive what is right, but also to practise it, so that
without it we cannot either possess, think, speak, or do anything
really good or holy." To this Zosimus replied that he had al-
ready fully considered the matter ; but he sent the documents
regarding it to the Africans, that there might be consultation and

' One at Carthage for the province of Africa (a local synod — at wliich, therefore,
Augustine was not present, his see belonging to the ecclesiastical province of
Numidia), and one at Mileve (Mileuni), for the Nuniidians, at which Augustine was
present. See the synodal letters in Aug. Epj). 175, 176 (Migne xxxiii pp. 768 If.).

' For fragments of his creed see Hahu' p. 202. He argues that "infants ought to
be baptized unto remission of sins", but repudiates Traducianism as alien from the
Catholic conccjttion, on the ground that "the sin which is afterwards practised by
man is not born with him, for it is proved to be a fault, not of nature, but of will".
And he denies tliat he claims the authority of a dogma for his inferences from the
teai:hing of proiiliots and apohtles. On the contrary, he submits them to the correc-
tion of the apo.stolic sec.

* See Hahn' p. 288. It had been addressed by Pelagius in Innocent, and went
at lengtli into most articles of tlie faitli, concluiling with an appeal to liim to amend
anything in it that mi;^ht have been less skilfully or somewhat ineautiou.sly ex-
pres.sed. On the special rpicstions at i.saue he wrote as follows : " We confess that
we liave free will, in the sense tliat we always are in need of the help of God, and
that they err who say . . . that man cannot avoid sin, no less than tliey who . . .
assert that man rannot sin ; for both alike destroy the freedom of tlie will. Wo,
however, say tliat man can sin and can not sin (is able to sin ami able not to sin), in
such wise as always to confess that we jio-wess fre<' will."

320 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

agreement. A council of two liundretl liishops was speedily
held at Cartluv^c (in April 418), at which nine canons were
drawn up, with anti-Pelagian detinitious of the points in ques-
tion.^ What were regarded as Pelagian compromises are
delinitely faced and detailed, and declared anathema. The
absolute necessity of baptism to effect regeneration, and to counter-
balance the corruption of nature and stain of sin that is innate —
the powerlessness of the human will unaided, and the vital need
of grace to enable us to fulfil the commands of God — are insisted
on. No ingenuity of any adherent of Pelagius or Coelestius
could evade the significance of this pronouncement. Imperial
edicts against the Pelagians were also procured from Honorius
and Theodosius (banishing Pelagius and Coelestius and their
followers) ; and the Bishop of Eome was obliged to reopen the
case. He summoned Pelagius and Coelestius, and, when they
did not appear, condemned them in their absence and issued a
circular letter (epistula tractoria) accepting the African view of
the matter. This he ordered should be subscribed by all ixishops
under his jurisdiction. Eighteen refused, and were deposed and
banished from their sees, while many probably signed unwillingly.

The Ultimate Issue of the Controversy. — In this way
Pelagianism was stifled, by force rather than by argument ; and
at the next General Council of tlie Church (at Ephesus in 431)
Pelagius was anathematized in company with Nestorius.^ But
in modified forms the Pelagian conceptions continued, and have
always found some place in the Church.

It must, indeed, be noted that, while the negations of Pelagian-
ism were rejected, and Pelagianism was condemned (i.e. the
denial of inherited sin and of the need of baptism of children for
remission of sins), yet the positive side of Pelagian teaching (the
point of departure of Pelagius himself) found sympathy in deep-
rooted Christian sentiment and convictions ; and Augustine's anti-
Pelagian theories did not win wide acceptance.^ ^I

> Hahn»p. 213.

* All that is known as to the consideration of Pelagianism at Ephesus is contained
in the synodal letter to Coelestine of Rome, which states that the Western Acts on
the condemnation of Pelagius, Coelestius, and their adherents were read and
universally approved. Little is known of the history of Pelagius after his condem-
nation by Zosinius. He is said to have died in Palestine when seventy years of a^e
(? c. 440). Of Coelestius, too, nothing more is known.

* Cf. Loofs Leit/aden p. 260. In the Greek Chuich Augiistiiiianism never took
rout. Many were ready to sympathize with the eighteen bishops, of whom Julian

PELAGIANISM 321

" Scmi-Pelagianism " *

The attempt to mediate between the two extremes — to
express, that is, a theory of human nature and of sin and grace
which should be more in harmony with the general conceptions
that had been prevalent among Churchmen in earlier ages — was
made by John Cassian and Faustus of Ehegium, as representa-
tives of a considerable number of Galilean churchmen.

(a) John Cassian

Like Pelagius, Cassian passed a large part of his life from
boyhood onwards in a monastery, A friend and admirer of
Chrysostom, after some years spent at Constantinople he was
sent about 405 on an embassy to Eome, to enlist the support of
Innocent ; and perhaps he stayed on at Rome and met Pelagius.
On the invasion of the Goths he retired, and ultimately made
his home near Massilia (Marseilles), where he founded two monas-
teries (for men and for women), and — probably as abbot of
one of them — devoted himself for many years to study and
writing. As a framer of monastic rules and ideals his in-
tluence on Western monasticism was long-lived ; ^ and the Serai-

of Eclanum in Campania became the chief mouth])ieee — a man of high character
and generous benevolence and ample learning ami ability, who was firmly convinced
that the cause of the Christian faith and of morality itself was endangered by the
Augustiuian doctrine. He did not shrink from charging that doctrine with Man-
icheisni, considering that its teaching as to the taint which had permeated human
nature was equivalent to the Manichean theory that its material part was essentially
evil ; and he wrote at length against Augustine and his conceptions, and tried to
enlist bishops and the emperor (Thcodosius ii) on his side — not altogether un-
successfully at first. Both Theodore of ilopsuestia (see supra p. 2.'J6) and Nesturius
endeavoured to shield him ; but in 429 he was driven from Constantinople (whiuh
had been his refuge for a short time after his deposition by Zosimus and his banish-
ment) by an imperial edict. This was largely through the instrumentality of
Marias Mercator, who opposed Pelagianism as well as Nestorianism. And later
on ho was again condemned by a Council at Ivime under Cclestino and by suc-
ce.tsive bishops. Ue died in 4^)^ in Sicily, Ilia writings are known to us only
from Augustine's rejilies. See especially the four books Contra duos epislulas
Pdagianorum (■120), and the six books Contra Julianum Pelagianum, [See
tlie Art. 'Juliantis of P>danum ' D.C.B.]

Julian was a thorougligoing supporter of I'elagianism. A more conciliatory
position was taken by John Cassian.

' The familiar term may bo retained, but Semi-Augustinianism would be at least
as accurate a designation, and woulii beg no question.

' His works on these subjects were "highly prized all through the Middle Ages
an handbooks of the cloititer-life".

322 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Pelagianism ^ which he taught has always numbered many
adherents.

Above all else he was inspired by a moral interest and
ft profound sense of the love of God, As, in his counsels
to his monks, he insisted that no outward obedience to
rule availed without purity of intention and consecration of
the inner life ; so he believed that the doctrine of grace was
to be known and understood only by the experience of a
pure life.

He was repelled equally by the assertions of Pelagius (which
he styled profane and irreligious) as by those of Augustine.
Against Pelagius he held the universal corruption of human
nature as a consequence of the first transgression of the father
of the race, and so far accepted the Augustine conception of
grace. On the other hand, he was entirely opposed to the
denial of free will and of man's power to determine in any way
the issues of his life. In the renovation of the human will there
are, he held, two efficient agencies — the will itself and the Holy
Spirit. The exact relation between the two — free will and grace
— is not capable of definition ; no universally applicable rule
can be laid down ; sometimes the initiative is with man, some-
times with God. Nature unaided may take the first step
towards its recovery : — If it were not so, exhortations and
censure would be alike idle and unjust. * Predestination ' he
rejects — it is a shocking ' impiety ' to think that God wishes not
all men universally, but only some, instead of all, to be saved.^

^ It must be remembered that Semi-Pelagians (so-called) were in full agreement
with the Church at large in repudiating the chief Pelagian propositions. It is only
when Augustine's teaching is taken as normal that the name is valid.

' Collationes xiii 7 : Quomodo sine ingenti sacrilegio putandus est [Deus] non
universaliter omnes sed quosdam salvos fieri velle pro omnibus ? Other significant
passages on thesuhjectare — § 8 "WhenHe(sc. God) sees in us any beginning of good
will, straightway He enlightens it and strengthens it and stimulates it to salvation,
giving increase to that good will which He planted Himself, or sees has sprung up
by »ur own effort"; § 9 "in order, however, to shew more clearly that the first
beginnings of good desires (good will) are sometimes produced by means of that
natural goodness (naturae bonum) which is innate in us by the gift of the Creator, and
yet that these beginnings cannot end in the attainment of virtuous acts unless they
are directed by the Lord, the Apostle bears witness and says, ' for to will is present
to me, yet how to accomplish the good I find not' (Rom. 7^*)"; and § 11 "if,
however, we say that the first beginnings of good will are always insi)ired by the
grace of God, what are we to say of the faith of Zacchaeus and of the piety of
the crucified thief, who, applying force, as it were, to the kingdom of heaven by
their own longing desire, anticipated the special monitions of the call." The
C'^ilaliones (conferences of Egyptian monks on true asceticism) were written about

PELAGIANISM 323

The most that can be rightly said is that God knows beforehand
who will be saved {praescientia — foreknowledge). He thus really
departs a long way from the Augustinian conceptions, connecting
the idea of grace with a dominant purpose of divine love which
extends to all men and wills the salvation of all ; whereas to
Augustine election and rejection alike were divine acts ^ entirely
unconditioned by anything in the power of the individuals
elected or rejected.

(&) Faustus of BJiegium

Similar teaching to that of Cassian was given also by another
of the greatest monks and bishops of Southern Gaul — Faustus,
a member, and from about 433 abbot, of the famous monastery
of Lerinum (Lerins), and afterwards Bishop of Ehegium (Eiez in
Provenqe), most highly honoured for his learning and his ascetic
and holy life of self-sacrificing labours and active benevolence.^
A staunch champion of the Nicene faith against Arianism — the
religion of the Visigoths into whose power his diocese passed —
and therefore driven from his see, he yet did not escape criticism
for his anthropological doctrines from some of his contem-
poraries, and still more from theologians of the next generation.
Neither Augustine nor Pelagius seemed to him to express the
whole truth. Pelagius indeed he severely condemns as heretical ;
but at the same time he expresses fear of teaching which, in
denying man's power as a free agent, becomes fatalistic. He
anathematizes anyone who says that the ' vessel of wrath * can-
not ever become a ' vessel of honour ', or that Christ did njot die
for all men, or does not will that all should be saved, or says
that anyone who has perished (being bai>tized, or being a pagan,
who might have believed and would not) never had the oppor-
tunity of being saved ; and he strongly urges the need of human
endeavour and co-operation with the divine grace. 'He that

425-428. The third and thirteenth arc on Grace and Free Will and were impugned
by Au^u.Mliiic, and by I'rospcr De gratia Dei ct libera arbilrio contra CoUatorem
(Mipnc /'./>. li p. 21.3).

' Cf. lii.s (It Prcu-tlrstivatione Sanctorum and de Dono Pcrsrveranfiae.

* He wa.s bom in Brittany (or perlmp.s liritaiii) curly in the fifth century, and
lived nearly to tli'' end of it. IIi.>< lonul reputation was so great tlint the title of
Saint WHS givon biin, and }ii.'< fostival wa.n observed, in 8i>ite of the weight of
Augu.stine's authority. In more rnofjcru times Janseni.st historian.s and editors
naturally impugn hia right to canonization, while learned Jesuits defend him.

324 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

hath, to him shall be given ' — he has the power and must use it.
The doctrine of predestination, in particular, called forth his
energetic protests, and he strongly denied the assumption of any
such ' special and personal ' grace {gratia specialis and personalis)
as Augustine's theory of predestination involved ; though at the
same time he speaks of a precedent grace {gratia praecedens) of a
general character.*

A presbyter of Gaul named Lucidus had roused uneasiness
by his advocacy of these and other Augustinian conceptions,
and Faustus was requested by Leontius, the Archbishop of
Aries, to write upon the subject ;* and at a Council held at Aries
in 472 (or 473) his writing was formally approved and signed
by the bishops present, who also agreed to six anathemas against
the extremer teaching on either side. What is commonly known
as the ' Semi-Pelagian ' position is set forth in these anathemas.'
They condemn the Pelagian ideas that man is born without sin
and can be saved by his own efforts alone without the grace of
God, and, along with the anti-Pelagian conceptions already noted,
the view that it is the fault of original sin when a man who has
been duly baptized in the true faith falls through the attractions
Df this world. And they further reject the compromise by
which many were satisfied to speak of God's foreknowledge
rather than of predestination, — it is not even to be said that the
foreknowledge of God has any effect on the downward course of
a man towards death.

The later History of the Doctri'M

Teaching to this effect prevailed in Gaul for some time. But
synods at Orange (Arausio)* and Valence^ in 529 decided for the

' See the Letter to Lucidus (Mi^Tie P.L. liii p. 683). It appears that lie did not
mean to express the need for a deliiiite ' prevenient ' grace (as positively requisite
before any step towards salvation was possible) in the Augustinian sense, as some-
thing altogether external to the human will, but rather an awakening of the will so
that it was able to co-operate at once in the work, which, however, could never be
successfully completed but for the divine grace.

* He wrote first a letter to Lucidus and afterwards to the same effect a more
formal treatise entitled De yratia Dei et humanae mcntiH lihero arbitrio (Migue
P.L. Iviii p. 783 11).

»Hahn»p. 217.

* Under the presidency of Caesarius of Aries, sometime abbot of Lerinum.

* The priority of these Councils is dispated (see Hefele). Arnold Caesarius von
ArelaU p. 348 n. 1129 puts that of Valence first.

PELAGIANISM 325

Augustinian doctrine, with the limitation that predestination to
evil was not to be taught (Augustine himself did not really teach
it in words at least), and accepted canons which had been drawn
up at Rome in accordance with the teaching of ancient Fathers
and the holy Scriptures.^ The decisions of this Council were
confirmed by the Bishop of Eome, Boniface ii, in the following
year. But, on the whole, Semi-Pelagianism prevailed in the
West — that is to say, the theory of inherited evil and sin, the
somewhat uncertain acceptance of the necessity of grace as ' pre-
venient ' to the first motions of goodness in man, and the belief
in the power of man to aid in the work of divine grace within
himself (' synergistic ' regeneration, man co-operating with God).
During the Middle Ages individuals — as Gottschalk (with
strong assertion of twofold predestination), Bede, Anselm, Bernard
— represented the Augustinian teaching. And it was revived in
its harshest forms by Calvin — to arouse the opposition of Armin-
ians and Socinians. Luther was only to some extent Augustinian
in this respect. He believed that the fall of man changed his
original holiness into absolute depravity, exposing the whole
race to condemnation ; but the divine grace, which is indispens-
able to conversion, he taught was profJ'ered to all men without
distinction, but might be rejected by them. Free play was thus
allowed for human responsibility, and the only predestination
possible was such as was based on foresight as to the faith and
obedience of men, on which the decrees of God were held to be
conditional. It is certainly not tlie doctrine of Augustine that
was stated at the Council of Trent. That man's free will alone
is insufficient, and that without prevenient grace he cannot be
justified, and without its inspiration and assistance cannot have
faith or hope or love or repentance, is asserted in plain terms.^
But no less clearly it is maintained that man himself has some-
thing to contribute to the process of salvation : he can receive
and he can reject the infipiration and illumination of the Holy
Spirit, and he dcjcs so according to his own proper disposition
and fo-ojifralion.* Tlie fall of man caused the loss of the gift
of divine grace originally bestowed upon him, and its consequence

• See the ranons of the Council of OranRo — ITahn ' pp. 220-227, esp. canon 25
p. 227. Tliry insist witli r'niphasis tliat huiiian nature is unablo to make any kind
of beginning of faith an'! goodness, or to invoke tliu divine aid, without tlip grace o/
God. The giving and reception of grace depends solely on God's initiative.

* .Sosii. vi cap. 3. * Sesa. vi cap. 4, 5, 7-
23

326 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

was weakness and imperfection. His freedom of will was
weakened and turned aside, but not lost and extinguished.
Roman orthodoxy thus recognizes gratia praeveniens, and gratia
co-operans, and the human power of self-determination. Simil-
arly, as opposed to the theory of predestination, the Council of
Trent declared the universality of grace ; and, when the Jansenists
attempted to revive the doctrines of Augustine, predestiuuLion
was still more decisively rejected.

Augustine's Chief Anti-Pelagian Writings (see Kobortson
Art. * Augustinus ' D. C.B. new volume)

A.D.

412 De pecc. meritis et remiss, lib. iii, and De spiritu et litera (to

Marcellinus).
415 De natura et gratia, and De perfectione iustitiae hominis (agains

the teaching of Coelestius).

417 De gestis Pelagii (on the proceedings in Palestine), and JEpp. 176,

177, and Serm. 131.

418 De gratia Christi et de peccaio originali lib. ii.

419 De nuptiis et concuptscentia lib. ii, and De anima eiusque origine

lib. iv (on the transmission of original sin and on the origin of
the soul).

420 Contra dzias epp. Pelagianorum lib. iv. (a reply to Julian's attack

on the treatise De nuptiis).

421 Contra Julianum lib. vi.

426-7 De gratia et libera arhitrio and De'\

correptione et gratia | (against the arguments of

428-9 De jrraedest. sanctorum and De do7io i the Semi-Pelagians).

perseverantiof. J

CHAPTER XVIII

The Doctkine of the Atonement

Introductory

What we have seen to be true in the case of other doctrines is
even more noteworthy in regard to the Atonement. The certainty
that the life and death of Christ had effected an Atonement be-
tween God and man was the very heart and strength of the faith
of Christians from the earliest days. They did not need to theorize
about it ; they were content to know and feel it. So it was
long before any doctrine of the Atonement was framed. Various
points of view, no doubt, are represented in the various books of
the Xew Testament ; but the allusions are incidental and occa-
sional. And it is now from one point of view and now from
another that we find the mysterious fact of the Atonement
regarded in such writings of Christians of the first four centuries
as happen to have been preserved. If more had come down to
us there might have been more points of view to claim con-
fiideration. But nothing like a definite theory is propounded in
the earlier ages — nothing that can be said to go beyond the
expressions of the apostolic writers — except perhaps by Ireiiacus
and Origen. They indeed were conscious of questions which the
New Testament does not answer;^ they wanted to define more
closely the why and the wherefore, and they let the spirit of
speculation carry tfiein further than others had tried to pene-
trate. The solution of some of the unsolved problems which
they reached satisfied many of the ablest theologians of their
own and later generations, though in the process of time tliey
came to be regarded as erron(;ons, and have for us now a merely
historical interest, liut apart from these particular theories,
which we must notice in tlieir ]>lace, we have no attempt at
formal statement of a doctrine, and can only record incidental
references and more or less chance phrases which indicate, rather

' See supra Chapter II [ip. 20, 21.
327

•^28 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

ill II. exi>ress, the conceptions of the eiirlier exponents of Christian
U'iiching.' They are in all cases only personal attempts to set
lorth and illustrate experiences and emotions that were still
}n'rsi)iiul, however widely they were shared among those who
were fellows in faith. How far they were generally received,
or what — if any — measure of official sanction was given them,
it is impossible to say. Only, it is clear that every theologian
was free to give expression of his own to the feelings which
stirred him at the moment, and it would be a mistake to suppose
that he emptied his whole thought on the mystery of the Atone-
ment into such utterances as have been preserved. Nor must
it be supposed that any such utterances in any way committed
more than the writer himself. Later thinkers were still free to
take them or to leave them ; just as, for example, Athanasius
is apparently quite untouched by the modes of thought which
are commonly regarded as characteristic of Irenaeus and Origen,
and Gregory of Nazianzus expressly rejects the theory which his
friend Gregory of Nyssa handed down to later ages.

It is then as individual answers to speculative questions, or
as personal utterances of faith and hope, suggestive and illustra-
tive of larger conceptions than are expressed, that we must take
such expressions of the doctrine as we find.

Of the various aspects of the Atonement which are repre-
sented in the pages of the New Testament,^ the early Fathers
chiefly dwell on those of sacrifice (and obedience), reconciliation,
illumination by knowledge, and ransom. Not till a later time
was the idea of satisfaction followed up.^

The Apostolic Fathers

Outside the New Testament the earliest references to the

doctrine are to be found in the Epistle of Clement. They

are only incidental illustrations in his exposition of ' love '

' Of books on the history of the doctrine of the Atonement see H. N. Oxen-
ham The Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement. For special points of view see also
R. C. Moberly Atonement cmd Personality ; R. W. Dale The Atonement ; B. F.
Westcott The Victory of the Cross, and the notes to his edition of tlie Epistles of
St John; M'Leod Campbell The Nature of tlu Atonement, and J. M. Wilson The
(Jos'pel of the Atonement.

* See supra Chapter II p. 19.

• The only ' satisfaction ' which was thought of was the satisfaction which the
penitent himself makfs. There is no suggestion of any satisfaction of the divine
justice through the sull'erings of Christ.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT 329

(ayd-rrr))} Through the love which he had towards us, Jesus
Christ our Lord, in the will of God, gave his blood on behalf of
us, and his flesh on behalf of our flesh, and his life on behalf
of our lives. So it is that we are turned from our wander-
ing and directed into the way of truth, and through the
benevolence of the Word towards men we are become the
sons of God. His blood, which was shed for the sake of our
salvation, brought to all the world the offer of the grace of
repentance. So it is not by works which we have done in
holiness of heart that we are justified, but only by faith ; though
he adds at once " let us then work from our whole heart the
work of righteousness ".

Incidental though the references are, they shew that Clement
taught that the motive of the whole plan of redemption was the
love of God and the spontaneous love of Christ fulfilling the
Father's will, and that by the sacrifice of himself — by his blood
— is offered both the grace of repentance and the knowledge of
the truth to all men.

In the Epistle of Barnabas ^ there are many allusions to the
passion and sufferings of Christ as effecting our salvation — the
remission of sins by the sprinkling of his blood. The Son of
God could not suffer except only on account of us. Incidents
in the history of Israel and prophecies are cited, which find
their fulfilment and real meaning in the passion of the Lord.
For instance, the account of Moses stretching out his hands,
while the Israelites prevailed against the Auialekites, is a type
of the Cross, and is designed to teach that unless men put their
hope and faith in it they will not conquer and cannot be saved.
But perhaps most prominence is given in the Epistle to the idea
of a new covenant founded by Christ's life and death, by which
the way of truth is exhibited for our knowledge ; and the special
need for the coming of the Saviour in the flesh is found in
human weakness, requiring an uiiniistakc:iV)le revelation visible
to the naked eye. " For had he not come in flesh, how could
we men see him and be saved ? "

In The Shepherd of Hermas^ there is only one clear reference
to the doctrine, but it has special interest as connecting the
value of the work of the Saviour wiili his obedience to the
Father's will and laws. The thought is expressed in the form
of a parable c>f a vineyard, which represents (Jod's peojile, in

' 1 i,>. 49. * See esji. clis. 6, 7, 12. * iiinnlilude v 6.

330 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

which the Son is bidden to work as a servant, and in which he
labours much and suffers much to do away their sins, and then
points out to them the way of life by giving them the law which
he received from his Father. The perfect fulfilment of the
Father's will, at the cost of toil and suffering, on tlie one hand,
and on the other hand, the revelation of that will to men ; that
is, obedience, active as well as passive, on his own part, and the
instruction of men that they may render a similar obedience on
their part, are represented here as being the two main elements
in the work of Christ.

In the Epistles of Ignatius the reality of the sufferings of
Christ is emphasized again and again against docetic teaching,
and it is clear that the writer attached unique importance to
the passion, although it is the reality of the manhood as a whole
that he is all through concerned to uphold. All in heaven and
in earth, men and angels, must believe in the blood of Christ
if they are to escape condemnation.^ But how the redemption
is effected, and precisely what value is to be attributed to the
sufferings of the Eedeemer, is naturally not expressed. It wa?
no part of the task of Ignatius to expound the doctrine of the
Atonement, but only to appeal to the deepest convictions of
those that he addressed, based on the teaching they had already
received. But he insists on the supreme need of faith and
love toward Christ on the part of men ; and he seems to re-
gard the death of Christ as operative in bringing the human
soul into communion with him, as the means of imparting the
principle of spiritual life, and as a manifestation of love by
which a corresponding affection is generated in the believer's
heart. In this way he has in mind perhaps the ' sanotification '
more than the 'justification' of mankind.*

Justin

No systematic treatment of the subject is to be found either
in Justin's Apologies or in the Dialogue with Trypho ; but enough
is said to shew that various aspects of the work of Christ were
clearly present to his thought. The reason why the Logos became

* Ad Smym. 6.

^ The idea of 'justification' is hardly present, though the verb occurs twice
Philad. 8 and Rom. 5 (with reference to 1 Cor. 4^). He speaks also of 'peace'
through the passion {Eph. inscr.) and of deliverance from demons through Christ
{Eph. 19).

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT 331

man, it is declared on the one hand, was that he might share our
sufferings and effect a cure,^ cleansing by blood those that believe
in him.2 But on the other hand, Justin emphasizes more than
other writers of the time the didactic purpose of the Incarnation.
The Saviour saves by teaching men the truth about God and
withdrawing them from bondage to false gods. " Having become
man he taught us . . ." ' " His mighty Word persuaded many
to leave demons, to whom they were enslaved, and through him
to believe on the all-sovereign God." * " We beseech God to
keep us safe, always through Jesus Christ, from the demons
who are contrary to the true religion of God, whom of old we
used to worship ; in order that after turning to God through
him we may be blameless."^ The intellectual purpose issues
in the moral reformation, the knowledge of God in the blame-
less life.

Justin also alludes to the conquest of Satan as one of the
consequences of the Passion, and seems to attribute the ultimate
responsibility for the sufferings of Christ to the devils who
prompted the Jews,* so that his triumph over death was a
victory over Satan himself. But he does not express the idea
of any kind of ransom to Satan.

And though he speaks of ' sacrifice ', he does not refer it to
the idea of justice, and he is far from any theory of satisfaction
of an alienated God. His thought is shewn in his treatment of
the passage ' Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree ' (Gal. 3^^).
All mankind, he says, is under a curse, and God willed that
Christ, his own Son, should receive the curses of all. Christ
also willed this, and all who repent of their sins and believe in
him will be saved. But the curse which he takes upon him is
not God's curse.'' " In the law a curse is laid on men who are
crucified. But God's curse does not therefore lie upon Christ,
through whom he saves all those who have done tilings de.^erving
a curse." ^ Kuther, the words of Scripture indicate God's fore-
knowledge of what was destiiiod to be done by the Jews and
others like them. It was by the Jews, and not by God, tliat he

• Jpol. ii 1.3, and eap. (llio cliiof passage) Dial. e. Tryjih. 40-13 and 96.
» yIpoL i 63. ' J hid. i 23.

• Dial. r. Tn/ph. 83. » Ihui. 30.

• Soo yipol. i 63 "he endured to suffer all that the devils disposed the Jews to du
to him ".

' Indeed, ho styles it only an ' apparoni ' curse {Dial. c. Tryph. 90).

• Ibid. 94.

332 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

was accursed. For all who have faith in him there hangs from
the crucified Christ the hope of salvation.^

The Writer to Diognetus

Some fine passages in the Epistle to Diognetus shew the
writer's conception of the Atonement as essentially an act of
compassion which is prompted by the unalterable love of God,
and insist on the perfect union of will between the Father and
the Son. " God, the Master and Maker of all things, who
created all things and set them in order, was not only a
lover of man but also long-suffering. He indeed was always
and will be such, gracious and good, and uninfluenced by
anger and true. He alone is good, and he conceived the
great inexpressible design which he communicated only to his
Son."* The Son carries out the Father's will, but it is
his own will too. It is the Father's love that finds expression
in the self-sacrifice of the Son. "When our unrighteousness
(iniquity) was fully wrought out, and it was fully mado
manifest that its wages, punishment and death, were to be
expected, and the time was come which God fore-appointed to
make manifest His goodness and power — Oh the surpassing
kindness towards men and love of God ! He did not hate us or
thrust us from Him or remember our evil deeds against us, but
He was long-suffering, He was forbearing, and in His mercy He
took our sins upon Himself. He Himself gave up His own Son
as a ransom on behalf of us : — the holy on behalf of lawless men,
him who was without Vv'ickedness on behalf of the wicked, the
righteous on behalf of the unrighteous, the incorruptible on
behalf of the corruptible, the immortal on behalf of the mortal.
For what else but his righteousness was able to cover our sins ?
In whom, except only in the Son of God, was it possible for us,
the lawless and impious, to be declared righteous (justified) ? " ^
But it is no external act or transaction that effects the object in
view. It is a real inner change that is wrought in man. God
sent His Son with a view to saving, with a view to persuading,
not with a view to forcing : for force is not the means God
uses.*

* Dial. c. Tryph 96, 111. A similar view of the curse was held by Tertullian
{adv. Judaeos 10).

* Ch. 8. » Oh. 9. * Ch. 6.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT 333

Tertullian

From Tertullian, if from any one, we should have expected
a theory of atonement based on legal conceptions and forensic
metaphors.^ But he has no more definite theory than the
writers before him. He is the first to use the term ' satisfaction ',
it is true, but he never uses it in the sense of vicarious satis-
faction which afterwards attached to it. He means by it the
amends which those who have sinned make for themselves by
confession and repentance and good works.^ He does not bring
the idea into connexion with the work of Christ, but with the
acts of the penitent.^

Similarly he insists* that the curse which was supposed to
attach to the crucified Christ, in accordance with the application
of the words of Deuteronomy (21^2^ — < Cursed is he that hangeth
on a tree ', was not the curse of God but the curse of the Jews.
They denied that the death upon the cross was predicted of the
Messiah, basing their denial on that passage ; but he argues that
the context shews that only criminals Justly condemned were
meant — the curse is the crime and not the hanging on the
tree, whereas in Christ no guile was found : he shewed perfect
justice and humility. It was not on account of his own deserts
that he was given over to such a death, but in order that the
things which were foretold by the prophets as destined to come
on bim by the hands of the Jews might be fulfilled. All those
things which he suffered,^ he suffered not on account of any evil
deed of his own, but that the Scriptures might be fulfilled which
were spukcu by the mouth of the prophets.**

Irenaeus

Wiien we pass to consider the conceptions of Irenaeus we
must note at the (jutset that no one lias ever more clearly

' So Oienham points out op. cit. p. 124.
■ See Note on the ' Doctrine of Merit' p. S-IS.

» Thia a evident from the references in de Poen. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 ; de rat. 13 ; de
Pud. 9 ; dt Cull. Fein, i 1 ; adv. Jud. 10.

* Sf;c (txlv. Jv/lfifos 1 0.

» That the liighcst value attached to the sulTorings of Clirist in Tcrtullian's
judgement is shewn by his argument against doootic tcun hing (a<fr. Marc, iii 8).
If his death bo denied, he siiys (and a phantasm could not really sulfer), th«
whipJe work of (Jod would bo ovortlirowu and tlio whole meaning and bcuelit of
Christianity rejected.

• It was only dimly that the mystery {sacramentum) of his passion could be

334 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

grasped the fundamental tnith of the ' solidarity ' of humanity.
No principle is more characteristic of Christian theology tlian
this, that the race of men is a corporate whole — all members of
it being so closely bound together in a union so intimate that
they form together one living organism. To this conception
Irenaeus gives the clearest expression, and following up the
meaning of the title ' Son of Man ' which St Paul had been the
first to expand,^ he points to Christ as the great representative
of the race, in whom are svmmied up all its ripe experiences as
they were contained in germ in Adam. What Christ achieves
the whole race achieves. Just as mankind in Adam lost its
birthright, so in Ciirist mankind recovers its original condition.
The effect of Adam's acts extended to the whole company of his
descendants, and the effect of Christ's acts is equally coextensive
with the race. In each case it is really the whole race that
acts in its representative.

It is this that the Incarnation means. ** When he was
incarnate and made man, he summed up (or recapitulated) in
himself the long roll of the human race, securing for us all a
summary salvation, so that we, should regain in Christ Jeaiw
what we had lost in Adam, namely, the being lU the image aua
likeness of God." ^ And again, " This is why the Lord declares
himself to be the Son of Man, summing up into himself the
original man who was the source of the race which has been
fashioned * after woman ' ; in order that, as through the conquest
of man our race went down into death, so through tlio victory
of man we might mount up to life." ^ And again, " For in the
first Adam we stumbled, not doing his command ; but in the
second Adam we were reconciled, shewing ourselves obedient
unto death." * Theso passages shew clearly that the writer's

shadowed forth in the O.T. (in order that the difficulty of interpretation might lead
men to seek tlie grace of God), in types such as Isaac and Joseph, and in figures like
the bull's horns and tlie serpent lilted up. See also adv. Marc, v 5.

> See such passages as Rom. b^^■^'\ 1 Cor. 15»»-22, Eph. l'".

' Adv. Haer. iii 19. 1. The thouglit expressed by the words recapitulare, recapit-
vlalio, applied in this way to Christ, is tlie chief clue to the full conception of the
writer, both as to the Incarnation and as to the Atonement. The doctrines are
one and the same : the Incarnation ellects the Atonement. It brings to completion
the original creation, and is its jierffcting as much as its restitution. From this
point of view the Incarnation is the natural and necessary completion of the self-
revelation of God even apart from sin.

* Ibid. V 21. 1.

♦ Ibid. V 16. 2. Compare the striking passage {ibid, ii 38. 2) in which Iienaeus

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT 335

thought was as distinct as possible. The whole race is solidaire :
it exists as a whole in each of its great representatives, Adam
and Christ. As a whole it forfeits its true privileges and
character in Adam ; as a whole it recovers them in Christ. The
thought is not that Adam loses for vs, and Christ regains for us ;
but that we ourselves lose in the one case, and we ourselves
regain in the other case.

Whatever else Irenaeus says in regard to details of the work
of atonement must be interpreted in the light of this principal
conception, in his treatment of which he has in mind particularly
such passages as Rom. 5^^ ' As by one man's disobedience the
many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall the
many be made righteous '. It is in connexion with another
passage (Heb. 2^* ' destroying him that hath the power over
death, that is the devil ') that he gives expression to the idea
which was emphasized by later thinkers and became for centuries
the ' orthodox ' opinion among theologians. Man, in the free
exercise of his will, had yielded to the inducements set before
him by Satan, and had put himself under his dominion ; and
the justice of God required that this dominion should not be
violently overthrown, but that Satan himself sliould be met, as
it were, on equal terms, and induced to relinquish his possession.
" The powerful Word and true man ", he writes,^ " by his own
blood ransoming (or redeeming) us by a method in conformity
with reason, gave himself as ransom for those who have been
led into captivity. And since the 'apostasy' (i.e. the spirit of
reljellion, or Satan himself) unjustly held sway over us, and,
though we were Almighty God's by nature, estranged us in a
manner against nature, making us his own disciples ; the Word
of God which is powerful in all things and not wanting in
Ju.stice of his own, acted justly even in dealing with the
apostasy itself, ransoming (buying back) from it what is his
own, not Ijy force in the way in which it gained sway over us
at the beginning, snatching greedily what was not its own ; but
by a method of persuasidn, in the way in which it was fitting
for God to receive wliat lie wished, by j^ersuasion and not by
the use of force, so that there might be no infringement of the
])rinciple of justice, and yet God's ancient creation might be

dc'scribe."! the yiassing of Christ tlirough the flifTcreiit stagns of Ininian growth and
developeniunt in order that ha might redeem and suuctil'y each age.
> Adv. Uaer. v 1. 1.

336 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

preserved from perishing;." To achieve the end in view man
must render perfect obedience as a first condition, and that is
one chief reason for the Incarnation, in order that the obedience
may be at once man's and perfect.^ " For if it had not been
man who conquered the adversary of man, he would not have
been justly conquered." ^

He speaks of the obedience as being specially shewn in the
three temptations : * " And so by conquering him the third time
he drove him away for the future as having been legitimately
conquered ; and the violation of the command which had taken
place in Adam was cancelled {or compensated for) by means of
the command of the law which the Son of Man observed, not
transgressing the command of God."*

The redemption, however, of man from the devil's dominion
is finally won by the Kedeemer's death. " By his own blood,
therefore, the Lord redeemed us, and gave his soul on behalf of
our souls, and his own flesh instead of our flesh ; and poured out
the Spirit of the Father to effect the union and communion of
Grod and man, bringing down God to men through the Spirit, and
at the same time bringing up man to God through his incarna-
tion, and in his advent surely and truly giving us incorruption
through the communion which he has {or we have) with God."*

While, therefore, the thought of man's bondage to the devil
(of Satan's dominion as a real objective power) is thus clearly
present to the mind of Irenaeus, and the additional thought that
the 'justice' of God required that man should be ' bought back'
from the devil by consent, he does not attempt to describe in

> Adv. Uaer. iii. 19. 6. Cf. v 1, v 16. 2.

• It is to God, of course, that the obedience is due. Cf. ibid, v 16. 2, 17. 1-3.

• The temptations of Jesus are the counterpart of the tciiiiitation of Adam, as
the obedience of the mother of Jesus is the counterpart of Eve's disobedience, and
the birth from the Virgin Mary the counterpart of Adam's birth from the virgin
earth.

• Ibid. V 21. The Latin "soluta est ea quae fuerat in Adam praecepti
praevaricatio per praeceptum legis quod servavit iilius homiuis " is not quite clear,
but the translation given above seems to convey the full meaning of the words.
The technical legal sense of praevaricari (of an advocate who so conducts lii.s case as
to play into the hands of his opponent) can scarcely be maintained, and certainly
there is no idea in soluta est of the payment of a price (cf. parallel expressions 'dis-
solvena {or sanans) . . . hominis inobedientiam ' v 16. 2, 'nostram inobedientiam
per suam obedientiam coiisolatus' v 17. l).fl

' Ibid. V 1. 2 (the conclusion of the passage quoted supra), but the idea of the
blood of Christ as ransom does not seem to occupy a very prominent place in the
whole work of atonement and redemption.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT 337

any detail the nature of the transaction which is implied. These
are certainly not the aspects of the matter which appeal to him
most, or which he cares to emphasize. Any unscriptural con-
clusions that might be drawn from them were for Irenaeus
himself, it seems, effectively precluded by the other conceptions
which he grasped so firmly.^

Nevertheless difficult questions were bound to be put, coarsely
and crudely perhaps, but anyhow questions which had to be
met. In what sense could it be said that the justice of God
required such a method of working ? ^ and how was it that the
devil came to make so bad a bargain ?

Origen

Origen met the latter question with an answer more frank
than satisfactory. The devil accepted the death of Christ (or
his soul) as a ransom, but he could not retain it in his power,
and so he found himself deceived in the transaction. The
arrangement was conceived of as between God on the one side
and the devil on the other, and so the author of the deception
was God Himself, who in this way made use of Satan as the
means of the destruction of his own power. He thought that
by compassing the death of Christ he would prevent the spreading
of his teaching, and by getting possession of his soul as an
equivalent (avToXXayfia) would secure his control over men for
ever. He did not perceive " that the human race was to be
Btill more delivered by his death than it had been by his
teaching and miracles ". He did not realize that the sinless soul
of Christ would cause him such torture that he could not retain
it near him. So he over-reached himself. The issue was, of
course, all along known to God ; and Origen does not face the
question how this deception was consistent with the recognition
of Satan's rights."

' So Hiirnack writes: "Irenaeus is quite as free from the tlioupht that the devil
has re.il rights over man as ho is free from the immoral idea that God aoconiplishod
his work of reileniiition hy an act of deceit" {DO. Eng. tr. vol. ii p. 290).

' The kingdom had hccn established in the first instance by injustice and
n3urf)ation, — how could this invut<Tate wrong become a right ?

* This theory is expressed or alluded to in various writings of Origen. E.g.
Comm. in Joann. torn, ii 21, in Malt, xvi 8, in Rom. ii 13. liut the notion of
intentional deception on the part of (iod (expressed in Matt. torn, xiii 9) is not
prominent in Origen. His idea was rather that the devil deceived himsulf, iniagin-

338 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

However, this particular point is only quite a subordinate
element in the doctrine which Origen held on the whole matter.
He dwells at greater length on other more important aspects of
the Atonement.

Thus lie sees in the Incarnation the beginning of an intimate
connexion between the divine and the human, which is to be
developed progressively in men. " Since the time of the Incar-
nation the divine and the human nature began to be woven
together, in order that the human nature might become divine
through its communion with the more divine not only in Jesus
but also in all those who along with belief receive life which
Jesus taught."^ Eedemption is thus effected by joining in one
the divine and the human nature.

The death, too, was his own act. St. Paul had written
(Eom. 8'-) of the Father that he spared not his own Son, but
delivered him up for us all ; and Origen's comment on the
passage is this : — " Tlie Son too gave himself unto death on
behalf of us, so that he was delivered up not only by the Father
but also by himself." ^

This death is described as the chastisement which we de-
served, the discipline which was to lead to peace. He took our
sins and was bruised for our iniquities, that we might be in-
structed and receive peace.^ So the death is regarded as the
expression of voluntary penance which cleanses * from sin, and
in its inmost sense it must be experienced by every Christian.
" So now if there be any one of us who recalls in himself the
consciousness of sin, ... let him fly to penitence, and accept a
voluntary doing to death of the flesh, that cleansed from sin

ing that he could retain possession of the Son of God. (Contrast with Origen's
words on tlie subject, Gregory of Nyssa's diriTT] ris iari. rpd-rrov tiv6. on the part of
God, that Jesus veiled his divine nature, which the devil would have feared, by
means of his humanity, so that the devil was outwitted in spite of all his cunning.

» c. Cels. iii 23.

' In Matt. toiu. xiii 8.

* In Joann. tom. xxviii 14 {0pp. iv p. 392, Migne). Thus he explains Isaiili's
prophecy of the discipline of our peace being laid upon Christ as the chastisement
due to us for our discipline, our peace-producing discipline, not a retributive
punishment but a remedial chastisement. (This is Origen's conception of all
punishment of sin, which therefore he could not think of as endless.)

* Jesus, who alone was able to bear the sins of the whole world, also removed
judgement from the whole world by his own perfect obedience. In this conception
may be seen perhaps, in germ, the later Anselmic theory of the need of redemption
by obedience — jjaying back a debt to God, man having deprived him of honour by
disobedience. For the stress laid on obedience by Irenaeus see supra p. 33S.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT 339

during this present life our spirit may find its way clean and
pure to Christ." ^ This ' moral interpretation ' of the death of
Clirist is very significant. Its purpose, thus understood, was not
to save us from suffering, but to shew us the true purpose of
suffering, to lead us to accept it in a spirit of docility — the
spirit which transforms pain into gain. " For he did not die
for us in order that we may not die, but that we may not die
for ourselves. And he was stricken and spat upon for us, in
order that we who had really deserved these things may not
have to suffer them as a return for our sins, but suffering them
instead for righteousness sake may receive them with gladness
of heart." 2

At the same time, the death is described as an atoningr
sacrifice for sin, resembling in kind, though infinitely transcend-
ing in degree, the sacrifices of those men who have laid down
their lives for their fellow-men, and is designed to act as a
moral lever to elevate the courage of his followers.^ It is from
this point of view a sacrifice to God, and on Eom. 3^* he
comments thus : " God set him forth as a propitiation, in order,
that is, that by the sacrifice of his body he might make God
propitious to men." And elsewhere he speaks of Christ as by
his blood making God propitious to men and reconciling them to
the Father.'* This conception of a sacrifice to God he dees not
seem to bring into correspondence with the idea of a ransom to
the devil ; and the allusion to a change effected by it in God's
attitude to men, merely incidental and passing as it is, must be
interpreted in harmony with his main conception, according to
which he regularly ascribes the whole work of redemption to the
love of God for men.^

From the time of Origen to the end of our period the two
ideas of a ransom to Satan and a sacrifice to God remain un-
reconciled.* The idea that man needs to be rescued from the

' In Levit. Horn, xiv 4.

' In Malt. Cummcnt. seriea 113, vol. iii p. 912 (Moheily op. ciL). Snm. in Malt.
912.

* See in Num. Hum. xxiv 1 ; cf. torn, in Jonun. xxviii 393 ; c. CvU. i 1, ii 17
(Socratca).

* In Lev. Horn, ix 10.

* Similar expressions elsewhere {e.g. Iren. adv. Ila^r. v 17. 1 jiropilians quidevi
pro nohis Patrem, and Atli. Or. c. Ar. ii 7) seem to sliew that such limguago was
not remarried as unnatural ; while at the same time it was kept suhonliiiuto to the
idea of the love of God in sending His Son, and no theory of propitiation was framed

* but a .seoorid attempt to mediate between the two notions wa.s made by Athan-

340 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

power of evil and the penalty of sin is dominant. It is in that
need that the later Fathers find the reason for Christ's death as
the only sufficient ransom that could be paid. And the yjower
of evil is no abstract idea, but a personal power — Satan, who is
regarded as having acquired an actual right over men. This
conception controlled the thought of the ages till the time of
Anselm, along with the idea that the devil was deceived, and
deceived by God,^ as the explanation of the problem, although
voices were raised against it.

The conception was expressed more precisely a century after
Origen by Gregory of Nyssa and Eufinus, and repudiated at the
same time by Gregory of Nazianzus.*

Gregory of Nyssa

The theory that Gregory of Nyssa framed is in some respects
so characteristic and won such long acceptance that it must be
stated at some length.^ He begins by shewing the reasonable-
ness of the Incarnation. Man had been created in the image of
God, because the overflowing love of God desired that there
should exist a being to share in His perfections. He was bound,
therefore, to be endowed with the power of self-determination,
and in virtue of this freedom was able to be misled and to
choose evil rather than good (or, more accurately, to turn aside
from good), inasmuch as having come into being, and so passed
through a change, he was susceptible of further change. Such
a change or deviation or fall from good took place, and to
counteract its effects the Giver of life himself became man —
the divine nature was united to the human. How, we cannot

asius when he emi>hasi/,('d the net'cssity of God's fulfilment of the sentence pronounoed
on Adam's sin. (It is deliverance from Death rather than from Satan that Athan-
asius conceives as effected, spe infra p. 345 n. 3.)

' The first trace of the idea that the Deceiver of man was himself in turn de-
ceived by God's plan of Redemption is to be found in the famous passage in the
Ignatian Epistles {Eph. 19) on the three secrets, wrought in the silence of God, which
were to be proclaimed aload, namely, the virginity of Mary, her child-bearing, and
the death of the Lord. Tliese, it is said, "deceived the jnmce of this world ". |KSoiiie
would regard the idea as implied in St Paul's allusion to the rulers of this world
(1 Cor. 2*) to be interpreted as meaning not earthly rulers but spiritual powers
(as it was by many ancient commentators). Ignatius has referred to the passage
just before. (See Lightfoot's note ^.c. ).]§[

* For an excellent criticism of this theory see Oxenham op. cit. p. 150 ff.

' See the Oratio Catechetica, esp. chs. xxi-xxvi — ed. J. H. Srawley (Eng. tr. Id
' Gregory of Nyssa ' N. aiid P.-N.F.).

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT 341

understand ; but the fact of the union in the person of Jesus is
shewn by the miracles which he wrought. Human life was
purged by this union and set free again to follow a course of
freedom. This divine scheme of redemption must be character-
ised by all the attributes of the Deity, and display alike good-
ness and wisdom and power and justice. The first three were
clearly shewn, — it is in regard to the fourth that Gregory's
exposition is most noticeable. Man was intended always to
move in the direction of the highest moral beauty. But in the
exercise of his own free will he had allowed himself to be
diverted from the true line of developement and to be deceived
by a false appearance of beauty. He had thus delivered himself
over to the enemy (the devil) and bartered away his freedom.
Justice therefore required that the recovery of his freedom
should be effected by a transaction as voluntary on the side
of the enemy as the fall had been on the side of man. Such
a ransom must be paid as the master of the slave would agree
to accept in exchange for his slave. In the Deity invested with
llesh he recognized a unique object of desire, the flesh veiling
the Deity sufficiently to preclude the fear which the devil
would otherwise have felt. He eagerly accepted the profifered
exchange, and, like a ravenous fish, having gulped down the bait
of the flesh, was caught by the hook of the Deity which it
covered.^ That the wish to recover man proclaims the goodness
of God, and the method adopted his power and wisdom, Gregory
regards as obvious ; but he notes that some one might think that
it was by means of a certain amount of deceit that God carried
out tliis scheme on our behalf ; and that the veiling of the Deity
in human nature was ' in some measure a fraud and a surprise '.
The deception he admits, and justifies. He argues that the
essential qualities of justice and wisdom are to give to everyone
his due, and at the same time not to dissociate the benevolent
aim of the love of mankind from the verdict of justice; and in
this transaction both requirements were satisfied. The devil
got his due, and mankind was delivered from his power. " He
who first deceived man by tlie bait of sensual pleasure is himself
deceived by the presentment of the human form." The deceiver
was in his turn deceived — this was entirely just, and the inven-

' This strange eimilo is found a^ain in regard to Death, .Fohii Iiiiiiiasc. cU
Fid. iii 27. Leo {Scrm. xxii 4) exprcssca himself to much the Name elfoct iw
Urej^ory. 5

-24

342 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

tion by which it was efiectcd was a manifestation of supreme
wisdom.^

Rufiniis

A very similar account is given by Eufinus. He expresses
his conception in his exposition of the Creed,^ on the article
' He was crucified . . .' He speaks of the Cross as a signal
trophy, and token of victory over the enemy. By his death he
brought three kingdoms at once into subjection under his sway
— ' things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the
earth '. And the reason why the special form of death — the
Cross — was chosen was that it might correspond to the mystery :
in the first place, being lifted up in the air and subduing the
powers of the air, he made a display of his victory over those
supernatural and celestial powers ; in the second place, * all the
day long he stretched out his hands ' to the people on the earth,
making protestations to unbelievers and inviting believers ; and
finally, by the part of the Cross which is sunk under the earth,
he signified his bringing into subjection to himself the kingdoms
of the nether world. Eufinus then touches on what he styles
some of the more recondite topics, particularly how at the be-
ginning, having created the world, God set over it certain powers
of celestial virtues, to govern and direct the race of mortal men.
But some of these, particularly he who is called the Prince of
this world, did not exercise the power committed to them as
God intended, but on the contrary, instead of teaching men to
obey God's commandment, taught them to follow their own
perverse guidance. Thus we were brought under the bonds of
sin. Christ triumphing over these powers delivered men from
them, and brings them (who had wrongfully abused their
authority) into subjection to men. And thus the Cross teaches
us to resist sin even unto death, and willingly to die for the
sake of religion ; and sets before us a great example of obedience,
to be rendered even at the cost of death.

Having laid down these main principles and lessons, Eufinus
goes on to the special topic of the snare by which the Prince

' The crudity of Gregory's conception is somewhat modified by his comparison of
God's act of decejition with the procedure of the j)hy.sieian wlio deceives his jiatient
for a beneficent purpose. Satan himself shall profit by the deception and be healed.
See Or. Cat. xxvi.

' Rutiiius Comm. in Symh. Apost. § 14 fl.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT 343

of this world was overcome. " The object," he says, " of that
mystery of the Incarnation which we expounded just now was
that the divine virtue of the Son of God, as though it were a
hook concealed beneath the fashion of human flesh (he being,
as the Apostle Paul says, found in fashion as a man, Phil. 2^),
might lure on the Prince of this world to a conflict ; so that,
offering his flesh as a bait to him, his divinity underneath might
catch him and hold him fast with its hook, through the shedding
of his immaculate blood. For he alone who knows no stain
of sin hath destroyed the sins of all — of those at least who have
marked the doorposts of their faith with his blood. As, there-
fore, if a fish seizes a baited hook, it not only does not take the
bait off' the hook, but is itself drawn out of the water to be food
for others ; so he who had the power of death seized the body of
Jesus in death, not being aware of the hook of divinity enclosed
within it; but, having swallowed it, he was caught forthwith; and
the bars of hell being burst asunder, he was drawn forth as it
were from the abyss to become food for others." And so it was
not with any loss or injury to the divinity that Christ suffers in
the flesh ; but by means of the flesh the divine nature descends
to death in order to effect salvation by means of the weakness of
the flesh — not to be kept by death in its power as mortals are,
but to rise again through his own power and open the gates of
death ; just as a king might go to a prison and open the gates,
and unlock the fetters, and bring out the prisoners and set them
free, and so he would be said to have been in the prison, but not
in the sense in wliich the others were.

Greffory of Naztanzus

The idea of a ransom paid to Satan was indignantly repudi-
ated by Gregory ui Nuzianzus, the intimate friend of Gregory of
Nyssu. Head and heart alike reject it, though logic seems to
require it. " We Wi-iv," he says,^ " under the dominion of the

' Orai. xlv 22. For an exntiUent criticism of tho theory see Oxenlmm op. cit.
p. IJiOir. It involves |<rc.it(li(Ii(jult,ics, iiitcliocluiil imil nior.il. Tiio notion of ili'ci'plioii
cannot 1)C liarnioni/cii with tho notion of a bargain atruck and a price paid to satisfy
a just claim. If the devil was tricked into forfeiting his ju.st rigiita by grasjMng at
rights where he had none, howw;is compensation made to him ? And how could the
blood, or the soul, or the death, ot ilie Ucdeeiner be an cquivaieut to him at all for the
emjiire which lie lost, when it gave him no real i)ower over him who only died to rise
again at once fruni the dead. And again, the theory uiakea the God of truth chooiMt

344 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

wicked one, and ransom is always paid to him who is in posses-
sion of the thing for which it is due. Was the ransom then paid
to the evil one ? It is a monstrous thought. If to the evil
one — what an outrage ! Then the robber receives a ransom, not
only from God, but one which consists of God Himself, and for
his usurpation he gets so illustrious a payment — a payment for
which it would have been right to have left us alone altogether."
That, at all events, cannot be. Was it then paid to the Father ?
But we were not in bondage to Him : and again, How could it
be ? Could the Father delight in the blood of His Son ?

Yet though his moral and intellectual insight led him
surely to reject the notion of a ransom, either to the devil or
to the Father, Gregory has no certain positive answer to give.
He can only fall back on the mystery of the * economy ' of God.
The Father received the sacrifice " on account of the providential
plan, and because man had to be sanctified by the Incarnation,
so that, having subdued the tyrant, he might deliver and recon-
cile us to himself by the intercession of his Son ". The death of
Christ is thus regarded as a sacrifice offered to and accepted by
the Father ; but no theory of satisfaction is put forward, and it
would seem that the great theologian deprecated any closer
scrutiny of the divine ' economy '.^

No solution of these problems, it is true, was found by the
thinkers of the Church of those days ; but it was not to such
details, however important, that the greatest of them directed
their deepest thought.

As representatives of the best of that thought we may

as his instrument deception, and represents the end as justifying the means (and a
parallel is drawn between the deceit which ruined man and that which redeemed
him). An unjust victory could confer no claims, nor could wrong, because successful,
become the ground of an immoral right. And further, the theory implies the accept-
ance of dualism — two independent powers set over against one another, a kingdom
of light and a kingdom of darkness, with jurisdictions naturally limited by conflicting
claims : instead of treating evil as a temporary interruption of the divine order.

^ One striking passage, however, as Mr. C. F. Andrews has reminded me, must
not be overlooked, viz. Or. xxx 5, 6 {The Th>ological Orations of Gregory ed. A. J,
Mason p. 114 ff.). Gregory here emphasizes the representative character of the
human experiences and sufferings of Christ — the 'learning obedience', the 'strong
crying', and the ' tears'. *A dpa/xarovpyurai Kal irX^Acerai davfiacrlws virkp rjfiQv is the
remarkable phrase he uses of them. The Saviour endures them as representing
mankind : he makes what is ours his own, and his is ours — in him. He imperson-
ates and plays the part of the human race, entering into a full realization of our
circumstances. It is our state that is described and represented in his experiences ;
and Gregory implies that, till we have fully made his experiences our own, our
salvation is not fully accomplished — we are not (reawanivoi.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT 345

fairly take, among Greek Fathers, Athanasius, and among Latin,
Augustine ; and this sketch of the conceptions of Atonement
which were prevalent among Christians during the first foui
centuries of the life of the Church may be concluded with a
brief account of the ideas and teaching of Athanasius and
Augustine.

Athanasius ^

No more fresh and bracing treatment of the doctrine of the
Atonement is to be found in the literature of the early Church
than that which Athanasius gives in his writing On the Incarna-
tion of the Word?' The necessity for the redemption of men he
finds in the goodness of God, and in this main thought he is
entirely at one with Augustine. But his conception of ' good-
ness ' includes the consistency and honour of God, which make it
requisite that his decrees should be maintained and put in force,
and thus the principle of justice is recognized under the wider
concept. He had appointed rational beings, his creatures, to
share in his life, and he had ordained the sentence of death as
the penalty of transgressions.^ By transgression man lost the
life which was ordained by the plan of God to be his, and re-
demption became necessary. But no plan of redemption would
be admissible which did not do away with the transgression and
also restore the life which had been lost {e.g. repentance would
do the one, but could not avail to effect the other).* The only
way in which the corruption, or mortality, of man could be over-
come was by the introduction of a new principle of life which
should overpower and transform the corruption. As, therefore,

' See Haraack DO. Enp. tr. vol. iii p. 290 (T., and Moberly Atonement and
Personality j». 349 IF. (a lull ami symi)athetic and disciiiuinating ajipreciatioii of
the teaching of Atliaiia.siu8). I cunnot think that the tnidition which ascrilius
thiB work to Atlianasiu!) liius boeii in any way Rhakcu by the elaborate arguments of
IJt. Diaseku {Th:ol. Stud. u. Kril. IS'JIJ, and Zcitschrift f. vn.is. Thiol. 18'.i5).

' And in frequent references to the doctrine elsewhere, particularly in tlie
OratJDns against the Arian.s, ewj). ii 67-70.

* It is said that a pcrsonilication of Death takes the plnco of the devil in the
thought of Athana.siu8, and that liis concej)lion has thus much kinship with the idea of
a ransom to the devil : but it will be si-cn that he has really very little in comiiion with
such an idea. It i.s nearer perhaps to the thought of Athanasius to describe the penalty
as paid to the justice of God in close connexion with tlie demands of Mis veracity.
I'ut it is diflicult to gr^isp exactly what Athanasius means by Death in this con-
nexion, if he had an exact idea liimBclf.

* Athanasius 8]*eaks of il as unthinkable (AroTOf y)i>) that mere penitence should
comi>ensate fur sin and restore the tainted nature.

346 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

the Logos had originally made all thin<^s out of nothing; so it
was litting and necessary that he should take human nature
to himself, and recreate it by assuming a human body, and
once and for all overpowering in it the principle of death and
corruption. This, therefore, is the first and chief effect of the
Inciirnation : ^ the principle of corruption is annihilated. And
it is in virtue of the inherent relation of the Logos to the human
race that he ell'ects its restoration.^ He is able to represent the
whole race and to act on its behalf.

To secure the purpose in view the death of the humanity
thus assumed was necessary, to pay the debt that was due from
all.^ Exactly why, or how, Athanasius does not clearly define or
discuss. But it is trhe death of all mankind that is owed, and it
is the death of all mankind that is eMected in his death. And,
in like manner, in his conquest over death and the resurrection
which ensued, it is the conquest and resurrection of all mankind
that is achieved. And the death is called a sacrifice. The Logos
is said to have " offered the sacrifice on behalf of all, giving up to
death in the stead of all the shrine of himself (i.e. his human
body or humanity), in order that he might release all from their
liability and set them free from the old transgression, and shew
himself stronger even than death, displaying his own body
incorruptible as the first-fruits of the resurrection of all ". * So
he sull'ers on behalf of all, and can be ambassador to the Father
concerning all.^ Athanasius does not expand the conceptions of
' debt ' and ' sacrifice '. But his whole presentation of the matter
shews that he regards the incarnate Logos as achieving all his
work of redemption as the representative, not as the substitute,
of man.^ The argument is carefully elaborated, with the main

'See the famous simile in ch. ix. "Just as wlien a great king has entered
some great city and takes up his dwelling in the houses in it, such a city is
certainly deemed worthy of much honour, and no enemy or bandit any more attacks
it and overpowers it, but it is counted worthy of all respect because of the king who
has taken up his dwelling in one of its houses ; so it has happened in the case of the
King of All. For since he came into our domain and took up his dwelling in a body
like ours, attacks of enemies upon men have entirely ceasid, and the corruption of
death which of old prevailed against them has vanished away."

* See chs. iii and viiL * Ch. xx ; cf. Or. c. Ar. ii 69.

* Ch. vii ; cf. ch. ix.

* Phrases are used which by themselves might suggest substitution, but the
whole drift of the argument shews that representation is meant. E.g. ch. ix
7) wpcxTtpoph. Tov KaTaWrjXov, t6 6(pii\6fj,evoi', avrlipvxov — but they are vtrkp irdvrujv.
The phrase dvrl irdvTwv is, I think, used once only (ch. xxi), and then in the mouth
of an objector to the argument.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT 347

purpose of shewing that no mere external act done by another
would suffice. And elsewhere, in referring incidentally to the
manner of redemption, Athanasius emphasizes the thought.
" If the curse had been removed by a word of power, there
would have been indeed a manifestation of the power of God's
word ; but man would only have been (as Adam was before the
fall) a recipient from without of grace which had no real place
within his person ; for this was how he stood in Paradise. Or
rather, he would have been worse off than this, inasmuch as he
had already learned to disobey. If under these conditions he
had again been persuaded by the serpent, God would liave had
again to undo the curse by a word of command ; and so the need
would have gone on for ever, and men would never have got
away one whit from the liability of the service of sin ; but for
ever sinning they would for ever -have needed to be pardoned,
and would never have become really free, being flesh for ever
themselves, and for ever falling short of the law because of the
weakness of their flesh." ^ No eternal change, no remission of
penalty or equivalent compensation, no fiat of God, no change in
Him, if that were conceivable, would have sufficed : there was
needed a change in man himself. And again : " That henceforth,
since through him all died, the word of the sentence on man
might be fulfilled (for * in Christ all died ') ; and yet all might
through him be made free from sin and the curse upon sin, and
remain for ever truly alive from the dead and clothed in immor-
tality and incorru])tion."^ It is not only the penalty for sin, but
sin itself, from which man must be freed : the condition of dead-
ness within him must be quickened into life.^ This double end
could only be achieved by one who could go through the process of
dying, by which alone sin could be eliminated, and yet — paradox
as it sounds — escape annihilation, and overpower death by a
superior energy of life. So it was that the Logos, being the Sou
of the Father and incapable of death, " when He saw that there
could be no escajie for men from destruction without actually
dying, . . . took to Himself a body which could die; in order
tliat this, being the body of the Logos who is over all, might
satisfy death for all, and yet by virtue of the indwelling Logos
might remain itself imperishable, and so destruction might be

' Or. e. Ar. ii C3 (Dr. Mohcrly'a translation). ^ lliid. ii (;9.

• Cf. Gregory of NysHa's idea that the ailing part must bo ' touched Lu order to
be healed — Or. Cat. xivii.

348 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

averted from all by the giace of the resurrection. . . . Thus he
abolished death at a stroke from his fellow-men by the offering of
that which stood for all. . . . For the destruction which belongs
to death has now no more place against men, because of the
Logos who through the one body indwells in them." ^ This
special immanence of the Logos in humanity since the Incarna-
tion is known and recognized by the presence of his Spirit in his
followers. It is we ourselves who receive the grace. " By
reason of our kinship of nature with his body we ourselves also are
become a temple of God, and have been made from henceforth sons
of God ; so that in us too now the Lord is worshipped, and those
who see us proclaim, as the apostle said, that ' God is in truth
in them '." ^ " The descent of the Spirit, which came upon him
in Jordan, came really upon us, because it was our body that he
bore, . . . When the Lord, as man, was washed in Jordan, it was
we who were being washed in him and by him. And when he
received the Spirit, it was we who were being made by him
capable of receiving it." '

Such are the thoughts which specially characterize the teach-
ing of Athanasius and give it its peculiar value. But he does
not, of course, ignore other aspects of the work of Christ, and he
lays particular stress on his mission of revelation of God.
Through the Incarnation of the Logos the true knowledge of God,
which they had lost, was restored to men. They had not been
able to recover it from the works of God in creation ; they had
their eyes cast downwards, fallen low down in the depths as
they were, and looking for him only in the objects of sense."*
' Therefore the compassionate Saviour of all, the Logos of God,
took to himself a body and lived as a man among men, and
assumed the experiences which are common to all men, in order
that they who conceived that God was to be found in the domain
of the body might perceive the truth from the actions of the
Lord through the body, and thus by those means might form a
conception of the Fatlun-."^ So, as Athanasius holds, in one
who lived among them under the same conditions as their own,
one who was at the same time God, it was possible for men to

^ Ch. ix. That all his experiences are really in a true sense ours, and that his
immanence in humanity is of widest consequence, is further argued Or. c. At. i 41,
■ii 33, iv 67.

* Or. c. Ar. i 43. ' Ihid. i 47 ; and again ihia. li 48, 49.

* Dt Incam. ch. xiv. * Ihid. di. xv.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT 349

gain a true knowledge of God, which they could not have gained
in any other way. The invisible thus became visible, and made
himself known as he really was.

So, at the end of his book, Athanasius sums up his exposition.
" He became man, in order that we might become divine ; and he
manifested himself through the body, in order that we might get
a conception of the unseen Father ; and he endured the outrage
which befell him at the hands of men, in order that we might
inherit immortality." ^

Augustine's Conception

Augustine was perhaps the first uf the Fathers to definitely
face the question Cur Dens Homo ? which was to occupy the
acutest minds of the Middle Ages, and to attempt to shew the
inherent necessity of the particular form of Atonement which
was adopted. His discussion of the question is incidental, in
connexion with his exposition of the doctrine of the Trinity and
the analogies to illustrate it which are furnished by the pheno-
mena of human thought and other experiences.^

He states the objection which was already urged — Had God
no other way of freeing men from the misery of this mortality
than by willing that the only-begotten Son — God co-eternal with
Himself — should become man and, being made mortal, endure
death ? In reply, it is not enough, he says, to shew that this
mode is good and suitable to the dignity of God : we must shew
that there was not, and need not have been, any other more
appropriate mode of curing our misery.^ This he aims at shew-
ing by pointing to the primary condition of our rescue. The first
thing to do was to build up our hope and free us from despair.
The most effective means of doing this was to shew us at how
great a price God rated us, and how greatly He loved us ; and in
no way could this be shewn more clearly than by the Son of God
entering into fellowship with our nature and bearing our ills.
Good deserts of our own we have none — they are all Hi.s gifts.
We were sinners and enemies of God. But through the means

' De Ineam. ch. liv. * De Trinitate xiii § 13 ff.

* It is in tliis senso that the Fathers of this time speak of the vrrmsif.y of the
particular mode of atouenient which waB (uJoptc^fi, iint as ali.soltite hut as conditiojied
by Ood'a jiurposes. That God might have choaeu otlior motliods ia reco;^nized hj
all. (See Oxerihain op. cil. p. 149.)

350 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

devised we are saved : we are justified by the blood, and recon-
ciled by the death, of the Son of God ; we are saved from wrath
through him, saved by his life.

Augustine then faces the difficulty — How are we justified
in his blood — what power is there in the blood ? and how are
we reconciled by the death of the Son ? It could not be as
though God the Father was wroth, and was appeased by the
death of His Son ; for on that supposition the Son must have been
already appeased, and there would be implied a conflict between
the Father and the Son. And St Paul (Rom. 8^^' ^^) represents
the Father as delivering up His Son, not sparing him — so shew-
ing that the Father was already appeased. And indeed there
could be no doubt that God had always loved us. And the
Father and the Son work all things together harmoniously and
equally (there could be no kind of conllict or difference between
them). We must look elsewhere for the solution of the problem.

The fact is, that the human race was delivered over into the
power of the devil by the justice of God, inasmuch as the sin of
the first man passed over by nature ^ into all who are born by
natural process from him, and the debt incurred by the first
parents binds all their posterity. But though the race was de-
livered over to the power of the devil, yet it did not pass out
of God's goodness and power. And as surely as the commission
of sins subjected man to the devil, through the just anger of
God ; so surely the remission of sins rescues man from the devil,
through the gracious reconciliation of God.

But further reasons for the Incarnation may be seen.
Justice (righteousness) is greater than might, and it pleased God
that the devil should be conquered by justice rather than by
might, so that men also, imitating Christ, might seek to conquer
the devil by righteousness rather than by might. And the way
in which the devil was conquered was this. Though finding in
Christ nothing worthy of death, he slew him : he shed innocent
blood, taking that which was not owed him ; and so it was mere
justice that he should be required to surrender and set free those
who were owed to him — the human race over whom he had
acquired rights.

Christ — the Saviour — had to be man in order to die, and he

* Tlie word used is origina.liter. It is explained immediately as meaning ' by
nature', i.e. as it has been depraved by sin, not as created upright {recia) at the
beginning.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT 351

had to be God in order to prove that the choice of righteousness
was spontaneous {i.e. to shew that the Saviour could have chosen
the way of might rather than the way of justice) ; and this volun-
tary humiUty made the righteousness the more acceptable.

Although it was only death for a time that the devil secured,
the blood of Christ was of such price that release from sins was
fairly bought by it. The death of the flesh and other ills still
remain for man, even when sin is forgiven ; but they give oppor-
tunity for pious endurance, and set off the blessedness of eternity.

The manner in which it was all accomplished was also a
great example of obedience to us : and it was fair that the devil
should be conquered by one of the same rational race as that
which he held in his power.

Augustine's main conceptions of the Atonement are clearly
revealed in this discussion. The claims of the devil are recog-
nized ; and the death of Christ has for its final end the release
of mankind from the devil's power. The satisfaction of justice is
in view throughout. There is a great principle involved. Might
could have set aside the claims of justice, but God's action is
determined by right. Above all else, it is the love of God for
men that is the motive power that originates and guides the
whole plan of redemption. Certainly, Augustine had no concep-
tion of an angry God needing to be appeased. It is only on the
part of man that love is wanting ; and the plan of Atonement was
chosen just because it was peculiarly fitted to reveal to men the
depth of the love of God, and so to arouse in them a correspond-
ing emotion.^

From tliis review of the teaching of the Church it will be
seen that there ia only the most slender support to be found in

' Harnack (DO. Enp. tr, vol. iii p. 313) describes the propitiation of an angry
God by a sacrilicial deatli as the cliaracteristic Latin coiicciitioii of the work of Clirist.
It i.s clearly not tlie conception of Au;;iistiue. A.s to the conceptions of TertiiUian and
Cyprian .see tiupra p. 333. With tlie j)a88age cited above may be compared tlio treat-
ment of the paHSiigo .Fohn 1 T*''"* ( Trari. in Joh. ex 6) : " Tor it was not from tiio time
that we were reconciled nnto Him by the blood of I lis Son that He began to love us : but
He loved us before the foundation of the world. . . . Let not the fact, then, of our
having been rcconfiled to God through the death of His Son be so listened to, or
understood, as if the Son reconciled us unto Him in such wise that He now began to
love those whom Ho formerly hated, as enemy is reconciled to enemy, so tliat on
that account they becomi: friends and mutual love takes the place of mutual hatred ;
but we were reconciled unto Him who already loved us, but with wliom wo were at
enmity because of our sins."

352 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

the earliest centuries for some of the views that became current
at a hiter time. It is at least clear that the sufferings of Christ
were not regarded as an exchange or sulistitution of penalty, or
as punishment intlicted on him by the Father for our sins.
There is, that is to say, no idea of vicarious satisfaction, either in
the sense that our sins are imputed to Christ and his obedience
to us, or in the sense that God was angry with him for our sakes
and intiicted on him punishment due to us. Wherever language
that seems to convey such notions is used, it is safeguarded by
the idea of our union with Christ, so peculiarly close and
intimate that we are sharers in his obedience and his passion,
and only so far as we make them our own do we actually
appropriate the redemption which he won for us. Also, in spite
of a phrase or two suggesting another conception, it is clear that
the main thought is that man is reconciled to God by the Atone-
ment, not God to man. The change, that is, which it effects
is a change in man rather than a change in God. It is God's
unchangeable love for mankind that prompts the Atonement
itself, is the cause of it, and ultimately determines the method
by which it is elYected.

Furthermore in the light of the teaching which has been
reviewed, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the death
was regarded as in itself of high value and importance — as an
integral part of the work of Atonement and not only as the
entrance to a new and greater life, f

As to the scope of the Atonement, no limit seems to have
been thought of (except by the Gnostics) till the theory of pre-
destination was worked out. Redemption was effected for all
men (according to Origen, for all rational orders of being), though
individuals must come within the range of its influence by an
act of volition (and Origen and Gregory of Nyssa, at least, be-
lieved that ultimately all men would be redeemed). The theory
of predestination carries with it a limitation of the scope of the
Redeemer's work, however the limitation may be disguised.

'HERETICAL' CONCEPTIONS OF THE ATONEMENT

In the foregoing review of early conceptions of the Atonement no
notice has been taken of 'heretical' thought upon the subject. It is,
however, worth noting briefly in what points the doctrine would be affected
by the different christological conceptions of some of the leading heretics.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT 353

E.g. to Gnostic?, who denied the reality of the human nature, the suffer-
ings which were only apparent could have no value or effect of auy kind :
redemption was accomplished by teaching, by knowledge. To Ebionites,
who acknowledged the human nature only, the death of Christ could
not be regarded as availing for others : the infinite value attributed to
his acts and sufferings as man, in virtue of the hypostatic union of the
divine and the human, could not enter into their conception of the
matter. The Arians conceived of Christ as a supernatural being sent
to announce redemption, and put the reconciliation in the bare pro-
clamation of forgiveness. Apollinarian teaching, as it was understood,
excluding the human soul from the constituents of the Redeemer's
person, deprived him of one of the chief qualifications for his
mediatorial work and made him unable to act as the representative of
men. The Nestorian conception of the junction of two persons was
inconsistent with the idea of the true reconciliation of God and man as
actually effected in the Incarnation, while a similar consequence followed
from the confusion of the substances involved in the teaching of
Eutyches (see also supra pp. 247, 274).

THE DOCTRINE OF MERIT
TertulUan and Cyprian

TertulHan's conception of merit is based on the idea that in some
spheres of life and conduct God imposes no law on men. He ' wills ', it
is true, some things ; but He ' permits ' others. Man is therefore free,
either to avail himself of this permission {indulgentia) and follow his
own natural inclinations, or to forgo what God permits and follow
instead the guidance of His will (voluntas). That is to say, he can
choose between the indulgentia and the voluntas of God. And to forgo
what He permits, and to follow instead what He wills, is to acquire
merit

It is, of course, self-evident that no one may do what God has
directly forbidden. Tertullian treats it as equally self-evident that it is
possible for a man to do meritorious acts, and on the strength of tliem
have a claim for reward from God; because to take advantage of God's
iiululgentia {or permissio or liceniia) is in no way sin. It may at times
be even good, relatively to actual sin ; though there is a Itetfcr, i.e. a
good in the full sense of the word, viz. ahstinentia. God gives the
opportunity both to use and not to use, and our choice not to use earns
us merit

This earning of merit through renouncing that which is allowed by
the indulgentia Dei and doing instead tlie voluntas Dei is, however,
pa.s8ive in character. In contrast with it is the active presentation of
the matter, viz. the doctrine of merit resting on the idea of sat ixj'artio.

354 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

This idea depends on other considerations. God is the lawgiver hefore
whose authority man must bow in unconditional obedience. His will
is set before men in the Old and in the New Testament (both of which
Tertullian styles lex), and in the order of Nature, as also in the ecclesi-
astical discipline and in the tradition. Herein, from those sources of
knowledge, can be found what is pleasing to God and wliat is not
pleasing but forbidden. To 'satisfy' or content God is to do what is
pleasing to Him, and not to do what is forbidden. Otherwise a sin is
incurred. No recourse to the indulgence of God is admitted here. But
men are always falling into sin, and each sin incurs guilt, and God in
accordance with His righteousness must take vengeance, must exact
punishment. (Baptism washes away inherited sin and all sins actually
committed by the individual before baptism, but after baptism a man
must do God's will — must ' satisfy ' Ged — or he ceases to be a Christian.)
The punishment, the suffering which is due for sin committed, man can
take voluntarily upon himself. It is accepted by God as equivalent to
the fulfilment of the law, and in this way man can in effect fulfil the
law and escape God's punishment. This satisfactio may be accomplished
in various ways — e.g. by bodily castigation, by fasting, by voluntarily
stripping oneself of wealth, in order to give alms and endure poverty,
and especially by death in martyrdom. All such satisfying suffering is
a debt due to God, by which the deficit on man's part is balanced (it
is styled pro Deo, pro Christo). It is an expiatory sacrifice, and the
amount of the sacrifice required is in exact correspondence with the
offence. If more than is needed is offered, the surplus is deemed a
meritorious offering or ' good work ' {bonum opus), and counts as merit.
These bona opera put God in our debt (hahent Deum debitorem).

The religious motive which prompts us to acquire merit with God is
furnished by the hope of temporal and eternal reward on the one hand,
and tlie fear of temporal and eternal punishment on the other hand ; of
both of which — reward and punishment — there will be various grades,
proportioned to the merit or guilt acquired here.

Such, in outline, is the doctrine of merit which is expressed and
implied in Tertullian's writings ; which Cyprian reproduced, and which
through Cyprian so profoundly affected the ethical system of the Church
of the West in later times.

Tertullian was the first to ' formulate ' the conception, while Cyprian
was the first to 'naturalize' it fully in the system of church doctrine.

Two presuppositions of the doctrine must, of course, be borne in
mind: (1) it is only man regenerate by baptism who is thought of as
able to do good works (all that Tertullian and Cyprian say on the
subject has reference only to these who have undergone the supernatural
change of moral personality which they believed the sacrament of
baptism effected) ; (2) there is no suggestion that the baptized Christian

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT 355

who does gooil works has any claim for reward apart from God's own
promise.

An important developement of the conception is to be noted in the
teaching of Cyprian, for whom, it will be remembered, the question hoAV
to deal with Christians under penance, or even excommunicate, to whom
martyrs or confessors had given liheJli pads, was a very pressing practical
difficulty. It is possible, he held, by special sanctity (or by martyrdom)
to acquire an accumulation of merit over and above what is needed for
the highest grade of the heavenly reward. This surplus of merit may
pass over to the benefit of others, through the intercession of those to
whose credit it stands ; though the benefit can only be obtained by an
act of God's grace, conditioned by the relative worthiness of those for
whom intercession is made by the saints. He can grant indulgence and
He can refuse it : and the bishops and priests of the Catholic Church
may be used as the means through which He gives it. The efficacy of
the intercession of the Saints shews itself in two ways : here, on earth,
in the restoration of the fallen to the privileges of church membership ;
and afterwards, on the Judgement day, when the merits of the martyrs
and the works of the just may have great weight with the Judge.

It is evident that all the germs of the mediaeval theory are here.
Such scriptural basis as they have is to be found in passages in the
Gospels in which a reward is promised, so that if by the grace of God
the conditions are fulfilled the reward may be claimed; in St Paul's
teaching to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 7), where he draws a distinction
between the commandment of the Lord {j)raecei>tum) and his own
judgement or advice {consilium) — all must obey praecepta, but in matters
with regard to which there were no praecepta sj)ecial merit might be
acquired by doing more than was obligatory ; and in passages such as
Ilom. 12*, 1 Cor. 122", Qq1_ \2\ -which seem to imply that the faith and
piety and good works and sufferings, done and borne in Christ, of some
of the members of his Body — the Church — may in some sense pass over
to and afl'ftct the condition of others, who are united to them in so close
and intimate a union.

An admirable collection of the passages in the writings of 'rc:rtullian
and Cyprian which shew their conceptions will be found in Der
' Verdtenst'-Ber/riJf hy Dr. Wirth (Leipzig 1892 and 1901), on whoso
exposition this note is based. For some considerations which would
modify his prosontation of the mattfr as a whole, sec, a notice of his
work contributed to the Church Quarii-rlij Review October 1902 p. 207,
a considerable part of which is here reproduced.

CHAPTER XIX

The Church

Of the doctrine of the Church, as of other doctrines which have
been reviewed, there was for some time no clear definition
framed. The limit-line was not drawn. There was a general
sentiment about it, in keeping with the conceptions expressed in
the New Testament, but it was not easily fixed in words.

Till the time of Cyprian no special treatise on the Church
was written, and the general sentiment about it must be gathered
from the evidence of incidents and occasional phrases and
allusions.^ It must also be remembered that whatever im-
portance was attributed to the Sacraments attached also to the
Church, without which the Sacraments could not be had ; ^
and that, when evidence of definite theories as to the powers
of the Church is wanting, practical proof of her authority over
her members was being given all along in the system of disci-
pline and penance which — however great its developements in
later ages — was in existence from the earliest times.^

The idea of a new spiritual society which was potentially
world-wide, united by a common faith and worship and pledged
to definite moral standards of life, enjoying a real spiritual union
with Christ himself, permeated and sustained by the Holy
Spirit and his various gifts of grace, is implied from the first.*

This new spiritual society was the visible organization to
which baptism gave admission. The attempt to distinguish

^ Any attempt at summary statement must therefore be received with caution —
as e.g. in regard to Clement Al. infra ]». 362.

* This was clearly seen in the matter of heretical baptism. No Church, there-
fore no Sacrament. See i/ifra p. 380.

» See infra p. 372.

* See the picture of a Church as it should be in the Epistle of Clement 1, 2, 59.
Cf. Didache 9, 10 ; liarn. Ep. 3, 6. All were brethren 'according to the spirit and
in God' (Aristides Apol. 15). Mutual love was, to outsiders, the most striking
feature of the society. They were a new people, a tertium (jnius.

THE CHURCH 357

between the two, to recognize an invisible Church within the
visible, does not belong to the earliest thought. Precise
definition is indeed wanting, but the Church is regarded
always as at once a spiritual society and an external organ-
isation. Though St Paul addressed the first generation of
Christians as ' saints ' or ' holy ', it is clear from his letters
to them that they were so potentially only, and that he applied
the term to them as set apart (called out from the rest of men)
for a holy purpose, rather than possessed of personal holiness.^

The authority of the Church was guaranteed ultimately by
its connexion with the Holy Spirit himself ; but the continuity of
this authority was preserved through the bishops, the successors
of the Apostles, or the living representatives of Christ upon earth.
It was this unbroken succession that gave the assurance that
the Church was still the society founded by Christ.^

It was in and through this Society and its ordinances that all
the benefits of the life and death of Christ were to be obtained.^
In the Society were vested all the means of grace.

The four epithets which were at a later time applied to
the Church — one, holy, catholic, apostolic — truly represent the
earliest conceptions, although the experience of growth and
ne;v conditions of life and controversy gave fresh force and
meaning to some of them as time went on.

We may, accordingly, simply note a few characteristic ex-
pressions of the earlier writers, and consider a little more fully
the more exact and elaborate treatment of the matter by the later
writers, who set themselves the task of expounding a definite
theory in vit;w of opinions or actions that threatened disunion
and disiuptioQ.

Ignatius

Thus Ignatius insists above all else on the unity of the
Church, tbe security for which he finds in the binliop, who is
tlie representative of Christ, or God, and the head of the

' 'Set apart', 'devoted to sacred jiurpoHes' is the primary meaning of d^iof.
The prohlcm how to reconcile the holiness of the society as a whole with the
unholiness of its individual niumbers was bound to arise ; but the relation
between ' the true body ' and ' the mixed l)ody ' (corj)U3 venim and corpses per-
mixtum) was thoroughly considered for the first time by Augustine iii the con-
trovt rsy with the Donatista. See in/ra p. 369 n. 1.

' See in/ra and Note on the I'ishoyis jus cr-ntre of thn Churcii p. MS. f]
*(',(. e g. the African Crreds, ' remissionuoi |j«ccatonua . . . et vilam a<iLarDaiD
jter aunclam eccienam ' (Hahn ' pp. 69 tf.).

358 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

organization, administration, discipline, and worship of each
local Church.^ The bishop and, with him, the body of presbyters
and deacons are essential to the existence of a Church. Apart
from them the Sacraments cannot be validly performed. The
bishop is, he argues, the centre of each individual church, as
Jesus Christ is the centre of the Catholic Church.^

The people must be united to the bishop as the Church is to
Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ to tlie Father. And as he insists
thus strongly that the bishop is the head of the local church,
so he shews, by an incidental allusion, that he is familiar with
the conception of the relation between Christ and the Church
as that of the Head to the Body.^ The Body is to be charac-
terized by the incorruptibility of the Head ; but it is itself
composed of various members whose union is guaranteed by

* It is clear the conception is the same whether the bishop's charge (the
' Church ' of which he is chief) be merely a town and its vicinity, as in the time
of Ignatius, or a larger area like the diocese of a later age ; and whetlier the
presbyters and deacons are expressly included or not. See further Note on the
Bishops as the Centre of Union of the Church infra p. 373.

* Nearly every letter has repeated statements and exhortations to this effect.
See e.g. Eph. 5, 6 ; Smyrn. 8 ; Trail. 2, 3 ; Magn. 3, 6 ; Phikid. 7. This
{ad Smyrn. 8) is the first instance of the use of the epithet 'Catholic' (universal)
applied to the Church. The word was in common use in the sense of ' universal'
or 'general' as opposed to partial or particular; and Ignatius follows here the
current usage. "Wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the universal Church" — so
Ignatius WTites, and tlierefore (though he expresses himself in the form of exhor-
tation), wherever the bishop is seen, there is the body of Christian jieople which
constitutes a particular local church. That is to say, just as the Church universal
spread throughout the world is to be recognized by the presence of Jesus Christ,
so the church particular is to be known by the presence of the bishop (that is, the
bishop and the congregation that gathers round him is the local church — not
the congregation without the bishop). This is the primary sense of the words
'Catholic Church', denoting extension over space. So it is used again in the
Letter of the Smyrnaeans inscr. §§ 8, 19. But in view of heresies, or errors of
particular bodies of men or churches, it soon acquired a special doctrinal sense.
The ajipeal is made to the consensus fidelium, the Church universal, against the
opinions of individuals. And so, a little later, this technical sense, denoting
doctrinal exactitude and fullness of truth, as contrasted with inaccuracy and error
or partial understanding, is found in the Muratorian Fragment of the Canon,
which declares of heretical writings that they cannot be received into the 'Catholic'
Church. Cf. abo Clem. Al. Strom, vii 17. The two ideas of local extension and
comprehensiveness of doctrine (or ' orthodoxy ') remained combined, and later writers
delighted to draw out still deeper meanings of the word, Cf, Cyril of Jerusalem
Cat. xviii 33, cited ivfra p. 366.

* Eph. 17, "the Lord received the ointment upon his head, in ord sr that he
might breathe tlie odour of incoirnptiliility upon his (the) Church." See Von der
Goltz Texte u. Unlers. xii 3, and J. H. Srawley Epistles of St Ignatius S.P-C,K.
ad loc.

THE CHURCH 359

their relation to the Head.^ Tliey must be seen as true branches
of his Cross, bearing incorruptible fruit.

Again and again Jfrnatius insists on the need for visible
unity. He knows nothing of any distinction between a visible
and an invisible Church. Just as all through his teaching he
insists on the Incarnation as the very union of the seen and
the unseen, of the flesh and the spirit, of man and God ; so
that Jesus Christ is really God existing as man, the spiritual
revealed in the material, the unseen become seen ; so the Church
is at once both flesh and spirit, and its union is the imion of
both.2 The Church thus clearly represents to Ignatius the very
principle of which the Incarnation is the great expression, and
in and through its unity that principle is set forth. The life of
faith and love to which Christians are pledged is a practical
evidence of the union of spirit and flesh,^ but it is in the Church
itself that the union is most manifestly realized.

The independence of local churches under their bishops, and
at the same time the intimate interdependence of one Church on
another, and the closeness of the tie of brotherhood which bound
them together — the consciousness of essential union in one society
— is plainly revealed in these letters of Ignatius. The Church
as a whole is, as it were, focused in each particular Church.

Irenaeus — the Church as Teacher and Guardian of the Faith

Another point of view comes before us in the writings of
Irenaeus.

The needs of his argument against liercsies of various kinds
led Irenaeus to spealc cf the Churcli, particularly in its aspect
as a teacher, as the home of faith — the treasure-house amply
filled by the Apostles, so that every one who will may take from
it the draught of life. It is the entrance to life : and had there
been no writings left to future generations by the Apostles the
traditional teaching preserved in the Church would have sufficed."*

> See esp. Troll. 11. * Fph. 10, Marr'. 13, Smym. 12.

* IIeretii;8, who fiiil to realize tin's, prove tliemselve.s thereby opposed to tin'
miiul or purpose of Ood — Smym. 6. Cf. E]<h. 14.

* Adv. Harr. iii 4. 1 ; cf. iv. 48. 2, where he sees in Lofs wife, beroino a \n\\:\:
of aalt, a type of the Church which i.s the salt of the earth, and is left bchiud on
the confines of the world, cndnrinK all that falls to human lot. And, often as
niend)er8 are taken from her, she yet rptmiins whole — a jiill.ir of salt, the »*'-'vjjcth
of the faith, strengthening and sending on her sons to their Father.

360 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

This teaching of the faith (always and everywhere constant and
persistent, always young and strong, endowed with perennial
youth, and making the vessel in which it is young) is a trust
committed to the Church by God, to give life to all that share
it^ It is only in the Church that communion with Christ, i.e.
the Holy Spirit, can be obtained — the Holy Spirit which is
the guarantee of immortality, the security of our faith, and the
ladder by which we mount to God. Whej-e the Church is,
there too is the Spirit of God : and where the Spirit of God
is, there is the Church and every operation of grace ; and the
Spirit is Truth.^ Those who do not share in that are without
the vital nourishment of their mother's milk and the pure
waters that flow from the body of Christ. They are aliens
from truth, and doomed to wander in all directions. They have
no rock as their foundation, but only sand and stones. The
light of God never shines upon them.^

The true Church is distinguished by its unity. Though
diffused through the whole inhabited world to the ends of the
eax"th, it has one and the same faith everywhere, derived from
the Apostles.*

It is endowed with miraculous powers to cleanse from evil
spirits, to foresee the future, to heal the sick, and even to raise
the dead : and all these spiritual gifts it ministers freely, as
freely it received them.^ So it follows that, inasmuch as the
Church alone has the true faith, it alone can bear witness to
it ; and so it is only the Church that can furnish examples
of true martyrdom — for the love it has toward God.*

Tertullians Conception of the Church

Tertullian has much in common with Irenaeus, thougn he
deals with fresh aspects of the matter. His conceptions under-
went a change after his conversion to Montauism. In his
earlier days, against heretics, he defended the claim of the
Church to be the sole repository of the truth, the ' witness
and keeper of holy writ ', in such a sense that no one outside
the Church had any right to attempt to put his own inter-

' See adv. Haer. i 3, 4 ; iii 12. 9 ; v 20. So the magisterium and the charisma
vtritcUis, a ' succession ' of truth, belong to the bishops.

» Adv. Eaer. iii 38. 1. » Ihid. iii 38. 2. « Ihid. i 2, etc.

» Ihld. ii 48. 3, 4 ; 49. 3. « Ihid. iv 54.

THE CHURCH 361

pretation on it. As the Church is made up of many individual
Churches, the test of truth is ultimately to be found in the
consent of those which were of apostolic foundation, which
received, that is, their doctrine from the Apostles, who received
it from Christ, as Christ received it from God, Yet many
Churches of much later origin, which can point to no apostolic
founder but agree in the same faith, deserve the name in
virtue of this consanguinity of doctrine,^ From this point of
view the chief function of the Church is the preservation of
the first tradition, which is derived from God through Christ
and the Apostles. The Church has thus a divine origin and a
divine authority. No mention is made of the bishops ; but it
is essentially a visible external Church that TertuUian has in
view, and its rulers were bishops

In other connexions he shews, by a merely incidental
reference, that the conception of the Church as the body of
Christ was familiar to him. In baptism, he says,^ not only
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are named, but also the Church ;
because wherever there are the three. Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, there is the Church, which is the Body of the Three.

And quite in keeping with the general thought that under-
lies this saying is another incidental description of the Church
in connexion with the first clause of the Lord's Prayer. As we
therein recognize God as our Father in heaven (and in invoking
Him address at the same time the Son who is one with Him),
so we have in mind the Church our Mother.* That is to say,
TertuUian conceives of the motherhood of the Church as corre-
sponding upon earth to the Fatherhood of God in heaven, as
though without the agency of the Church we could not have
the Fatherhood of God. It is through her that we become
his sons.

Later, when a Mnntanist,* TertuUian still conceived only of
an outward visible Church ; but, as a spiritual society essentially
pure and holy and undefiled, it must be composed exclusively
of spiritual men. The Church, lie declares, is in its essential
nature and fundamentally Spirit : — Spirit in which exists a
Trinity of one and the same divinity — Father, Son, and Holy
Sj»irit. . . . Accordingly tlie wlutle number of those who agree
together in this faith in the Trinity are counted as the Church

» De prcuncr. hcwret. 21, 32, 37. ' De Bapl. 6. ■ De Oral. 2.

* See eflpei ially de I'tidicitia 21, and the wliole ar^'uinent.

362 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

by its founder and saiR'lificr. To tliis Church belongs the power
of forgiveness of sins — but it is a Church which is Spirit and
acts through a spiritual man, not a Church wliich consists in a
body of bishops. For the right of decision is the Lord's, and not
his servant's : it belongs to God Himself, and not to His priest.

Here, then, we have Tertullian utterly repudiating the
theory that any but the spiritually minded could ever con-
stitute the Church, and insisting that episcopal office in itself
conferred no authority to absolve from sin.

It is thus entirely a spiritual and inward criterion that he
adopts, though it is not obvious how the test would be applied.
Only, it is clear that he finds no guarantee in the outward
organization and the continuity of bishops.^

It was in the West always, rather than in the East, that
the social conceptions which underlie any idea of the Church
were felt with most force ; and if we turn from Tertullian in
Africa to his contemporaries in the East — to Clement, for
example, at Alexandria, we do not find much help towards a
clearer definition.

Clement and Origen

To Clement^ every person who has been baptized, and has not
forfeited the privileges which were then obtained by any judicial
sentence, is a member of the Church on earth — the one, true,
ancient catholic apostolic Church,^ a ' lovely body and assemWage
of men governed by the Word ', ' the Company of the Elect ', the
Bride of Christ, the Virgin Mother, stainless as a Virgin, loving
as a Mother. But that Clement's chief thought of the Church
was as the mystical Body of Christ^ is shewn by the distinction

' It is noteworthy that in this connexion he insists that the Loid's sayings to
Peter were to him personally, and that the bishops or Church of Rome (of whom
he is writing) have no right to take thera to themselves. To regard the authority
and powers entrusted to Peter as extending to others is to change the plain
intention of the Lord who said, ' On thee I will build my Church ' and ' I will
the keys to thee', not to the Church {de Pudicitia 21). With this interpretation
cf. the view of Cyprian (infra p. 364) that the commission and the authority was
given equally and fully to all the Apostles and tlieir successors the bishops.
Tertullian and Cyprian are at one in rejecting the idea that any special authority
or power was inherited by Peter's successors in the Roman see.

* See C. Bigg The Christian Platonids of Alexandria p. 100 f.

' Strom, vii 17 (Migiie ix p. 548). Other reierences given by B;/^g (p. 99) are
Strom, vii 2G, vii :>, iii 6, 11 ; Pacil. i 6.

* Strom, vii 14 (Migne ix p. 521).

THE CHURCH 363

which he recognized between the persons, the members, compos-
ing it — a distinction corresponding to that between the tlesh and
the spirit. Those who, though members of the Body, still live as
do the Gentiles are the flesh ; those who truly cleave to the Lord
and become one spirit with Him — the Sons of God, the Gnostics
— are the Holy Church, the Spirit. This Church, which is thus
composed of those who are called and saved, is the realized pur-
pose of God.^ On the oneness of the Church he naturally lays
stress in this connexion. The Virgin Mother is one, alone ; just
as the Father is one, and the Word one, and the Holy Spirit one
and the same everywhere.

Yet the distinctions he marks almost amount to a division
of the one Church into two parts. He does not seem to attempt
any real reconciliation of the antithesis.

Orisen certainly insists that outside the Church no one is
saved; 2 but the terms in which h-e describes the true Church
preclude the identification of it with the outward visible Church.
" Christ is the true light, and it is with his light that the
Church is lighted up and made the light of the world, lightening
those who are in darkness. Even so Christ himself testified to
his disci[)les when he said, Ye are the light of the world: for
that saying shews that Christ is the light of the Apostles, and
that the Apostles are the light of the world. For those who
have not spot nor wrinkle, nor anything of the kind, are the true
Church." 3 Some of Origen's other references to the Church
have been already noticed*

Cyprian's Concejytion of the Church

Turning from Kgypt towards the West again, we find a further
developeiiicnt of the doctrine of the Church worked out by Cyprian.

The first treatise whicli expressly deals with the subject in
view of practical difhcuUies which had arisen is Cyprian's On
the Unity of the Chiirch.

His conception of the Church is expressed, for the most part,
in his attempt to find the true solution of the new problem bj
whicii his generation was perplexed — the problem of secesBion

' Pofd. i 4. 6 ; of. Strom, i 18, vii 6.

' Hmn. iii iii Jon. • limn, i in Qcn.

* See, t.(j., lii.H reference to its ftuthority as t)io veliicle of triKjilinn hikI so tho
standard of trutli supra ch. iv ji. 53.

364 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

upon questions not originally doctrinal, when " with teaching
identical, aiuid undoubted holiness of life, there was seen Altar
against Altar, Chair against Chair ".^ Where was the seat of
authority, the guarantee of unity, to be found ? This is the
question which Cyprian deals with in his tract On the Unity
of the Church ; and his answer to it shews clearly, not only
what he held to be the basis of authority in the Church and the
nature and safeguard of its external constitution, but also inci-
dentally his conception of the inner character and functions of
the Church itself.

On the first point he says the answer is quickly given
(§ 4). It is found at once in the Lord's commission given in
the first place to Peter, both before and after the crucifixion and
resurrection, and in the second place after the resurrection in
similar terms to all the Apostles alike as peers, conferring the
same power on them all. This commission is conclusive. An
equal partnership in honour and power was bestowed on all
alike, but without any sacrifice of unity. It was in order to
shew and to preserve the unity of the Church that a unit (one)
was made the starting-point. This was the reason for Peter's
selection and the commission to him individually to begin with.^
How then can anyone who does not hold this unity of the
Church think that he holds the faith ? Bishops, above all others,
ought to hold fast and assert this unity, to shew that the
episcopate is one and undivided. For the episcopate is one, and
each bishop enjoys full tenure of episcopal authority and rights^
— that is to say, the authority of each is perfect in itself and
independent, yet it is in the body of bishops as a whole that
the unity is found : the existence of many bishops in no way
impairs the essential oneness of the office and of the Church.
A number of similes are given to illustrate this unity : — the
sun and its rays, all one light ; the branches of a tree and the
tree ; the fountain and the many streams that flow from it.
The common source is in each case the safeguard of unity.

* Abp. Benson Cyprian p. 181. See the whole chapter.

- On the interpolations here see Abp. Benson op. cit.

' Episcopatus unus est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetur ('like that of a
sliareholder in some joint jroperty' — Benson). This conception of the full and
independent authority of eacli bishop, so that no one could force his will upon
another, while nevertheless isolated action endangered the unity of the body, was
the controlling principle of the whole of Cyprian's treatment of the question. On
the episcopate as constituting the unity of the Church see also Ep. 6C. 8.

THE CHURCH 365

Separate any one of the derivatives from its source and it
perishes ; the branch cannot bud, the stream is dried up. So
the Church spreads her rays throughout the world ; yet the
light which is shed in all places is one and the same, and the
unity of the body is not impaired. She stretches forth her
branches over the whole earth, she broadens out more and more
widely the flow of her ample streams ; yet there is one head and
one source and one mother, ever prolific as birth follows birth.
It is of her that we are born, her milk by which we are fed, her
breath by which we live. She is the bride of Christ, who knows
but one home, and preserves with chastity and modesty one bed
inviolate. Slie it is who keeps us safe for God, and puts upon
the sons she bore the seal that marks them for the kingdom.
Whoever separates himself, and leaves the Church, is separated
from the promises which are hers and will not attain to the
rewards that Christ bestows. He cannot have God as Father
who has not the Church as Mother. If anyone outside the ark
of Noah could escape, then too he who has been outside the
Church escapes.

Cyprian unhesitatingly applies to the Church the Lord's
saying, ' He that is not with me is against me, and he that
gathereth not with me scattereth abroad ', and declares that the
separatist is scattering the Church of Christ, and that the unity
of the Church has its analogue in the unity of the three divine
persons of the Godhead.^

Further than this it is impossible to go. The doctrine of
tlie unity of the Church is raised to the very highest plane of
thought and existence. It is founded in the very nature and
being of God. So he who does not keep this unity dues not
keep the law of God, nor the faith in Father and Son, nor life
and salvation. Scripture is full of symbols and illustrations of
this unity,* and apostolic precepts and injunctions insist on it.

It only remains to note some practical conseciuences which
Cyprian deduces. Good men cannot withdraw themselves from

' At tho end of the troati.sR (§ 23) he tersely 8um.s n]> his leaching in the
words: "Th<re is one God, and one Christ, and one Churcli ol'Cliri.st, and "uo faith
and |ioo[ile linked t<^^ether by tlie glue of concord so as to be a unity compact and
corix.rate." Gf. Ep. 66. 8.

* He cites the Hcaniless vest (§ 7), tho one flock (§ 8), tho ono imuHe of
Rahab undestroyed, tho one hou.so in which tho jiu-sclial I>uinb iuu.it bo eaten, the
men of one niinrl in a houxe, tlie spirit in the furm of a dove (blicwing the character
which the Church must liave).

366 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

the Church, It is tlie chalV only that is blown away and
separates from the wheat.^ No sn})port for separation can be
derived from the Ix)rd's promise to be with two or three who
were gathered together in his name: the whole point of the
saying was to teach the power of unanimity and common (not
separate) action. Such men may be put to death for the name
of Christ, but they are not martyrs (§ 14); they have violated
the primary principle of love ; and though they give their bodies
to be burnt, it will not profit them. Only a Churchman can be
a martyr.^ The separatist is in many ways worse than the
apostate in time of trial. The latter has sinned once, and may
certainly purge his sin by repentance and martyrdom ; but the
separatist sins daily and glories in his sin.

Co-heirs of Christ must remain in the peace of Christ : sons
of God must be peacemakers.

Of old this unanimity and unity was realized. That it was
80 no longer Cyprian avers to be due to loss of faith, and the
selfishness which results from the weakening of moral force
that follows loss of faith and of fear.

The theory of the Church which Cyprian laid down became,
if it was not already at the time at which he wrote, normal for
the West ; and no Latin writing on the subject calls for notice
till fresh circumstances called forth a fresh expression of the
theory from Augustine.

The kind of teaching which was given in the East may be
fairly inferred from the Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of
Jerusalem in the middle of the fourth century.'

Cyril of Jerusalem

According to the teaching which Cyril of Jerusalem gave his
catechumens, the Church into which they were about to be
admitted was a society and an institution of unrivalled excel-
lences and powers.

The Chuich is spread throughout the wliole of the inhabited
world, from end to end of the earth ; it teaches, without deficiency
of any kind, all the doctrines which men ought to know, about

' The only jiart liemsics play is tlie ]iart of testing and rli8tin,c,'nishiDg the faithful
from the unfaithful (§ 10). Those who thus withdraw stand, as it were, seif-
convicted as aliens.

Cf. EjK 55. 24. 'Cyril of Jerusalem Cat. xviii 23-28.

THE CHURCH 367

things visible and invisible, celestial and terrestrial. It brings
the whole of the human race into obedience to godliness (irue
religion), rulers and those they rule, learned and ignorant adke.
It heals and cures every kind of sin of soul and body, ana pos-
sesses every description of virtue in word and deed, ana all
varieties of spiritual gifts.^

It calls and collects together all,^ that they may hear the
words of God and learn to fear Him and make confession to Him
and praise His name. It is, as Paul described it, the Churcn of
the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Other gatherings of men have had the same name Church.^
The catechumen must remember that this is the Church to wnich
alone the name ' One Holy Catholic ' belongs. It is to the Catnolic
Church he must always betake himself — the Holy Cnurch,
Mother of us all ; the bride of our Lord Jesus Christ, corre-
sponding to the heavenly Jerusalem ; the parent of many children.
In this Church God has set not only the various miniacries
which St Paul described (1 Cor. 12-^),* but also every sort of
virtue of all kinds : — wisdom and understanding, temperance and
righteousness, compassion and philanthropy, and invincible en-
durance in times of persecution. Armed with the weapons of
righteousness on the right hand and on the left, it has passed
through honour and dishonour ; in the days of persecution it
crowned the martyrs with the flowers of patience, and now m the
season of peace it has won from kings and rulers and all man-
kind the honour that is its due, inasmuch as wiiile tlieir authority
is limited, it alone has power illimitable extending over the whole
inhabited world. For all who are taught in tliis Holy Catholic
Church and lead good lives, there is in store the kingdom of
heaven and the inheritance of eternal life.

There is no doubt a touch of rhetoric in this panegyric : but
Cyril meant it all ; and the description which he gives would
not have seemed artificial to those who heard it. It ih an
eminently spiritual and ethical conception of the Church that

• It is for these reasons that it is calletl 'Catholic' or universal.

' ThiTi'forc it is aptly Tianicfl Ecclcsia or ' Convocation '. Cyril all through refer?
to the JcwiHh ecclena as the first, and the Christian as the second, made necessary
hccanse the first proved to he an " ecclrxia of wicked men ".

' f'yril mentions Marcionitcs and Minichacans, and calls them 'abomimible'
assemblies of wicked mcn.fl

* It IS notable that Cyril does not name bishops or priests, but only apostles
prophetfl, tanohcrs and the rest, as stated by St Paul.

368 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

is set fortli. External ' notes ', such as constitution and ministry,
are scarcely hinted at ; but really it is clear that Cyril identified
the spiritual society which he describes with the external society
of which he was a presbyter, and which alone he thought of as
endowed with such gifts of grace in this world and with the
promise of life eternal hereafter.

Augustine

The most careful and complete consideration of the whole
question of the Church was forced upon Augustine by the
exigencies of the times and by his own experience ; but his
conception of the Church was so many-sided, and affected by
his peculiar conceptions as to predestination, the kingdom of
God, and the process of justification,^ that it is difficult to feel
confidence in the accuracy of any summary statement. Though
he was " the first Christian writer who made the Church, as such,
the subject of systematic thought ",^ yet the distinctions which
he dr^w were not always clearly defined.

In the strongest terms he maintained the belief that outside
of the Church there was no salvation, that love could only be
obtained in the Church, and could only be preserved in the unity
of the Church. So, too, it was only in this same unity that any
of the benefits of the sacraments could be obtained,^ and the
Holy Spirit possessed.

In these and similar assertions he has in mind the Catholic
Church, in contrast with heretical or schismatic societies of
Christians ; an