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

:.,... -J.

■CNJ

(^i^i,^:^

aataSii

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.

LADY Margaret's pbofessor ok divinmtv amd

FELLOW OF PEMBROKE COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE

SECOND EDITION

u'^y'..V

\ v ^'v

METHUEN & CO. LTD.

36 ESSEX STREET W.C.

LONDON

First Published . , . September loth iqcg
Second Edition .... iqio

VIRO • I'ERREVERENDO •

lOANNI • REGINALDO • HARMER •

ADELAIDENSIVM ■ EPISCOPO •

HVIVS • INCEPTI • QVONDAM • SVASORI •

NECNON • COLLEGH • MEI • ALVMNIS •
QVOS • DVM • DOCEO ■ PLVS • IPSE • DIDICI

PREFACE

In the preparation of tliis volume the writer has been guiderl 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 Church 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 thinkers 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 doctrine;^ into
the terms of the new knowledge, it seems certain that the woi-k
of the great leaders of Christian thought in the interpretation of

vil

viii CHRISTIAN OOCTRINK

the Gospel dnrinj: iho earlier ages can never be stipersedcd.
They were failed UiK)n, 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 wiiieh human speeulMlion and experience
have framed in exi)lanation of the mystery of human life; and
the conclusions which they reached must still be at least the
stJUting-jMjint for any further advance towards niore complete
solution of the prol>lem8 with which they had to deal. Chris-
tians, whether conservative or prof^ressive, will find in the study
of the course through which doctrines were evolved their
strongest stay and safeguard.

On the one iiand, if defence of Christian doctrines l)e 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
ottered 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 pri\'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 ix

ception of the subject which came before me. Some of these
lectures were afterwards incorporated in the volume entitled TJie
Gospel of Life. 't^

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 Hageubach wrote.^ He will learn a great deal also from
Dorner's Doctrine of tM 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 Exposit/ion 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
Dictionary 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 (BiUiothek der Syml)ole
und Glauhensregeln der alien Kirche) 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 Eev. A. E. Burn, rector of Kynnersley,
and the Eev. J. H. Srawley, of Selwyn 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 tum to Loofs' Leitfaden zum Studium
der Dogmengeschichte? (Ritschlian), Seeberg's Lehrlnich (Protestant), and Schwane's
Dogmen^eschichte^ (Roman Catholic). For introduction to the chief patristic
writings he may consult Bardenhewer's Patrologie, or Swete's Patristic Stttdy in the
Series ' Handbooks for the Clergy '.

^ Special attention may be directed to two volumes of this series — Mr. Ottley's
Doctrine of the Incarnation and Mr. Bum's Irdroduct,iora /-o the, History of the Creeds,
and to Dr. Swete's The Apostles' Creed.

X CHRISTIAN nOCTRINK

of all tho iiiip«^rfrotions t.haf reninin. nior<' useful foi' its purpose
than it. would othorwiso have boon.

In the oarlier part of the biH)k 1 had also the advantage (if
the criticism of Dr. Robertson, tlie Editor of this Series, who,
oven when the pressure of preparation for his removal from
Ixjndon to Kxeter left him uo leisure, most kindly made time for
the ])urp()se.

Finally, I have to thank the Syndics of tho (^ambridge
Univeisity Press, and the Dean of Westminster, as Editor of the
Series Tcria and Studies, for ]>ermi8sion to make use of various
not<?s — and in some cases whole pages — front The Meamiiuj of
Homocnu^im in the ' Covstontinupolitan ' Creed, which 1 contribiit^ed
to that Series (vol. vii no. 1). T 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 T 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 coui-se, 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 independent work over old ground has been bestowed upon it,
and no previous ^v^ite^ has been followed without an attempt to form an inde-
jiendent judgement, yet the nature of the case precludeb real iudependence, except to
some extent in treatment.

PREFACE xi

ca,nnot accept may serve to make clearer and more definite, or
even to create, the point of view which is true for us. Salvo
jure commimionis diversa sentire — different opinions without
loss of the rights of communion — opposite points of view
without disloyalty to the Catholic Greeds and the Church —
these words, which embody the conception of one of the earliest
and keenest of Cliristian 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.

Pbmbeoke Collkoe, Oambeidqe,
\st May 1903.

^ They are the words in which Augustine (de Bajptismo 17 — Migue P.L. xliii
p. 202) describes the principles of Cyprian.

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

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 tJie
New Testament and the Council of Chalcedon, and to understand,
rather than to account for and explain, what the leaders of
thought 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 conceptions 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

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 Eeligion 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

xiv CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

qnite as certainly as Uie New — to whir-li Doctrine miist confonu.
The Bible \va« jicoeptcHl as it stooil, without any critical diH-
criuiinatiou, us wlioliv authoritativa Accordinj^ly, for the
undcrstandinj^ of the doctrinal developcmontH of the ancient
(Jhuivh, we have to exclude from i>ur minds the rosnlts of
modern iuvoslijifatioji into the literary connexionn and the
historical value of the documents that make up our New
Tcst^iment. 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 probaldy find
1-oflected in them much more of the modern historical sense than
survived in the d«)ctrinal 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 Religions, 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 I 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 vdth 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, I9th November 1919

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I

INTEODUCTORY

The scope of the book — Wliat Christian Doctrines are
The part played by heresies .
Gradual progress and develop^ment
Notes : Dogma . i

aipeais
deoXoyia-

-deoKoyeiv

PAGE

(note) 2

3-5

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 Atonement .

The doctrine of the Church and ot the Sacraments

Baptism .

the Eucharist

9-11
11-15
16-18
19-21
22-23
23-27
27-32

CHAPTER III

THE DEYELOPEMENT OF DOCTRINE

Different theories in explanation of tlie dcvelopement of doctrine-

(1) Corruption and degeneration (the Deists) .

(2) Disciplina arcani (Trent)

(3) Developement (Newman)
In what sense developement occurred
Influence of Greek thought on the expref^iou of docU iiv

Note: OiKovofxia, 'Accommodation', 'Reserve'

xv'd

33
34
36
36
38
39

will

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

CHAPTER IV

TTIF ROURCKS OF DOCTRINK: ORAL TRAT)TTTON—

HOLY SCRIPTURE

l'!arlio8t idea of Christian inspiration

of tradition
Inspiration of Scripture : dilfcreuL conceptions —
Jewish ....

Glcntile ....

Philo .....

The Ajiostolic Fathi'is .

Muratorian Fiagnieul of the Canon

The Apologists ....

Irenaeus .....

Olomont and Origen
Interpretation of Scriptui-e. The written word —

Homer .....

Philo .....

Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement

Origen's theory ....

The Cappadociane — Tyconius, Augustine — The 6c
Antioch ....

The place of tradition in interpretation —

Irenaeus . . . . •

Tertullian . • . •

Vincent . . . • •

hool of

l-AOH

41
42

4.3
44
44
45
45
46
47
48

52, 53

65
67
59

CHAPTER V

JEWISH ATTEMPTS AT I:NTERPRETAT10N. EBIONISM

Characteristic Jewish conceptioiiB
Ebionism —

Different degrees . .

Cerinthus . •

The Clementines .

NoTK : Chilia-sm

63-65

65 f.

66 f.
68 fl.

CHAPTER VI

GENTILE ATTEMPTS AT INTERPRETATION.
GNOSTICISM

Characteristics of Oriental religious thought

The problem of evil ......

Oriental ideas applied to the Christian revelation .

73-75

CONTENTS

XIX

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

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

The inriuence of Gnosticiani on the developement of Christian
doctrine ......

Note : Manicheism .....

PAOK

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

91-9a

CHAPTEE VII

THE REACTION AGAINST GNOSTICISl^L
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
(/>) Modalistic or ' Patripassian '
The Alogi the point of departure for both Schools

(a) The Theodotians
Artemon ....
Paul of Samosata

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

Sympathy with Sabellianism at Rome
Noi'ES : Nova ti an
Hippolytiis
Beryllus

Monarchian exegesis
Lucian ....
Paul of Samosata and o/xoovo-los

100-102

102-104

104-106

106

107

108

109

110

111

CHAPTER VIII

THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN DIONYSIUS OF ROME
AND DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA

Significance of this correspondence . . . . . 113

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

Diverse uses of the equivocal terms ovala and vTroa-Taais and con-
fusion due to Latin rendering of ova-ia by substantia . . 116-118

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

CHAPTER IX

Till'. LOGOS DOCTRINE

The Doctrine fully expressed iii uutline iu the pi'ologue to the
Clospel acconling to St. John, but not fully apprerialed ;
ditferent iiaj^ecte and relations of the doctrine represented by
ditleri'nt early Christian writer,* — these to be rej^arded as
typical and couipleuienUiry rather than bh mutually e.x-
cluHive ....

The Epistles of Ignatius

dyfvrjros and dytri/r/rov
The Letter to Diognetus
Justin Martyr

The Human Soul in Christ.
Tatian .....

TheophiluB ....

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

Athenagoras — his fuller recognition of the problem .
Ireuaens — important contributions to the doctrine ,
riement of Alexandria ......

The Logos Doctrine superseded by the Doctrine of the Sonship

P*OH

. 119, 120

121
. (note) 122

123
. 124-126
. (note) 125

126

127

128
128, 129
129-132
133-130
136-137

CHAPTER X

TERTULLIAN'S DOCTRINE OF THE GODHEAD

Tertullian's use of terms and analogies
Doctrine of the Sonehip 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 con trad ictorj- teaching

145

14G

147

148

148, 14y

CONTENTS

XXI

The fitness of the Incarnation

His teaching Nicene ....

NoTK : Origenistic theology and controversies

PAGE

150

151
162-154

CHAPTEK XTI

THE ARIAN C0NTR0VEK8Y

Introductory — the previous course of the doctrine and the causes

of the controversy . . . . . 155, 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

be lure Arius ...... (note) 157

The sources of knowledge of Arian theories . (note) 157-158

Arian interpretation of Scripture ..... 161-163

Outbreak of controversy and history up to Council of Nicaea . 163, 164

The Council of Nicaea and its Creed .... 165-170

The Reaction after Nicaea — personal and doctrinal . . . 171

Attempts to supersede the Nicene Creed — Council of Antioch 3 U . 172

Its second Creed ....... 173-175

Its other Creeds . . . . . . . 175

Opposition of the West to any new Creed — Council of Sardica 343 176

Renewed attempt to seciire a non-Nicene Creed — the fiaKpotrnxos

SKdeais ........ 176

Condemnation of Photinus and tranquillization of the ' moderates ' :

subsidence of fears of Sabellianism . . . . 177

Developeraent of extreme form of Arianism after death of Constans 178

The Council of Sirmium 357 . . . . 179

Arianism in the West ..... (note) 179

The Sirmian manifesto ..... (note) 180

Protests of the ' moderates ' in the East .... 181

The * Homoean ' compromise . ..... 182-185

Gradual conversion of ' Semi-Arians ' and convergence of parties

to the Nicene definition ...... 185-187

Final victory of the Nicene interpretation at the Council of Con-
stantinople ....... 187-189

The ' Constantinopolitan ' Creed .... (note) 188

Arianism outside the Empire, and the causes of the
failure of Arianism ..... (note) 189

Notes : Marcellus ...... 190-192

Homoiousios and the Homoeans . . . 192-193

The meaning of Homoousios in the 'Constantino-
politan' Creed . . . . . . 193

*By the WiU of the Father' . . . . 194

Movoyfvris — Unigenitus — Unicus . . . 195

XX a

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINli:

ClIAITKi: XIII

THK DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND
THE TKINITY

The coursp tlirom^li wliich the iloi^trine wenl

Tlie Old Tfstnment and the New Teslaiiienf doctrine

The early Church .......

The full doctrine expressed by Tertullian . . . .

Origen's exposition of the doctrine — the first eystematic attempt
at a scientific expression of it in view of difhcultie-s suggested
Teaching in the Church just before the outbreak of Arianism —

Gregory Thauniaturgus .....

Dionysius of Alexandria .....

Ensebius of Caesarea .....

The Arian theories — not emphasized and for a time ignored

The teaching that was given in the Church in the middle of t'h

fourth century shewn by Cyril of Jerusalem's lecture.'*
Need for authoritative guidance as to the doctrine .
The teaching of Athanasius (the Letters to Sarapwa)
and of Hilary (the de Trinitate)

The new theories of Macedonius ....

The doctrine declared at Alexandria in 362 and at subsequent

s>Tiods 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

(iregory of Nyssa, ' that there are not three Glods '

The prevailing uncertainty reflected in the sermons of Gregory of

Naziauzus ....
The Council of Constantinople

Augustine's statement of the doctrine

The ir(pi)(i>pricns

Niceta on the doctrine of the Spirit
Notes : Substantia ....

Persona ....

Oixria and vTrocrravis

PAeR

197

198, 11)9

199

200

201 -204

204
205
205

206

206-209
209

209-212
212

212

213,214

214-217

(note) 215

217-219
220-222

222-224
224

225-231
(note) 226
(note) 231
231-233
233-235
235-238

CONTENTS

xxm

CHAPTERS XIY-XVI— THE CHRTSTOLOaiCAL CON-

TEOVERSIES OF THE FOUETH A^D FIFTH
CENTUEIES

CHAPTEE XIV
APOLLINAEIANISxM

PAGE

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 Will in Christ .... 249-250

How can Chiist be ' complete man ' and ' without

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

The Athanasian Creed .... 252-254

CHAPTEE XV

NESTOEIANISM

The theological schools of Alexandria and Antioch ,

The teaching of Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia

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

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

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

The Council of Ephesus and the victory of Cyril

The terms of agreement between Cyril and the Antiochenerf -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

NoTKS : deo(l)opos oivdpamos ....

The Nestorian (East-Syrian) Church .

255
256-260

260
261, 262

262
263-266

267
267-269

269, 270

270, 271

272

273-274

274-275
276

276-279
279

XXIV

CHRISTIAN DOCTRlNli

CHAPTER XVI

EUTYCHIANISM

The teaching of Etitychefl — his condemnation ,

Appeal to the West and counter-attack on Klavian .
The Council <>f Kphefius .....

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 .

The letter of Leo to Flavian ....
The lattr hisU)ry of Eutychiauisni — the Monophysites

NoiKti : The communicatio idiomatum .

Christ's human nature impersonal

Tlie Kiuaxrit .....

2R1 -28-J

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 difficulties of the doctrine not faced in the
earliest times .......

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

Contrast between him and Pelagius . . . .

BUs doctrine of humau nature, sin, grace

,, „ freedom of will .....

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

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

The Pelagian controversy — Coelestius . . . .

The 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

Tiie 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

PAOK

Attempts to mediate between the two extremes of Pelagianism and

Augustinianism— Senii-Pelagianism .... ,321

John Cassian — his teaching ..... .321 -.32.3

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

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

CHAPTER XVIII

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT

Diffei'ent points of viev/, but no definite theory, in early times

The Apostolic Fathers (Clement, E-pistle 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
Rufinus ....
Gregory of Nazianzus
Athanasius
Augustine
Summary of the teaching of the period

Notes : ' 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
345-340
349-35]
.351-352
352-353
353-355

CHAPTER XIX

THE CHURCH

General conceptions (no thought-out doctrine till Cyprian)
A new spiritual society and organization
One, holy, catholic, apostolic : — these ' notes ' implied from the
Ignatius ....

'Catholic' .
Irenaeus — the Church as teacher
Tertullian's conception .

The commission to Peter
Clement and Origen
Cyprian's conception
The Episcopate
Cyril of Jerusalem
Augustine
Notes : The Penitential System

The Bishops as the centre of unity

first

356
357
357
. 357-359
. (note) 358
. 359-360
. 360-362
. (note) 362
. .362-363
. 363-366
. (note) 364
. 366-368
. 368-372
. 372-373
. 373-375

XXVI

CHRISTIAN DOCTKlNi:

CHMTEK XX

THl-: SACRAMENTS— lUPTTRM

Opiipral concoption of a sucrament — the use uf Lho term

Early anueptions of Iwptism : tlit* names for it, the form, what

efl'ected — New Tei^tAment and Liter
J u.otin Martyr on baptism
Tertullian ....

The idea of the water
Cyprian ....

Cyril of .)eru.«alem (the rites ami their significance)
Aml'ro'te on baptism (his peculiar conceptions)
K0TK8-; Martyrdom as baptism
Heretical baptism
Baptism by laymen
The Unction and Confiriuatiuu

rAdR
a7(V-377

378-3R0
380-381

381
(note) 381

382
383-384
384-385

38fi
386-388
388-390
39f>-392

CHAPTER XXI
THE SACRAMENTS— THE EUCHARIST

[NoTF. — The different theories which have been held in later times,
namely, Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, the 'eacra^
mentarian ' theory, the ' receptionist ' theory, the Anglican

statement of the real presence.] .... 393-396

The Eucharist at first connected with the Agape . . . 397
Early conceptions of the eflfect 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 ...... 409-411

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

AppE>rDix ........ 429

Index ........ 445

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 gain 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 hfe 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

2 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

manner in which those statoments were drawn up, the circum-
stances whicli called them 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
experionco.

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 contrihuted to the developement of doctrine and the
elucidation of dilliculties. 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 tlie 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 di.scussion of the points at issue
led to a deeper and clearer view of the subject. Subtle objections when carefully
wei<;hed, 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 popular opinion that all heretics were agents of the
devil, and applies to them such epithets as these — grievous wolves, a pe.stilent and
scabby disease, incurable and dangerous poison, more abominable than all shame,
double-mouthed and two-headed serpents. See II. E. 11; 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 H<ym,. ix in Num.:
" Nam si doctrina eccle.siastica simplex esset et nullis intrinsecus haereticoram
dogmatum assertionibus cingeretur, non poterat tam clara et tam examinata videri
fides nostra. Sed idcirco doctrinam catholicam contradicentium obsidet oppug-
natio. ut fides nostra non otio torpescat, sed exercitiis elimetur." And similarly (as
Cyprian de unit, eccles. 10, before him), Augustine Confess, vii 19 (2.5), could write :
" Truly the refutation of heretirs 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. de 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 beyoud 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 progi'es-
sive approximation to the full intellectual expression of the truth manifested to
men once for all in the Incarnation '. Cf. Gospel of Life.

2 Acts 17^.

^ Thus Augustine c?e PraedesHnatione c. 14, says : " What is the good of scrutin-
izing the works of men who before the rise of that heresy had no need to busy them-
selves with this question, which is so hard to solve. Beyond doubt tliey 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 Perseveranliat'.
c. 20, and the two volumes of liis own Retractations. In like manner Athanasius
defended Dionysius of Alexandria against the Arians (see infra), and Pelagius ii
{Ep. 5. 921) declared "Holy Church weigheth the hearts of her faithful ones with
kindliness 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 unfre'iuently it would seem that
C'hristian thinkers und teacliers, conscious of tlio 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 apjiear 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-
tiikes. 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 drawii 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 developement 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 6

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. IS'^*^), 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
philosophy (e.g. Marc. Aurel. Medit. 2. 3, Tavrd a-oi dpKetVo), ael 86y/j.aTa
lo-Tw), and it bears a similar sense in the first Christian writers who
used it: Ignatius ad Mar/n. 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 Spiritu Sancto 27 seems to
contrast ^oyfiara, as rites and ceremonies with mystic meaning derived
from tradition, with K-qpvyjjLara, 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.g. Cyril of Jerusalem Cat. iv 2,
where So'y/xa as relating to faith is contrasted with Trpo^is, 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 Hist, ii 44, where Soy/Aa is similarly set
in antithesis to rf rjOiKrj BiSaaKakia). Hence the general significance — a
doctrine whicli in the eyes of the Church is essential in the true inter-
pretation of the Christian faith, and therefore one the acceptance of

6 CHRISTIAN DUCTRINK

which may be requireil of nil Christians {i.e. not merely a subjective
opinion or conception of » particular theologian). It is not the interpre-
tation of any individual, or of any particular community, that can be
trusted. Just as the oecumenicity of a council liopends upon iU^ acknow-
ledgement by the Church as a whole, and a council at which the whole
Church was not represented might attain the honour of oecumenicity
by 8ub8e(iuent recognition and acceptance {cij. the Council of Constan-
tinople of 381); 6o no 'dogma' (though individuals may contribute to
it« expression) is authoritative till it has passed the test of the general
feeling of the Church na a whole, the ' communis sensus fidelium', and
by that been accepted.

Arpttrts— HER?:SY

Aipco-t?, the verbal nonn from aipcVj, atpficr^ai, is commonly used both
in the active sense of 'rapture' and in the middle sense of 'choice'.
It is tlie 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 a'pco-is
of the Nazaraeans ' (Acts 245- ^*). 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 (?; aipeai^ rj KaBoXiKrj — 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 ai/jccris, inside the Society there is no room for aipctreis.
There must not be ' parties ' within the Church. It is Christ himself
who is divided into parts, if there are (1 Cor. \^^). 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 epiddai ' factions ' and Sixoa-racriai ' 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
Titus have nothing to do with a man who is atpcrtKos if he is
unaflfected 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 7

sensus fideliuin, •will not abandon it when his error is pointed out, is a
' lieretic '.

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 —
so 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. Proef. 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. 11^^, "for there miist 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- i
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."

©eoXoyt'a — ^eoXoyeiv

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 such myths. Such are the 'theogonies' of Hesiod and
Orpheus, and the ' cosmogonies ' of Empedocles. These men were the
^€oA.oyoi of what is called the prescientific age. It was in the actions
of the 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 expression to. OeoXoyovfjieva in the sense of ' inquiries into
the divine nature ' or ' discussions about the gods '.

(2) Still later the words are used to express the attribution of divine
origin or causation to persons or things, which are thus regarded as
divine or at least are referred to divine causea. So in the sense * ascribe

8 CHRISTIAN DOCTRIN?-:

(livinity to ', ' nRmt* ns fJod ', ' i-all Goil ', ' asfiert the divinity of ', the verb
6^€o,\oy<ri' is \Ksi>d by Justin Dial. r)l) (in i-onjunction willi KvpioXoydv),
by the writer of the Little Ijibyrintli (^coXoy^aai toi' •)(pi.(rr6v, ovk ovra
Otoy—' call Christ Goti, tliough ho is not (iod '— Eusebius H.K v 28),
and by later writers of all the Persons of the Trinity and in other
connexions.'

(3) The verb is fonnd in a more pencral sense 'make religious
investigations' in -histin Dial. 113; while in Athenagoras y.^'r/. 10, 20,
32 the noun expresses the doetrine of God and of all beings to whom
the predicate ' deity ' belongs. (Cf. also the Latin ' theologia ' — Ter-
tullinn ad Nat. ii 2.)

(4) Aristotle describes dfokoyia as >; irpoiT-q (fnkoaotfiia, atid to the
Stoics the word was equivalent to ' philosopliy ' — a system of philo-
sophical principles or truths. For Hellenic Christians at least tlio 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 oxiatence 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 worki. (See
note on the words, Harnack Dogniengeschichte Eng, tr. vol. ii p. 202,
Sophocles Lexicon, and Suicer Thesaurut.)

' In relation to the Son, in particular, 6eo\oyia is used of all that relates to the
divine and eternal nature and being of Christ, as contrasted with oUovo/iLa, which
has reference especially to the Incarnation and its consequences (so Liglitfoot notes
Apost. Fathers ii ii p. 75). But this is only a particular usage of the term in a
restricted sense.

CHAPTER II

The Chief Docteines in the New Testament Writers

The Beginnings of Doctrines in the New Testament

Christian theology (using the word 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 interpfetation. 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
sub-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 approach 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. " The historian cannot but interpret
the facts which he records." The student of the 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-
ment tliere is to be drawn, beyond all question, the record of

10 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

the actual experiences of the Cliristians nearest to the time of
JesuB of whom we have any record at all. Their record of their
own experiences, and their interiiretations of them and of him
who was the source of all, are the starting-point from which
the developenient of Christian doctrines proct'iMld. In this sense
the authors of the Goapels and Epistles are the first writers on
Christian theology.^ No less certainly than later writers, if
less professedly and with more security against error, they
tried to convey to others the impression which Jesus, himself
or through 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 the New Testament,
we mifjht 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 tlic person and work
of Christ underlie, and are presupposed 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 these earliest conceptions
what we could discover in the writings of later date that seemed different or of
later developemeut. 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 exfiansion and fulness and elucidation of the conceptions of the early teachers
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 exjiression 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 whicn the
various writings of the New Testament reveal. We need only note the variety,
and observe that the conceptions are complementary one to another.

CHIEF DOCTRINES IN NEW TESTAMENT WRJTERS 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 they 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 liim 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
not 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.

Tlie Doctrine of God in the New Testament

The doctrine of God, for example, is nowhere 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 Spirit, and as Love,
express together a complete and comprehensive doctrine of the
Godhead ; and though the three descriptions are specially

12 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

chariicteristic of different writers or groups of writings, respect-
ively, yet it is easy to see that the tliought of God as Spirit and
as Love is present und natural to the minds of the writers who
use more readily the description of him as P'ather, 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
original. Not that the conception was entirely new

The doctrine of God which is to be found in the pages
of the New Testament has doubtless for its background the
Jewish monotheistic belief, but the belief 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 ))etween 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 different from that in which the prophets realized it, that his
conception of God seems to stand alone. Others had realized
Grod as P'ather of the universe (the Creator and Sustainer of the
physical world and of animate things), aud by earlier teachers
of the Jews He had been described as — in a moral aud
spiritual sense — Father of Israel and Tsraelites,^ but their sense
of ' fatherhood ' had been limited and obscured by other con-
ceptions.^ In the experience aud 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 Tvriter to the Hebrews is perhaps an exception, but see Heb. 1-- * 12".

- See the references given by Dr. Sanday, Art. * God 'in Hastings' D.B. vol. ii
p. 208 {e.g. Deut. l^^ 8' .32«, Ps. lOS^^, Jei-. Z^-^^, Isa. 63'« ei**) ; and for the whole
subject see, besides that ai-ticle, 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 desire of God to receive man's undividfd
devotion, in the other it is His rea<Jine3S 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. Tlie 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 f -^pt in
the writings of St John.^ This special description or cc eption
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

1 E.g. both as to natural and as to spiritual life, Matt. 11^7 6^- »• 8, John 2^^ 5".
Cf. St Paul's frequent use of the phrase 'the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ', e.g.
Col. 13, Eph. 13, 2 Cor. 1^ ll^i, Rom. Vo^ ; cf. 1 Pet. 1*,— though he commonly
writes ' God the Father ', or ' our Father '.

2 Matt. 68- 15 1020, Lute %^\ Cf. ' Our Father', Matt. S^ ; 'My Father and your
Father ', John 20". The common addition of the designation ' heavenly ', or ' that
is in heaven ', serves to mark the spiritual and transcendent character of the
relation.

' E.g. John 4^^. He alone has preserved the definite utterance of Jesus, 'God is
Spirit ', as he alone proclaims that * God is Love '.

* E.g. Matt. 6<-8. ^^, John 421. » John 521- 26 ; cf. 51^ 17*.

* 1 John 4*. Though a triune personality in the Godhead is implied if God is
essentially Love (cf. Augustine de Trinitate vi and viii), it does not appear that
St John's statement was charged with this meaning to himself. It seems rather,
from the context, to be used to express the spiritual and moral relation in which
God stands to man (cf. John 3'*), and not to be intended to have explicit reference
to the distinctions within the Godhead.

14 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Christian doctrine wliicli is of the higlicst value. It iw not too
much to say that in the sontence ' God is Love ' wo have
an interpretation of the Gospel which covers all the relations
between God and man. And yet it is only the essential
eharacter of all true fatherhood that the words express
St John is only explainiu}.,' by auotlicr term the moaning 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 thoughts ;
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 Paul ^ 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 within 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
Di\ine Being. Thus to say that the Godhead is one in essence,
but contains within itself tliree relations, three modes of exist-

^ As, for example, when God is described as holy and righteous, or as merciful
and gracious ; as 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 1S'», Mark b*^ 7", John 3'").

2 See John !'« W'^K Of. John 10»« IZ^ U»- 20 15=» le^^, 1 John l^-^, Matt.
11".

' Cf. 2 Cor. 4*, Col. 1'^ 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. li''-'», and Heb. l^"* siiould he care-
fully compared together.

» John 14i«-28 152« 16^-".

* 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 evidenff to the same effect (see the Pauline equivalent
2 Cor. 13'*, Rom. 8"^, 1 Cor. 12", Ei)h. 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 Spirit.^

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 three 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 with these points 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 experiences are represented as beginning on the day of Pentecost, and as
continuing all through the history recorded in the Acts of the Apostles ; and they
are also implied, if not actually expressed, in most of the Epistles.

16 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Tlie Doctrim of Man in the New Testament

Tu like manner, witli regard to the conception which the
writers of the New TestJinioiit, the first Christian theologians,
had formed of man and his place in the universe, we find no full
and systematic expression, hut only a numhor of isolated — and
for the most jtart incidental — indicjitions of a doctrine.

The teaching of the Old Testament must he 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 the 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 fellowship with God. It ia 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 they are to
look to heaven rather than to earth afe 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 the intellect, the
will, the affections.

=> Matt. 5*8. s Matt. 6^9 ^.

* E.g. John 5". •' E.g. Matt. &^- ^, Luke ll**"^.

« E.(f. Matt. Ill* l?.il Mark 4»*, Luke 125«-", John 7=".

CHIEF DOCTRINES IN NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS 17

them and the higher constituent is strongly expressed — ' the
spirit is willing, but the flesh 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 wliich 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 the New 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 developeraent 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. The result of sin is thus a disordered world — a race of
men not fulfilling the law of their nature and alienated from
God, who is 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 is 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, which is described as sickness,^ or even,
by contrast ^yith true life, as death. Those who are living under
such conditions are ' dead '. ^ Of this state the opposite is life,
or life eternal — a particular way of living now, characteristic of

1 Matt. 2e*\ cf. John 3« : "That which is begotten of the flesh is flesh, and that
which is begotten of the Spirit is spirit." Similarly ' flesh and blood ' together Matt.
16". ('Flesh' is the name by which mankind was commonly expressed in the
Hebrew Scriptures, with particular reference to its weaker and move 'material'
constituents.)

^ The words afiapTia. and di'o.ut'a — the essence of sin (a/xapTla) being declared by
St John to be lawlessness or the absence of law {duouia) 1 John 3'.

^ The words TrapciTrrw/xa, TrapdjSaaty, 6<p£i\ir]/xa.

* E.g. Matt. 9i% 8 E.g. John o^^-^-l

IS c:ilRISTIAN DOCTRINK

wliicJi in knowlcilL,'*! of CIchI and Kive of the biothrcn.' li. is to
give this knowledge and to unickcMi this love that is declared
to l»e the Rpeiial object of the life and death of Jesun.- The
condition of sin is one of e^tranp'inent from God and selfish
disrcijard of what is dno to others. It is a state which merits
and involves punishnient, and yet at the same time is its own
punishment.-'

' John 17* ««• " 3« 5« and r,^. = John 10'» 13»» 15", 1 John i"

' Tho contoiitidn uf !<in ovidcssed in St Paul's ([listlcs, though not essentially
fiiHeront from tlio eouci-ptions which arc relh-ctod in other writings of the New
Tc.st*iucnt, is characteristic enough to call for special notice.

It was the common K'lief of tin- Jews at tlic time that tlie pt^rsoual tiansgiession
of Adam wa.>* the urigin of .sin, and further thatdcatli i-anie into the world »h the
l>enalty for sin.

St Paul assumes this helief. Tlio keynote to his moaning in the chief passage
in which he discusses the matter (Rom. .'">'■-■-') is .struck iu the words 'tlirough the.
one man's disobedience the many were made .sinners' (ver. 19). Sui, then, entered
the world liy Adam's trcsp.i.ss, and death -which is the penalty of sin —followed.
And, furthermore, death became universal, because all men sinned. 'Eif>' (^ Trdvrev
</^i.apTov can only mean 'because all sinned': but the question remains whether by
*bcse wonls St Paul means to assert the personal individual sin of evciy 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 di.scu.ssion by G. B. Stevens The Pauli->ie Theology p. 127 U'. See
also H. St J. Thackeray The RehUion of St Paul to CoiUcmporanj Jewish Thought
ch. ii *Sin and Adam', and further ' Pelagianisni ' ivfra 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 empha.sized, and its connexion
with Adam's sin ; (2) the redemption fiom sin actually accomplished through the
one man, Jesus Christ, is treated as parallel to the result? of the sin of the one man,
Adam.

In both cases alike there is implied an organic 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 ca.se). Cf. 2 Cor. 5'^ "one died for all, therefore all died " {i.e. to sin,
an ethical death to be followed by an ethical rising-again to life). The unity which
exists between Chri.st (the head of the spiritual humanit}^) and Christians is parallel
to that which exists between Adam (the liead 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 does not attempt to
dctine the way in which the connexion comes about. On this question tbe phrabo
Ulieda. riKva 0wr« 6fr/f)s, Eph. 2^ must be considered. The doctrine of original or
birth-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
4>vcii ; (2) the expression ' children of wrath ' is ])arallel to such Old Testament
expressions as '-sons of death' and means 'worthy of God's reprobation' ; (3) the
reference is to individual pei-sonal sins actually committed ; (4) .so far as there is
any emphasis on ^iVet the intention is to mark the contrast between the natural
powers of man, left to himself, and the power of the grace of God in efTeotiug
salvation. Sec the emphatic reiteration of x<ii/5'7"' in the verses following. In this

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
(rod, 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 is the actual prevalence of sin in the world, as a fact of
general experience, that is in the Apostle's mind, rather than any theory as to the
propagation of sin or a tendency to sin. Cf. Gal. 2', where the Gentiles are regarded
as sinners <f>v<T€i, i.e. belonging to the class of sinners — see Sanday and Headlam on
Rom. 519.

Furthermore, it is clear that St Paul speaks of the <rdpf, in antithesis to the
Wivfia, as the seat and sphere of manifestation of this sin. He uses the expression
in different senses: (1) literal or physical, of the body actually 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 expeiience,
opposed to the spiritual ; (3) symbolic, of uuregeucrate human nature. The three
senses tend to pass over into one another, and the first and second, and the second
ami third, respectively, cannot always be exactly distinguished.

But when he describes the sins of ' the flesh ' he includes many forms of sin
which have their origin in the mind or the will — see e.g. Gal. S'^^-; and the
antithesis between the 'spirit' and the 'flesh' is not presented in the manner of
Greek or Oriental dualism. (On Rom. V'"^, see Sanday and Headlam.)

^ On the meaning of the ' blood ' of Christ, see particularly Wcstcott Epistles of
St John, where it is shewn that the ' blood ' always includes the thought of the
life, preserved and active beyond death, though at the same time it is only through
the death that the blood can be made available. On the New Testament doctrine of
the atonement in general, see Oxenham Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement p. 108 flF. ;
and R. "W. Dale The Atonement, witli the notes in the Appendix.

20 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

writers of the Now Testament are content to treat the result
as a fact and to emphasize some of its conBequences. Tliey
do not attempt to explain the manner in wiiich tiie 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 ' (KaTaXXay}')), 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 hira.^

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

' The words KaraWayri, KaraWdcrfftiv in this sense are peculiarly Pauline (Rom.
510. 11 1115^ 2 Cor. 5»8- »9- ="), and airoKaTa\\d(r<T€i.u (Epli. 2'«, Col. l^*- ^'), and it must
be observed that the conception is of the world and man being reconciled to
God (not God to man), just as it is alwa^'s 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. (But sec Sanday and Headlam on Rom. .0".) 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 3'5- le 20»', 1 John 5"- '2; cf. Col. 3»-*, 2 Tim. 1',
Rom. 5'», Heb. lO^".

- The chief words used to express this conception are dyopa^u,! Cor. 6^ 7^,
Gal. 4^ ; e^ayopdi'ij}, Gal. 3^^ ; \vTp6u, XOrpwan, diroXuTpwais, Tit. 2", 1 Pet. 1'*,
Eph. 1", Col. 1'*, Rom. Z-\ Heb. G^--'^ and Xvrpov, dvriXvrpov, Matt. 20^11 Mark
10^, 1 Tim. 2®. It is only in connexion with this metaphor that Christ is said to
have acted 'instead of us (dcW), and even here the phrase in 1 Tim. 2* is
dvTiXvTpov i'lrip i]/iu>u. 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
{{/irip rifjiwv), and more simjily still as 'concerning' us, or 'in the matter of sin or
our sins (""cpi rtfii^v or vipl d/xaprias, irtpl d/naprtaJf rjfj.wv). 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 ])assages as Rom. 6^""). And,
again, it must be observe'! that it is not said to whom the ransom is paid. It is
indeed only when wTiat is simply a metaphor is pressed as though it were a formal
definition that the question could well arise. One thing, however, in this rcsi)ect,
is clearly implied — the person thus ransomed and freed from bondage belongs hence-
forward to his redeemer : it is only in him, by union with him, that he gets his
freedom. See e.g. Rom. 6'*-7*.

CHIEF DOCTRINES IN Ni:\V 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 ' obedifnoe ' of
his life.^ Yet again there is the conception, derived from tlie
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 olT'erings of animals of old. And so ' propitiation '
is made.2

A complete theory of the atonement must, it is clear, take
account 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 effected, and the right relations between man
and God restored and made possible for all men, in and through
Christ, has been enough.

1 Rom. 6^\ Gal. 5» 3'«, 2 Cor. 5^\ 1 Pet. 2^-*, Phil. 28, Heb. 5^ lO" ; A^etru,
'remission' of sins, Matt. 26^, Luke 24^'', Acts 2^^ et saepe, Eph. 1^ Col. 1^^
cf. Heb. 9".

-This conception is expressed especially in the Epistle to the Hebrews and by St
.Tohn. See Heb. 2''' 9^9-^ IQio- '- •*• =«, and 1 John 1^ 2- 4'"; but cf. also Rom.
o^, Eph. 5". Here too it must be noticed that the idea of propitiating God (as one
who is angry with a personal feeling against the oflender) is foreign to the New
Testament. Propitiation takes place in the matter of sin and of the sinner, altering
the character of that which occasions alienation from God. See Westcott Ujiistles
of St John, note on IXia-Ketrdai, l\a<x/J,6s, IKaarripioi/. p. 85. But see also Sanday and
Headlam, I.e. supra.

22 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Tlu Diytriru of thf. Church and of the. Saf.ramcnta in the

Nnn Tfdament

As to I lie means I)y whioli these true rclutiunH iire to bo
realized ami m.iiutiiined by individuals thruugliout their lile
on earth, the teaching of Jesus and the practice of tlie first
Christians, as recorded in the New Testament, is clear, though
not detailed.

Meniborship 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 rae is against me.' ^ All who were sincere in
their acceptance of him and their faith in him must ' follow ' him,''^
and tlicreby shew themselves his disciples. The realization of
the ' kingdom ' was to be eltected 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 in the contest between Christ and Satan no
one can be uentral. The side of Clirist must be resolute])' taken. But the inter-
pretation which was aiijiarcntly put upon the saying by those who recorded it, and
by the Church from the tirut, was probably true for those days at all events. There
might be here and there a secret adherent ; but, in the main, disciplnship of Christ
.and membership of the society were bound to go together, though 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 9^), 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 follower of Jesus. The chief jjurpose of this .raying 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 memliership of the societ)'. At least he should not be disowned.

- Note the frequency of this expression 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 Ec-ffsia. The kingdom was in one sense established whnn
the first disciples ' left all and followed him ' ; but they had to be trained lor their
work of sj^reading the kingdom (see Latham PoMm- Pastorum), audit would not be
realized till all nations of the world were made disciples (ef. the parables, Matt.
1381.32.33^ M)d the commission, Matt. 28i»). That the Church and the kingdom of
God are not convertible terms in the teaching of Jesus is certain. See further
.\. Robertson Renvum Dei p. 61 ff.

CHIEF DOCTRINES IN NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS 2r>,

nizing their common responsibility and obligations; and tliis
company or brotherhood was one and the name society or Church
although existing in separate local organizations. Therr 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 liad 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 heing its head, the centre of
union of all the different 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 hira it draws its hfe and strength,
and through it he acts.

And, in particular, he acts through the two great rites which
he appointed — baptism and ' the breaking of the bread '. Neither
of these 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 idea finds any justification in such sayings of our Lord as ' He that is not
against us is for us ' (Luke 9*^, of. Maik 9''*') ; ' Other sheep I have which are not of
this fold' (John 10^^), at all events there is no e%nde.nce that they were so under-
stood by his early followers.

- See Rorn. 9«, 1 Cor. 10>8, Gal. G'*, Rom. \V^--\ So 1 Pet. 2»- 1". The titles of
honour used of the people of God are applied to Christians.

3 Eph. 4"-i6 5i«-32 (Col. l'»- -* 2'") ; cf 1 Cnr. 12'2-«

* Acts 2", 1 Cor. 1213 ^is

24 CIIRISTFAN DOCTRINE

tokiiip in the one bread which was the oulwnrd mark of tinion
and fellowship ' sooniH ccrtain.-

Baptisni is thu.s juimarily the rite by which admission to the
Church, and to all the spiritual privileges which mcmbcrHhip of
the Church confers, is obtained. It is administered once for all.^
It must be preceded by repentance of sins,* and it eflects 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
occu})ies actually the position of souship 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. 10i«- 2» ll"-«

* 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 inipossiliility of 'renewing again unto repentance those that have been once
enlightened ' refers.

* Acts 2^ S^. = Gal. 3'^ ; cf. 1 Cor. 122^, Rom. 6="- *.
« John 33- =, Tit. 3' ; cf. 1 Pet. 1^ 3"-'.

' 1 Cor. 6", Acts 2216, jjeb. lO^^. So of the whole Church, Eph. 5^- ^.

* Tliis is implied in the phrases, ' torn anew or from above ', ' begotten of God ',
1 John 3» ; ' chiMren of God ', 1 John 3^ ; ' sons of God ', Rom. 8", Gal. 3"-«- ^. The
term viodfffia, ' adoption as sons ', is used (Rom. 8""'*- ^, Gal. 4*) in specially close con-
nexion with the action of the Spirit (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 gift of the Holy Spirit was believed to be conveyed by
baptism, 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 8'*"" clearly records two distinct rites, separated
by some interval of time, — the first, of baptism, unaccompanied by the gift of the
Holy Spirit ; the second, of ' laying-on of hands ', which conferred the gift : the first
performed by Philip, the second by the Apostles. From the narrative in Acts 19'-'
a similar distinction is to be inferred, though the questions 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 Eelatior, 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. Similarly, 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 (Hel). 6-).

CHIEF DOCTRINES IN NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS 25

regarded as the accompaniment 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, calUng 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 shew the
same conception {e.g. 1 Cor. 6^^ and Eph. 5^^- -*')/ and the
allusion in the first Epistle of St Peter to its ' saving ' 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. 3^) 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 this
— the first recorded — instance of Christian baptism, and all later instances of ba}»tisnis
in the New Testament are described as in or into the single name of Jesus (or Jesus
Christ, or Christ) ; see Acts 8i« 19^ lO*^, Gal. S^^, Rom. 6^ It is possible that the
baptism was actually so effected, — 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 circumincessio). But in view of the Trinitarian
formula given in Matt. 28^'' (which it is difficult 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 professing to give the formula but rather to shew that the persons in
question were received into the society which 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 {de Spir. Sand, i 4), and
probably by Cyprian in like manner {Ep. 73. 17, tliough he is cited for the latter
view). See Lightfoot on 1 Cor. 1'^, and Plummer, Art. 'Baptism' Hastings' D.B.

* There is, however, no trace of any idea that baptized Christians could be
preserved from future lapses without effort. Though St John could declare —
from the ideal standpoint — that any one who was truly bom again was, as such,
unable to sin (1 John 3^) ; though in aim and intention sin was impossible for any
one who was 'in Christ' : yet the constant moral and spiritual exhortations whicli
the Apostles pressed upon the Churches, and such a confession as St Paul's, "the
good which I would, I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I practise"
(Rom. 7"), serve to shew tliat the Apostles did not consider that the hope ol
forgiveness was exhausted in baptism (cf. Jas. 5'*).

2C CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

there is' no kind of unreality about them — rleath, burial, resur-
rection are all intonsely roiii and ]tractical. " Ah niiiuy of you
OS wore baptized into Christ did ])ub on (Jhrist " (Oal. o'-"- '^), and
are become ' members of Christ ' (1 Cor. 8").

The main points in this eonception of St Paul were seized
upon and utilized by subsequent writers on baptism, and became
the text on which fiermons to catechumens were preached.'
But it was still forgiveness of sins that was commonly regarded
a.s the chief ^ift in bapti.sm.

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 flesh is Hcsh ; and that which is born of the
Spirit is Spirit. ]\Iarvel not that I said unto thee. Ye must be
born from aljove." ^ 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 wQl 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, Ijut from incorruptible ',^ and seems to

^ See e.g. Cyril of Jenisalem Cat. xx 4-7. Cyril particularly insists on the
truth of each aspect of the rite, she^ving how much more is iuvolved in it than mere
forgiveness of sins.

2 John 3«-. ' E.g. 1 .John 3' 5= 3». * John V'- '".

» 1 Pet. 1'. ' 1 Pet. 1-^.

CHIEF DOCTRINES IN NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS 27

have St Paul's teaching to the Komaus 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 efl'eeting 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 the recognition of the pagan gods {8aifj.6via,
deities or demons). The reference to the Lord's Supper is
introduced incidentally to illustrate 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.^

^ IPet. 3i8ff-.

^ It is clear that the Christian rite— assumed to be understood in this way — is the
starting-point of St Paul's argument. But he might equally well, if his argument
had so required, have reasoned from the pagan rite to the Christian ; for recent
studies have proved that the fundamental idea of sacrifice was that of communion
between the god and his worshippers through the medium of the victim wliich was
slain. Through participation in the flesli and blood of the victim a real union was
effected between them, and so the divine life was communioated to the worshipper
who offered the .sacrifice. See especially Robertson Smith Religion of th'. Semites,
and Art. ' Sacrifioc ' in Encycl. Brit.

28 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

In this connexion, accordint!:ly, he describeR the nature of
the Christian rite * to which, in lecording its inHlituliiui, he gives
the name ' tlie Lord's Su)t])er'.- lie insistH that, in it tJiere is
ellected fellowship with the blood of Christ and with the body of
Christ.^ It is one bread which is broken, and therefore all who
partake of it are one body. And so, in lik(^ manner, to eat of
the things sacrificed to demons, to drink tlieir cup and to partake
of their ttible, is to become fellows (to enter into fellowshi])) with
them. Such fellowship at one and the same time with demons
and with the Lord is impo.ssible. The two things are incom-
jxitible — union with demons and union with the Ix)rd. This
then is the main thoutrht : the Lord's Supper means and ell'ects
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. 10i« ff. "ICor. ll«>ff

' "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not fellowshiji with the blood of
Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not fellowship 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. lO^*-").

M Cor. 11^3 «.

" 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. rd. ; Cyprian A>. 73. 13; Aug. Tract,
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 perpetual 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 author himself in a second edition of his work), in
the Gospel of St Luke. It is not necessary here to attempt to determine whether
this conception was introduced by St Paul. We need only note that it certainly
was St Paul's conception : that he claims for it ths express authority of Christ's own

CHIEF DOCTRINES IN NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS 29

is shewn by tlie words, " Do this as a memorial of me ", and " As
ofcen 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 pouit of view, the incidental reference to
the Manna and the Water from the Eock as spiritual food and
spiritual drink (the Rock 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 length of the
doctrine of the Eucharist — St John's account of the 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

^\ ords delivered to liim ; and tliat there is no trace of any opposition to the jji-actice
as indicated by St Paul's instructions to the Corinthian Christians, but on the con-
trary that all the evidence supports the assertion that Christ himself ordained the
observance and that the idea of commemoration was present from the first. On the
other hand, there is no evidence till later times that the words els rrjv i/xTju avafx.vyi<nv
were understood to mean a Hctcrifidal memorial {e.g. Eusebius Demonstr. I. 13
seems to conceive it so).

^ All the accounts of the institution give prominence to this aspect, and the early
prevalence of the word (^ ei'xaptcTi'a) as the name for the whole sei-vice shews how
it was regarded.

= Cf. ICor. iP'ff. 8 1 Cor. 10'-".

* John 6^**^. Whatever opinion be lield as to the time when the rite was instituted,
and as to the freedom which the author of this Gospol jiormittpd hiiuself in interpret-
ing the teaching which he apparently professes simply to record, it cannot well be
doubted that when he wrote this account he had the Lord's Supper in mind, and
that it expresses his doctrine about it.

:iO CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

minds of some) y;iviiiL,' stronger and strongor expression to the
doctrine, till nuiny of his disciples wore even driven away by
the hardness of the saying.

First of all tiiere is only the contrast between the ordinary
broad, their daily food, and the food whicli 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 declares that
it was not Closes 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 Aesh 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 only
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 further
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
(Jhrist 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 with him,
and a real life that is obtained. But it is all spiritual. " The
Spirit is that which maketh alive (or giveth life), the flesh 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 behalf 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 drinketh my blood abideth in uie and lin Mm.
Even as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so he thai
■ atcih me shall himself too live because of me." It is not easy to determine -what 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 Christ' must
mean something more than have faith in him. "This spiritual eating, this
feeding upon Christ, is the be^t result of faith, the highest energy of faith, but it is
not faith itself. To eat is to take that into ourselves which we can assimilate as the
support of life. The phrase ' to eat the flesh of Christ ' expresses therefore, as
perhaps no other language could express, the gi-eat truth that Christians are made
partakers 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-
hood, something of his manhood, which may be the seed, so to speak, of the
glorified bodies in which we shall hereafter behold him. Faith, if I may so express
it, in its more general sense, leaves us outside Christ trusting in him ; but the
crowning act of faith incorporates us in Christ." Westcott Revelation of the Father
p. 40. Cf. Gore The Body of CJirist p. 24: "He plainly means them to under-
stand that, in some sense, his manhood is to be imparted to those who believe in
Tlim, and fed upon as a principle of new and eternal life. There is to be 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 be, in some sense,
communicated to us ".

^ On the patristic interpretation of this saying (sometimes as explaining, some-
times as explaining away, the previous discourse), see Gore Dissertations p. 303 ff.

32 CIIKISTI.W DOCIRINK

the memorial of a siicrifice.* It is, however, only in tlie Epistle
to the Hebrews that this conception is clearly implied, the
Kiicrament 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 l)e seen, merely
amplifications and restatements of the various aspects to which
expression is given in the New Testament itself.

' Besides the four accounts of the iustitution, cf. Heb. 13'". Tli c woifls roOro
roithf naturally would have the meaning ' i»eiforni this attiou ', though the Bacri-
ficial significance of iroitiv may possibly have been intended (viz. ' ojfer this ').
But in any case, as is shewn above, the action to be jierformed is a commemoration
of a sacrifice, [iroiuv is certainly used frequently in the LXX as the translation of
asah in a sacrificial sense, but the meaning is determined by the context, and
there is no certain instance of this use in the New Testament. Justin {Dial,
r. Tnjph. 41, 70) is ajipjirciitly the only early Christian writer who recognizes this
meaning iu connexiou with the iustitution of the £ucharit>t.J

CHAPTER III

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 place have often been regarded as in
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 it is undeniable that changes of momentous
importance in the expression of their faith have been made by
Christians and the Clmrch, How are the differences between
the earlier 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
lieeu, it is argued, from the apostolic 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 upon the Church.
But for the present purpose this notion of universal apostasy
may be dismissed.^

* It must, however, be said that it is practically the same pessimistic estimate
of the course of the history of doctrine that underlies Harnack's great work on the
subject. At all events, during the period with which we have to deal he does not

1 3S

84 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

More consiiloration inuHt 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 Scripture; and the other, traditions handed
down from tlie Aiwstles, to whom they liad been dictated, as it
wore, orally by Clnist or by tlie Holy Spirit, and preserved in
the Catholic 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 the Church 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-Reformation 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 Church.
The disease, which he styles 'acute Hellenization ' or 'secularizing' of the faith,
wrought (he considers) deadly mischief, 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 uncorrupted early
Christianity is given in the History of Dodrijie, and till they are certainly deter-
mined wnthout 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 phenomena are truly Christian or a degeneration,
corruption, and secularization of true Chrisrianity, can only be answered according to
personal taste" (Otto Pfleiderer Developcmcjit of Theology p. 299). Such a view
remains subjective and defies scientific treatment. (We can now, however, refer to
What is Christianity ?)

1 Heb. 512-14. 2 1 Cor, 31, j 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 oeconomy of the truth among Christians, one with
another, there is no trace : still less is any distinction between
the bishops 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 airop'prjra) of the faith could not
be committed to writing, but must be orally preserved. So
Clement of Alexandria " believed that Christ on his resurrection
had handed down the ' knowledge ' to James the Just, and John

'The earliest reference to such reticence is perhaps Tertiillian's "omnibus
mysteriis silentii fides adhibetur" {Apol. 7) ; and his complaint tliat heretics threw
open everything at once {dc Praescr. 41). With regard to the secrecy of the Ci'eed,
see Cyprian Testim. iii 50, Sozomen H.E. i 20, Augustine Servi. 212.

- See Additional Note oiKovoixla. infra p. 39.

^ See the passage from the Hypotyposeis bk, vii (not extant) (juoted in Eusebius
Ecd. Hist, ii 1. Cf. Strom, i 1, yi 1 ad fin. ; cf. Slruni. v 10 ad fin. on Rom.
152s. 2e. a. and 1 Cor. 26- '^ ; and i 12 on Matt. 7«, 1 Cor. 2".

;^6 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

ami Peter, and they to the other apostles, and they iu turn to
the Seventy. Of that sacred stream of secret unwritten know-
ledge or wisdom he had been permitted to drink. But this
' knowledge ' of Clement was clearly not a distinct inner system
of doctrine dilTering in contents from that which wus taught to
the many; it was rather a different mode of apprehending the
same truths — from a more intellectual and spiritual standpoint —
an esoteric theology concerned with a mystic exposition, a philo-
sophiwil 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 DodriTU, 1845, Of., however,
C. Gore Bampton Lectures p. 253.

* "Westcott CoTiiemp. 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 umlorstood. 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 Christian
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 history of Christian doctrines cannot discourage the
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 faith 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 developements ; but
what was then original and new had in a later age become con-
ventional and old, and the same hatred and distrust of a new
developement, which prompted their fathers to kill the innovators,
led their children to laud them and to build their sepulchres.^

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

^ Westcott Gospel of Life preface p. xiiii. The reveltitiou is in this eenisi
continuous, present, and progressive.
^ dee Ecce Homo oh, m' .

38 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

and conditiona of porsonal \\fv DilVment nationalities, owiiip to
their ditVci-ont antecedents, approliend very dilVerently. The con-
ception that 08 Christ came to save all men through liiniself,
80 ho passed t!irt)ugh all tlie Htuges of huuiau gro\\th, sancti-
fying each in turn, was familiar in early days,^ and doctrine
must correspond to the intellectual and moral and Bpiritual
growth of man. To the expresflion of doctrine every race in
turn makes its characteristic contribution, nut to the contents
of the Revelation but to the interpretation and expression of
its significance. The influence of Hebrew, Greek, and Roman
modes of thought and of expression is obvious during tlie early
centuries with which we are concerned. It is indeed so obvious,
for example, that it was from Greek thought that the Church
borrowed much of the terminology 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 metapliysical
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.2 What has been said already of doctrines and
their developement — of the finality of the revelation in Christ
and of the gra^lual 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. H<arvey vol. i p. 330).

''See Hatch Hibhert Lectures, and Gore Sampton Lectures iv. Cf. also
Lighttoof Epistle to the Colossians p. 125.

^ It lias been truly said that with the Incarnation of the Redeemer and tho
introduction of Christianity into the world the materials ot the history of doctrines
are already fully given in germ. The object of all further doctrinal statements
and definitions is, from the positive point of view, to unfold this germ : irom the
negative, to guard it against all foreign additions and influences. This twofold
object mast be kept In view. The spirit of Christianity had to woik through the
forms which it found, attaching itself to what was already in exi-'^tence and
appropriating prevalent modes of expre.sfiion. ChrLst did not come to destroy but

DEVELOPEMENT OF DOCTRINE 39

fuBion 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
teaching and work of Christ.

oiKovo)Mta- 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 trath included all that was true in the old, and
to state it as much as possible in the familiar phraseology : such
argumenta ad hominem might be the truest and surest ways of en-
hghtening an opponent. But phrases of some of the Alexandrian
Fathers are cited which sound like undue extensions of such fair
'economy'. Clement declared {Strom, vii 9) that the true Gnostic
'bears on his tongue whatever he bas in his mind', but only *to those
who are Avorthy to hear ', and adds that ' he both thinks and speaks the
truth, unless at any time medicinally, as a physician dealing with those
that are ill, for the safety of the sick he will lie or tell an untruth as
the Sophists say ' (outtotc if/evStTai kolv ij/evSo-; Aey??). And Origen is
quoted by Jerome (adv. Rufin. Apol. i 18 ; Migne I .L xxiii p. 412)
as enjoining on any one who is forced by circumstances to lie the need

to fulfil. All are God's revelations — iroXvfiipui kuI iroKvTpbwuz God spoke of old.
The Son in •whom He spoke to ns in these latter days He made heir of all the partial
and manifold revelations. The student of Christian doctrines has to study the
process by which the inheritance was slowly assumed, and -he riches of the Gentil&s
claimed for his service.

' See Newman Arians i 3, and \as Apologia. See also his essay on Developement
of Christian Doctrijie.

40 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

of CAre t^ olwprvo the rules of the art, and only ubo tho lio as a
conJiment and medicine. To no one else can it be permitted So hia
pnpil, Gregory of Neo-Caosarea, used lungungt about the Trinity con-
fessedly erroneoua,* and was defended by Basil {Ep. 210. 5; Migne
P.O. xxxii p. 776) on the ground lliat ho waa not speaking
^oy^oTiKw? but (iy(i)i'«rri>cojs (controver.sially), that is, not teaching
dot;trine but ar>,Miing with an unbeliever; so that he was riglit 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 yi'/iruoriKuis, 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 {Ej>. 48. 13 ; Migne P.L. xxii p. 502).
So Gregory of Nazianzus, in defence and in praise of Basil (see Kp. 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 Harnack
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 iinvolq., but one biroar&aei (but really
inr6ffTcurii was then equivalent to ovffLa).

2 Cf. also Basil cU Spir. Sando 66 on the value of the secret unwritten tradition.
See Swete Docirine of the Holy Spirit p. 64, and C. F. H. Johnstone The Book of
St Basil on the Holy Spirit. On Reserve as taught by the later casuists see Sca^ani
Theolog. Mor. ii 23, Pascal Letters, and Jeremy Taylor Dudor Dubit. iii 2 (Jackson
' Basil' N. and P.-N. FatUrs vol. vii).

CHAPTER TV

The Sources of Doctrine: Oral Tradition — Holy

Scripture

The original source of all Christian doctrines is Christ himself,
in his hnman 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
things 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. Such 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, which
naturally dealt both with doctrine and with practice, St Paul
referred his converts in one of his 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
us';* and again he urges Timothy to guard the deposit com-
mitted to him.^

By degrees this oral tradition was supplemented by the

> John W- ". ' John 16'«. » 2 Thess. 2i».

* 2 Thess. 3«. • 1 Tim. 6'^.

42 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINK

written tradition, so that alnvidy in liiK exhortation to the
Thcsaalonians 8t Paul was able to i)lace aide by side on a level
the traditions which thoy had hwird from him, whether by word
or by letter, his teaching when with them and what he had
written since. But between the two tradilinus there was no
sense of discord, and we shall search in vain for any suggestion
that one possesses a gi'eater 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. Tliey were at first two forms
of the same thing. Both together constitute the Tradition, the
Canon or Rule 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 ' Canon ' 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 tnistworthy than the written account. Cf. the Preface to the Gospel
according to St Luke, and the Introduction to the work of Papias quoted by
Eusebius H.E. iii 39. Cyprian apparently styles Scripture divinae traditicmis
caput et origo (Ep. 74. 10), appealing to it as the ultimate criterion, but tliis conception
is unusual.

- The same terms KaviLv, regula («r. fidei), irap6.bo(ns, traditio, are applied to both,
' See Liddon's Sermon before the University of Oxford with this title.

THE SOURCES OF DOCTRINE 4o

ill that was either of a heterogeneous cature 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.

iTispiration 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 in
connexion with the work of the scribes on the Law. After
the Eeturn 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 Law 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
wth the written law. There even arose 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 (^77 navriKr]),

44 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

according to which the medium of the diviue revelation, who was
naually a woman, hoaime the mechanical mouthpiece of the God,
losing her own consciousness, so that she gave vent in agitated
tiance to the words she was inspired to utter.^ Inspiration is
thus an ec^tntic 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, impatient 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 sujjerior force he pres.'^Vl ;
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 tliat
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 extremer 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— Dryden.

* See William Lee Itispiration of Holy Scripture, Appendix F.

THE SOURCES OF DOCTRINE 45

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
(Hfferent 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 their 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
parties, 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 authority of the written Gospels
about the middle of the second century. " Though various
principal ideas {jprinciina) are taught in the different books of
the Gospels, it makes no difference to the faith of believers,
since in all of them all things are declared by one principal
{or sovereign) Spirit {uno ac princiixdi spiritu) concerning the
Nativity, the Passion, the Eesurrection, 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. Westcott The. Bible in the Church, p. 86. (The citations are all anonymous.
Clement has ' it is wTitten ', ' the Scripture saith ', ' the Holy Spirit saith ' ; Ignatius,
' it is written ' ; Polycarp, no formula. )

■ Cf. §§ 47, 8.

46 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

About the same time iiiul later on wc have some indications
of the pre\'ailing view of inspiration in the writings of the
Apologists and Irenfteus.

To Justin, for example, Scripture is the word of God, given
by (tOD throuj^lj the Word, or tliiough tlie Spirit. It is the
Spirit of God who is the author of thu whole of the Old
Testament — the single author of one great drama with its
many Jictors. 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 — Athenian 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 wrcjught 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 whicli
such a letter or word of God could not be cited in

> ^4pol. i 36 (cf. 33, and ii 10;. * Legatio 9.

3 Ad Autol. ii 9 (cf. Euseb. Hi^t. Eccl. iv 20). < Apol. 18.

THE SOURCES OF DOCTRINE 47

evidence. The prmciple that nothing is required for nalvation
which cannot be proved by Scripture ^ was not enough for
him : 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 tlie 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 prop! < ■• 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
intelligible. 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 inspiration saving them 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 Matthew 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 ' Exhortation 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 thought

^ Cf. Article vi. - De Afonog. 4 ; dc Cor. 2.

^ See adv. Ilaerescs iii 1 and 5 — Harvey vol. ii pp. 2, 18.

■• Ibid, iii 17— Harvey ii p. 83.

' Eusebi'.is Hist. EccL iv 18 mentions two writings of Justin to the Greeks, but
neither the extant Oratio ad GenlUes nor the CohoricUio which contains the above
l)assage is believed to be the work 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 liad 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 thouj'li
they imparted their divine teaching to us in different places and
at ditterent 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." Hero
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 efifect 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-Christian 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 inspii'ation worked. Eecognizing as he
did the action of God in the moral teacliing 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 that 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 cobmic order — yes, and the micro-
cosm man, his body and soul, and attuned it to the Holy Spirit [or by the Holy
Spirit), and so through this instrument of many notes he sings to God." Protrept
ch. i — Migne P.O. 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 Scriiiture

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 their 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. Eeverence 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

' See de Primlp. bk. iv. Cf. Greg. Nyss. dr conim. Not. p. 181 (M?gne P.G. xW).
^ Hatch Hibbert Lectures, 18S8, from which (p. 50 IT.) the following paragraphs
are taken.

nO CHRISTIAN DOCTRINK

woK'Ad of an undying wiailom. So when the uneonsciouH imitation
of hrroic ideals paasod into conscious philosophy of life, it was
neceesttry that such philoBophy should ho nhown to he con-
sonant with the old ideals and current standards. And when
' education ' began it was inevitable that the ancient poets
shoidd be the basis of education. So the professors of educa-
tion, the ])hilosoi»hers 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 ho became
a sujiport to them instead of being a rival. " In the childhood
of the world, men, like children, had to be taught by tales"—
and Homer wjis regarded as telling tales with a moral purpose.
The developing forms of ethics, physics, metajihysicR, 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 purpose had failed.

The same difficulty wliich had been felt on a large scale in
the Greek world was equally felt by Jews who had become
students of Greek philosophy 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 tf>
their religion and be in a [)Ositiou 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 Philo, which are based throughout on
the supposition of a hidden meaning in the sacred scriptures,
metaphysical and spiritual. They are always patient of sym-
bolical interpretation. Iilvery 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 Philo'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 endurance the
corner-stones, as it were, of their lives : who rise supeiior 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 the 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
souls. 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,
l^ut in reality to find repose in the Intelligence which he has
chosen, and to place all the burden of his life upon 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 depths behind the
obvious surface-meaning ; and, on the other hand, they were Ijound
to explain away all that, when taken in its literal sense, was
offensive to human reason or seemed unworthy of the Deity.

^ Pliilo de Somniis i 20 ou Gen. 28"— Hatch I.e.

52 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Modem conceptions of aireful scholmly inteii»n!tation und 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. Thi' insjiired Scriptures were separated by
a wide choani from all other books and writings — the heavenly
from the earthly : and so the superfifial nieaninLj was the furthest
from the real lueaning. To the uninitiated Scripture was as a
hierofTJyph which needed a key that few possessed to decipher its
enigmas. S^> 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 xA-tonement.

It was never supposed that writings, because inspired, must
be easily understood by every one ; but it was not till the time
of Origen 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 whigh 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 bands . . . 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.^

1 E.g. as to Elias— Matt. 17"", Mark 9" * ; cf. JEpistle to the Hebrews all through ;
.and St Paul, e.g. Gal. 422*

- Ep. Bam. 17. ' Adv. Haer. ii 41 — Harvey vol. 1 p. 350.

* Ibid. p. 351. See further, Harnack DG. Eng. tr. vol. ii p. 251.

'' The allegorical method was universally accepted, and it was only the extravagant
employment of it by the Gnostics in support of their wildest conceptions to which

THE SOURCES OF DOCTRINE 53

III this he is at oue with most of the early Fathers, of whom it
has beeu said that since they knew nothing, thought of nothing,
felt nothing but Christ, it is not surprising that they met him
everywhere. Their Igreat 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 wa 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 without 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 modern scholar, they were sane and commonplace in comparison with
the meanings which Gnostic ingenuity discovered in plain and simple passages of
Scripture.

' De Hesurredione Carnis 20 ad fin.

^ Cf. 'Non hahet tempus Aeternitas' adv. Marc, iii 5, i 8.

» Clem. Al. Slrom. v 6.

* Strom, i 28 q.v. and fragment 66. "The sense of the law is to be taken in three
ways — either as exhibiting a symbol or laying down a precept for light conduct, or
as uttering a prophecy." Here is the triple sense of Scripture — mystic, moral, pro-
phetic Cf. Slrom. vi 15.

' See esp. de Princip. iv §§ 1-27, esp. § 11.

« De Princip. iv § 11, Tr. A.-N.C. Library.

54 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

uiKta hia soul : in order thai the simple man may bo edified by tho
' tk«h ', as it were, of tho 8cri])tiiro, for so we name the obviouK
.souse ; while he who has ascended a eertain way [may bo edified]
by the ' soul ', as it were. The perfect man, a^aiu, and he who
resembles those spoken of by the apostle, when he says 'We
speak wisdom among tliem (bat are perfect . . .' [may receive
editityitiou] from the spiritual law, which has a shadow of good
things to come. For as man consists of body, soul, and spirit,
ao in the same way does Scripture, which has been airanged to
be given by God for the salvation of men." This method of
interpretation, Origen points out, is recognized in Holy Scripture
— Cin'ist distinguished between the first and second in the
Sermon on the Mount and (»n other occasions ; and theallcgoricnl
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
uo 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 ])e 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
such 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 puiity and reverence.^

1 Origen cites Gal. 4««, 1 Cor. lO*"", Heb. 48- ».

2 Ibid. § 12 ; cf. Hovi. ii in Gen. 6. » Cf. Horn, x in Job.

* Luke 10«. 6 Matt. 5^, and so 1 Cor. 7'".

® Cf. Athana.sius de TncamafAone Vcrhi, a/l fin. "For the investigation and
tnie knowledge of the Scriptures there is need of a good life and a pure soul and
Christian virtue. . . . He who wishes to understand the mind of the divines miist
previously wash and cleanse his soul by his life. . , ."

THE SOURCES OF DOCTRINE 55

The samo method of extgcsLs was followed, to a large extent at all
•nents, by the later Easterji Fathers, especially hy the Cappadociuns.
See e.g. Gregory of Nyssa de comm. Not. p. 181 Migne, Or. Cat. 32, in
(Jant. Cant. p. 756 Migne, c. Eimom. vii p. 744 Migne.

After Origen the first attempt at a formal statement of the principles
uf interpretation that calls for notice was that of Tyconiiis, an African
Donatist {c. 370-420). He drew up seven rules of interpretation which
•A-ugustine a little later discussed and, with some reservations, recom-
mended as useful though incomplete. (See the edition of F. C. Eurkitt
Texts and Studies vol. iii no. 1, and Augustine de Doct. Christ, iii
chs. xxx-xxxvii. On Augustine as Interpreter, see W. Cunningham
Hvhean Lertm-es — ' St Austin ' .) Methods very diflierent 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. K. 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

As long as such methods were accepted it is obvious that a
gi'eat 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 hermeneutic, 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 place guaranteed (the rule of faith).
The latter offered, obviously, the easier test, and the highest
importance was attached to it.

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

56 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINIi

question — SuppoBing, as inip;ht. have happened, that we ha<i
no Scriptures, to what should wo have to make our appeal ?
" Should we not have to go hack to the most aiieient Churches,
in which the Apostles lived, and take from them . . . what
is fixed and ascertained ? What else could we do ? If the
Apostles themselves luui not left us writings, should we not be
obliged to depend on the teacliing of the tradition which they
bequeathed to those to whose care they left tlie Churches ? " ^
We must go hack to the most ancient Churches — it is here, in
the consent of Churches, that Irenaeus sees tlie 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 bishops, 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 Eome. 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

1 Iren. adv. Haer. iii 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 but as a means of determining the true sense of the Scriptures.

- Such no doubt is the meaning of the phrase 'propter potentiorem principali-
tatem' — 'on account of its more influential pre-eminence', i.e. its prominence and
influence {ibul. iii 3. 1 — Harvey vol. ii pp. 8, 9). See also the note on ' principali-s
ecclesia' in Abp. Benson's Cyprian, p. 537.

THE SOURCES OF DOCTRINE 57

there had any chance of escaping notice and criticism. The
tradition preserved at Korae 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
so 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 tribvmal 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 Eoman 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 the 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 the principles of Eoman law, to take fresh
action on all the other points excluded from the suit. He
insists,^ accordingly, on this limitation of the question, and asks,

^ Iren. adv. Haer. iii 3. 1.

' See further Lipsius, Art. "Irenaeua" in D.C.B.

' De Fraescnptione Eaerelicorum — ' ' Concerning the Limitation of the Suit again st
the Heretics", esp. §§ 15, 19, ed. T. H. Bindley, who rejects the common expla-
nation of praescriptio as meaning the 'preliminary plea' or objection lodged a«^
the commencement of a suit, which — if maintained— dispensed with the need of

58 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINK

" Whose are the. ScripUires { liy whom and through whoso
means and when and to whom was the dii^cijilinc, (the touching
or system) handed down wliieh makes men Christians ? Wher-
ever yon tind the true Christian diKcijjline and faitli, there will
be the trnth of tht* Christian Scriptures and expositione 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 whicli can determine the truth. Heretics have no
right to use Scripture in argument against the ortliodox, 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 Cod.^

And Origen, for all his elaborate system of interpretation,
declares, in the Prologue to the work in which it is expressed,
the nece.ssity 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
light 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 ,3 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. FraescHptio technically meant
a clause prefixed to the intejiiio of d, formula for the purpose of limiting the scope of
an enquiry (excluding points which would otherwise have been left open for discus-
sion before the judex), and at the time when TertuUian wrote it was used only of
the plaintiff. ' Demurrer' is thus technically WTong, and somewhat misleading as a
title of the treatise.

' Strom, vii 16. ^ Dc 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 evangelio non crederem, nisi me catholicae e<;clesiae commoveret
auctoritas' (c. Ep. Munich. 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 T.erinnm 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 might be determined.^ The two foundations which he
lays down are still the divine law (or Holy Scripture) and the
tradition of the Catholic Church. The first is sufficient by
itself, if it could be rightly understood, but it cannot be under-
stood xvithout the guidance of the tradition, which shews what
has been believed everywhere, always, and by all. Quod ubique,
quod semper, quod cd) omnibus — this is the great principle on
which Vincent takes his stand. But he recognizes that it is
not always easy of appHcation, 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 Chui"ch 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, imanimous 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 Eeligion ; but Vincent was much

^ Adversus jyro/anas omnium novitatcs haereticorum Commointoriv,m, ■\vritten
about 434, attention having been aroused in the West to the question of tradition
by the Donatist and Pelagian controversies. Vincent seems to have adopted some
of Augustine's rules, though be would use them against him. He was a meniber
of th' famous monastery on the island near Cannes, now known as L'ile Saiut
Honorat, from Honoratus the founder. A good analysis of the Common itoriwm will
be found in Harnack DG. ii », pp. 106-108 (Eng. tr. vol. iii pp. 230-232) ; handy
editions in vol. ix of Hurtcr's F!. Pairtutn Opuscula Selecia, and in the Sammluny
Quellenschriften ed. Kriiger.

60 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

too scholarly and soimil a thinker to coiuuiil In'nipolf to such a
negation. When the argument brings him to the question, ' Ih
there in the Church of Christ a progress in Keligion ? * 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 the 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. Religion is strength-
ened with years and widened with time, and built up more
elegantly with age ; but all remains fundamentally the same.
What 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 higli 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 their
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 obvioiis 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 questions 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.

1 Ep. 74 § 9. 3 Ep. 71 § 3. » Tert. de Virg. Vel. § 1.

CHAPTER V
Jewish Attempts at Interprktation — EmoNisM

Characteristic Jewish Conreptiona

Rooted in Jewish tbouc^ht were two ideas, from the obvious
signiticjxuce 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 ' divhiity ' of Christ seemed to be ;t 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 tlie 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 gi'owth
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 Church.^ And the fear lest the

^ It is clear from the Epistle of Clement that by the end of the first century all
traced of the controversy between Pauline and Judaistic Christianity had vanished
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.^ 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.^

' ' Judaizing ' may not be the most accurate desiguation for what perhaps is only
in origin an archaic foi-m of interpretation, 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. Origin
dc Princi'p. iv 1. 22 : 'E/3tw»'atoi, ttjs tttwx^s oiavola^ iiruii'vfxoL' 'E/3t'wv yap 6 tttcoxos
Trap' "Eppaioii ovofid'^erai.

' Dr. Hort supposed the}' might have come into existence through the scattering
of the old Jerusalem Church by Hadrian's edict. Some, like Hegesippus, who main-
tained the tradition of St James, when once detached from the Holy City would in
a generation or two become merged in the greater Church without. Others would
be driven into antagonism to the Gentile Church of Asia and become .ludaistic in
principle as well as in practice, being isolated and therefore less receptive of the
influence of other Churches. (It should be noted that such Judaistic Christians are
heard of only in the neighbourhood of Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor.)

* Justin Dial. c. Tryph. 47 and 18. — See Hort JudaiMic Christitmiltj p. 196,
on whose discussion the following statement of the facts is based.

* See Hort — the two lines, developement and supersession of the Law, in tlie
teaching of Christ himself {ibid. ' Christ and the Law ', Leel. ii).

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

0)4 CHRISTIAN UOCTRINE

On their teaching as to the person of Christ more stress is
hiid hy IroujKMiH,' who is the iirst to name them I'^bioniieaiis, and
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 Jis 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 Eueebius'* after him, more precisely, makes the diflerenco
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 Sonsliip 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 proved from the 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. Haer. i 22— Harvey vol, i p. 212, and iv 52. 1, v 1. 3— Harvey vol.
ii pp. 259, 316.

' Contra Cels. v 61, 65. * Euseb. Hist. Ecd. iii 27.

♦Epiph. adv. Haer. xxix and xxx. ' Cf. Acts 24^.

«Cf. Matt. 5'. 7^"^. 112 §13.

JEWISH ATTEMPTS AT INTERPRETATION 65

Nazaraeans, who believed in Christ, the Son of God, born of the
Virgin Mary, and say that he suffered under Pontius 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.

Ce7"mthus and his School

Of all the Ebionites one individual only is known to fame,
Cerinthus — and he had almost as much in common with th(i
' Gnostics ' as with them. Eeally 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, when 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 truth was there.

The province of Asia was probably the scene of his activity,
though Hippolytus, witliout mentioning Asia, says he was trained
in Egyptian lore. In his teaching, side by side with the
' Judaizing ' elements, such as have been noticed (Jesus, the Son
of Mary and Joseph, born as other men ; circumcision and the
observance of the Sabbath obligatory ; rejection of the writings
of St Paul, the Acts, and all the Gospels, 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 are akin to the conceptions of the ' Gnostics '. These have
to do with the relations between the world and God, and between
the human and the divine in the person and work of the Lord.

' Reported by Irenaens iii 3, 4 — Harvey vol. ii p. 13 ; and twice quoted by
Eusebius {Hid. Ecd. iii 28, iv 14). Iienaeus also .says (iii 11. 7 — Harvey vol. ii
p. 40) that the Go.spel of St John was directed against Cerinthus {e.g. the doctrine
of Creation by the Logos). Cf. Robert Browning A Death in the Desert.
Epiphauius (^.c.) says he was the ringleader of St Paul's Judaizing antaLfonists at
Jerusalem. Hegesippus does not seem to have mentioned him, nor does Justin,
nor Clement, nor Tertullian.

G6 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

The creation, he taught, was not olTocted by God HiniBclf, but by
angels — powers distinct from God — one of whom was tlie God
of the Jews and the giver of the Law. As to the person of tlie
Redeemer, he held that his Sonship to God could only be due
to his cthiail merits, which qualified him for a special gift of
grace and spiritual power. God might not arbitrarily make a
person lioly. So the man Jesus was first tested in early life,
and then at his baptism there descended upon him, 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 whtMice he came.^ Furthermore, he taught that the
Resurrectiou 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 Recognitioiis (in the Latin translation of Eufinus and also
partly in Syriac) ; which are probably independent abridgements
of a voluminous book called the Travels of Peter, which was

' There is no evi.Ience that he used the Guostic term ' Aeon ' of the Christ.
*Cf. the 'Gospel of Peter'. "My power, my power, thou hast deserted me!"
Tliis is the only docetic element in the teaching of Cerinthus.

' Eusebius, the deter nuued 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 travelhng 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 creation and docetism.^ Most characteristic, perhaps, is their
conception of the Christ (identical with the Son of God) as the
eternal Prophet of Truth, who appears from time to time incar-
nate in perfect men. By virtue of their inward spii'it 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 appears 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 per-
manent repose. To his death and resurrection no significance

' Hort Judaistic Chrislianity p. 201. See also D.O.B. Art. 'Clementine
Literature', and Doriier.

* See Hippol. ReJ'iit. Uaer. ix 13. They professed to have obtained this book
from the Seres, a Parthian tribe (a mythical race like the Hyperboreans ot Greek
le;,'end), who were perfectly pure and therefore perfectly happy, the recipients of a
revelation which had been first made in the third year of Trajan (100 A.D. ). Helxai
(Elchasai) — an Aramaic word meaning 'the hidden power' — was both the name of
the divine messenger, who imparted the revelation, and the title of the book in
which it was recorded. The book appears to have been a long time in secret
circulation before it became known to the orthodox teachers of the Church,

' See infra p. 75.

68 CHKISTIAN DOCTRINK

appears to bo attarhefi. His mission has an ediu'utional purpose
only, to exhibit to men a kind of object-let^son.

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 Sc'ri])ture 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 sujiplicd,
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 another quarter, doomed to like
failure, comes before us next in Gnosticism.

CHILIASM

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 ba^ed 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 attractive was the other idea which 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 Httle 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 Avritings, as were their conceptions of the fate of

' For thLs idea chief support waa to be got from the Gospel according to St John.

- Probably the earliest indication of this is to be found in the case of the
Thessalonians, some of whom feared that their relations and friends who had already
died since they became Christians could have no share in the Messianic kingdom
on earth.

JEWISH ATTEMPTS AT INTERPRETATION 69

the enemies of their Lord and all who rejected his claims.^ Thn
imagination pictiired, and hopes were fixtil 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 Roman 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
suiferings, 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 ■n-apova-ia from the first lAevats.) 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. 2629), 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
(Luke 19^'^-19), — 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 his mark
would come to life again and reign with (Jhrist. This was 'the first
resurrection', and only these — it appears — 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 Ebionites, and Cerinthus,
according to the accounts of the Roman presbyter Caius in his treatise
against the Montanists, quoted by Eusebius {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 those ideas through a misunderstanding of the apostolic

^ E.g. the Apocalypses of Esra, Enoch, Baruch, Moses. Cf. the Apocalypse of Peter.
^ Against this interpretation see Origen de Priiicip. ii 11 § 2.

* There is no reference to the millennial belief in Clement of Rome, Ignatius,
Polycarp, Tatiaii, Athenagoras, Theophilus. But we are not justified in arguing
from their silence that they did not hold it.

* Eii. Bam. 4, 15. * See Euseb. ff.K iii 39.

70 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

account*, not perceiving that the things said by them were spoken
mystically in figures. I'^or he appears to have been of a very Ijinitcd
unilorstanding, as one can see from his discourses." The raaterialistic
character of their expectations is illustrated by the fainou.^ 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
t«n thousand shoot.", and in every one of the shoots ten thousand grapes,
and every gnipe when pressed will give five-and-twcnty measures of wine."

Justin sl>ew8 the belief in exacter form. The Lord, Jesus Christ,
was to return to Jerusalem, which was to be rebuilt, and there to eat
and drink with his disciples,^ and the Christian people were to be
gathered together there 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 be
the same earth, and all who have faith set on Christ and know the
truth expressed in his and his prophwts' words will inherit in it eternal
and imperishable blessings.^

These hopes were fully shared by Irenaeus (who derived them from
Papias direct perhaps),' Melito,^'^ Hippolytu8,ii Tertullian,^^ and
Lactantius.^^

* Justin Dial. e. Tryph. 51.

- Ibid. 80. This would be the first resurrection.

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

* Isa. 65»'-^. * Apoc. 20«-». «Mic. 4}-'' {Dial. 109, 110).
' Dial. 113. « Ihid. 139.

* It is Irenaeus to whom we owe the parable of Papias quoted Hupra (see lien.
V 33-35). The letter from the Churches of Lugdunum and Vienna also shews
Chiliastic ideas (Euseb. H.E. v Iff.).

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

" See esp. adv. Marc, iii and de Res. Carn.
" Inst. Div. vii § 11 ff. (esp. § 24).

JEWISH ATTEMPTS AT INTERPRETATION 71

The Gnostics were the first to reject such conceptions (Maicion re-
ferred tliem 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
Eesurrection,^ and destined to last a thousand years.

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

' The Eefutation of AUegorists — pi-obably aimed at Origen. (Euseb. I.e.)

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

^ See e.gr. de Civ. Dei xx. "Even now the Church is the kingdom of Christ
. . . even now his saints reign with him." At an earlier time Augustine had
conceived of a corporeal ' first ' resurrection of the saints, succeeded by a milleunial
rest upon earth, the delights of it being spii'itual enjoyment of the presence of the
Lord.

CHAPTER VI

Gkntilk Attempts at iNTKnpitKTATioN

Characteristics of Oriental Religious Thotujht

Though it was to .Tews that the earliest atteinpts at interpre-
tation of the revelation in Christ were coinniiLtcd, 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 developenieut of Christian doctrine.
The lirst gi-eat movement which they originated came rather
from the East than from the West ; for the difference between
the contemporary religious thought of the East and of the
West 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 di\'ine 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-
ledge 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. Indian and Persian compared with Greek.
^ Nt-ander Hist, of Doct. vol. i p. 6 (Bohn), cf. Church Hist. vol. ii

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.

7%e Problem of Evil

The distinction between the religious thought of the East
;ind 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 whicli 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
gi'appled 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 which 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

^ The Eleatics assert the dogma that the One alone exists, plurality and change
have no real being (of. the Parmenides). Plato did not elaborate any systematic
treatment of the question, though apparently regarding matter as the souice of
evil — Tb fiT] 6v contrasted with jh 6v (which is idemified with rd a.-/a06v, e.g. in the
Timaeus). This conception was adopted by the Neoplatonists, e.g. Plotinus, and
influenced Origen and other Christian thinkers. Aristotle deals with evil simply as
a fact of experience. See further Mansel The Gnostic Heresies p. 23.

* This is illustrated by a saying of Seneca {Ep. 85. 30) — Grief (or pain) and
poverty do not make a man worse ; therefore they are not evils.

74 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINR

good connotes the existonco of evil, the idea of the one being
necessary to the ideji of the other). 'J'liosc theses, it is
rightly pointed out,' are not ]iliilosophical e\])lHnationa of the
origin of evil in the world, b\it examinations of the dilhcnlties
whicli 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 solution, with the murk of somewhat ilimsy 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, wliose feelings opened out to all that was
bright and beautiful and beneficial 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 influence 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 reached 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.

2 With it may be compared the position of Shaftesbury as rei)re8ented 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 partial evil universal good."
' Hebraism, with one perfect God of righteoufjness outside fhe world, could
realize sin. Hellenism, with no idea of perfection about its goils, 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 auimals 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 highest 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 opposi-
tion to the early Christian tradition. If matter is evil, the
Supreme God (who is good) cannot have created the world, and
the I'edeemer (who is divine) cannot have come in the flesh.
The creator of the -woild, the Demiurge, 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 (Docetism) ; and so either the sufferings were
only apparent, or else the Eedeemer who could not suffer was
separate from the man in whom he appeared.

76 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINK

Thf Qnostics their Aims and Clamficafion

The 'Gnostics' were thinkers who, etarliiiL; from Oriental
principles such as these, iind feeling the need of re(l('ni])tion by
a sj)eeial divine revelation, beheved that Jesus of Nii/areth was
the Hedeeiuer sent to save sinners, and tried to work out this
belief and thei^e principles into a j)liilosopl)ic'al theory of the
universe. It is this conviction of the need of Kedeni]>tion, 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 inter])vetation {i.e. a religious heresy) from a
mere philosophical extravagance.^ " Tlio 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 dilhcult which can occupy the human )nind. . . .
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 a])preciated."
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 Hatonists of Akouindria p. 28) insists that "the interest,
the meauing, 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 sa)-? "it is a mistake to approach the Gnostics on
the metaphysical 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 Chtirches, 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 spiritual 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 who
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 tliey have been called 'the first Fieemasons ' rather
than the first theologians, though a closer analogy might be found in the practice
of the Greek mysteries.

' Loofs (pp. 70, 73) distinguishes the chief variations of Gnosticism from (a) the
Christian tradition {i.e. the popular creed) and (b) the Christian ecclesiastical phQo-
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 series of aeons — docetic conception of the person of Christ — cosniical
origin of evil and corresponding conception of Redemption — abandonment of early
Christian eschatology ; and (6) salvation dependent on secret knowledge, or at least
the Gnosis has jiromise of higher bliss than Faith alone can attain — a syncretic
system in which the Christian elements are overpowered by foreign elements,
Babylonian and Hellenic, which it continually took to itself in increasing volume —
superstssion of the genuine ai»ostolic tradition thi'ongh unlimited allegorical exegesis
and its secret 'apostolic' tradition.

For fragments of Gnostic writings see especially Stieren's e^lition of Ireiuievs.

78 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINIi

noted — a moral di (Terence ; Bonio of the Gnostics being ascetic,
and some, it was said, licontious. The charge of iniinoriility
has always been brought against religions op])onents in all ages
and must never be receivod without examination ; but in this
case it appears to be justified, some of tlie (Jnostics indeed
making it a principle. If matter was essentially evil and
antitheticnl 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 cr»uld not
affect 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 kindp

^ Iren. i 1. 11, 12, ri ffapKiKii rots aapKiKoU Kal rd vpev/MTiKh rois irvev/xaTiKoU
dxo5t5o(7^at Xiyovai. Cf. Clem. Al. Strom, iii 5.

* Westcott (Introduction to the Study of the Gospels ch. iv) points out the
relation of the different 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 represented 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.

' LooCs, 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 manifold 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, witliout 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) pufteth 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, noi-
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 they 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 recognize
the humanity of the divine Eedeemer — this is what the expres-
sion means — are not ' of God ' ; nay, they are Antichrist. It is

^ Acts 89- 1". 2 -g •A7r6<^a(ris iJ.e-y6.\-n—Wi^^o\. Refut. Haer. vi 9 ff.

* Iren. iii 11. 7, says they were forerunners of Cerinthus.

* 1 Cor. 8'. Cf. 13", and contrast 2 Cor. 11^.

" Probably not till its use by Valentinvis. Similarly irXi^pwfM (Eph. 1-^ 4") has
no technical sense, though its use in Col. 1^' 2** of the totality of the divine
attributes approximates towards the Gnostic conception.

' Rg. the higher knowledge, Col. 2^- ^^ 1 Tim. 6^ ; the idea of the Demiurge,
Col. 1>«- " ; angel-worship, Col. 2^^ ; asceticism. Col. 2'^'^ 3^-' ; incipient Docetism,
Col. 2' ('bodily') ; and the evil of matter, 2 Tim. 2'^"'^ (matter being evil could not
be eternal, so the resurrection would be spiritual only).

^ 1 John 42- ». Cf. 2 John 7.

80 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

not enoiiph to aoknowledgo his divinity; that lie was .also 'very
Mau ' is of the essence of the fuith. He who tries to disLinguish
the man Jesus from the Christ is fur from the truth. ^

And it is a similar docetic view, which made the human
nature and the sulleringH of the Lord unreal, that roused the
strenuous opjxisition of Ignatius." "He verily KuHured, as also
he verily raised himself again : not as some unbelievers say, who
talk of his seeming to suffer, while it is they themselves who
are the ' seemers ' ; and as they think, so it shall h;i])pen to
them, bodyless and spectral as they are."'^ They 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 crueiHed 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 V * 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) . . .
first ciipable of suffering and then incapable of suffei-ing." "^

To docetic thinkers the divinity of Christ presented no

» IJohn 2«.

■■* The ' Judaistic ' aud 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 there is even apparent conjunction
of Judaistic aud docetic conceptions, and in both it is only apparent, namely, the
Epistles to the Magnesians aud to the Philadelphians. In both cases he passes at
once from argument against the Judaizers to the supreme argument which the facts
of the Gospel history furnish, and in this connexion lays stress on the reality of
those facts. [Philad. 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 Marpi. \au-xi in warning against (ivOevfiaTo. to. 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 argument that if salvation can be
got in the Law, then the death of Christ was gratuitous) 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 these two Churches 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 which he refers, but the reality
of the Gospel itself — the very facts which speak for themselves.

' Smym. 2. * Trail. 9, 10. » Eph. 18. « Eph. 7.

GENTILE ATTEMPTS AT INTERPRETATION 81

difficnlties. 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 fimdamental 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 an
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 imder his control ; and Christ came
to abolish his power and lead men back to the truth.

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 Followers

Marcion * is perhaps hardly to be classed with other Gnostics.
He had no emanation theories and no such extravagant alle-

^ Iren. iii 11. 8.

-[Origen] Dial. adv. > Gnosticos iv p. 121 (Rufinus v 9). Cf. Tert. de Came
Christi 20 (Hahn» p. 10) ; Theodoret ^jp. 145 (Migne P.G. Ixxxiii 1380b).

* Views similar to those of Saturninus and Cerdo seem to have been adopted late
in life by Tatian. Bfirdesancs, another Synan, at the end of the second century
{^vhose hymns were in use by the Syrian Christians till the time of Ephraem two
centuries lator), had more in common with Valentuius.

* The son of a bishop of Siuope in Pontus (said to have been expelled from the

82 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

<^i)ri/in<4 as thoy induli^t'd iii; ami while all the rest ro^'ard the
iedemi)tivi' work of I'iuist as ctmsiBtiiig in his dofUine, whether
treated mainly from the theoretic or from tlio etliical 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 ininieasunmldy nearer the
Catholic 8tand]>oint than they : his interest was predominantly
soteriological. But ho and his followers wore commonly reckoned
Gnostics by their opponents, and the instinct <)f such men as
Trenaeus and TcrtuUian was probably not much in error. It is
at any rate certain that the dualism of the Gnostics, whicli 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. ffaer. xlii 1),
who came to Koine 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 dvvelt.^ With a material body ho 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 rrded 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 opposition
to Judaism^ its strength imdoubtedly lay. It could not have
been on moral grounds that Polycarp professed to recognize
in Marcion " Satan's firstborn ".^ It is recorded of one of

^ It is not clear in what relation lie held Christ to stand to the Supreme
God : pei'haps he made no distinction between Father and Son — the Supreme God
Himself appcining without any mediator in the world. (So a kind of Modalisra,
see infra p. 97).

^ The birth and infancy and the genealogy he excised from the only Gospel
which ho admitted (viz. our Gospel according to St Luku amended tc harmonize \vitli
liis views). Against this ' docetic ' conception of Marcion see Tertullian de Carna
Clirlsli, who maintains that Christ w^s as regards his flesh and body altogether one
with us {concarnnlio and co/tviscerafio).

^ Christ was not the Messiah of whom the prophets conceived. Their Christ was
a warrior king come to save Israel, ours was crucified to save the world.

■• They regarded the Church as still in the chains of the Law — 'sunk in
Judaism '. See Tert. adv. Mare, i 20 — " They say that Marcion by his separation
between the Law and the Gospel did not so much introduce a new rule of faith as
restore the old rule when it had been falsified."

* The talc is told by Irenaous (iii 3. 4). Marcion had known Polycarp in the

84 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Marcion's most distinguislieil followore * that he niaint-ainocl that
those who liad their hope Het on the Criicilied would be saved,
only if thoy were found doers of good works. His teaching
proved extraordinarily attractive. Justin declared it was
dilVused throuj^h every race of men.* TertiiUian compared the
Marcionite^, who had "churches" with bishops and presbyters
and songs and martyrs of their own, to swarms of wasps
building combs in imitation of the boes,^ As well as their
own churches and organization, thoy 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 iutluence 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 Tertullian prevailed.®

Carpocrates and his Followers

Another of the ' Gnostics ' who really stands in some
respects alone is Carpocrates,^ a Platonic philosopher at Alex-
East ; but Polycarp passed him when they met at Rome. " Do you not kuow me ? "
cried Marciou. " I know [you to be] Satan's firstborn " was Polycarp's uncompro-
rniaing answer.

* Apelles (with his companion Phihimenc, a 'prophetess') — opposed by
Rhodon (see Euseb. Hist. Eccl. v 13), Hippolytus, and Tertullian {de Came Christi
6,8).

- Ap. i 26.

» I.e. the Catholics (Tert. adv. Marc, 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., I'hm., Phil.), the Pastoral Epistles being rejected. Marcion's
own book, the 'kvTidiffei^, was also standard.

' See Rendel Harris Codex Bezue, p. 232.

" The wiitings of Irenaeus and Tertullian only are extant, though Justin
Dialogue 80 describes the Gnostic schools. Eusebius mentions also works by
Theophilus of Antioch, Philip of Gortyna, Dionysius of Corinth, Bardesanes,
Rhodon, and Hippolytus.

' Mentioned in the list of Hegesippus (Euseb. H.E. iv 22). Our chief authority is
Irenaeus i 20 ; ii 48—^. vol. i pp. 204 ff., 369 f.; cf. Clem. Al. Htrom. 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 m the second century : the sect which lie founded
being still active at Eome 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 Carpocrsites 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 Platouic conception of Recollection {' AvdfjLvqcris) expi'essed in the
great Phaedrus myth (Plato PhaedruH 246 ff.). The souls of men had been carried
round the immaterial heavens, and in their course had been granted vision of the
.suprasensual Ideas (Truth, Beauty, Virtue, and the like, as they really, i.e. siiiiitu-
ally, exist). To their recollection of what they then saw, the souls, when joined to
bodies, owe all their knowledge of higher than mundane things. Those that are
able to reach the Ideas receive from above a spiritual ' Power ' which renders them
sui)erior to the powers of the world. Such a power was received by Homer and
Pythagoras, and Plato and Aristotle, and Peter and Paul, as well as pre-eminently
by Jesus — the perfect man ; and every soul which like Jesus was able to despise
the powers of the world would receive the same power. With this conception went
also that of Transmigration of souls: — he who has lived in perfect purity goes on
death to God ; but all other souls must expiate their faults by passing successively
into various bodies, till at last they are saved and reach communion >vith God.

* See p. 78 supra.

- Ophiani (Clem., Ocig.), Oi)liitai (HippoL, Epiph.) — i.e. worshippers of the
serpent ; or Naassenes (the Hebrew form of the same word) (see Iren. i 28. 3 — H.
vol. i p. 232). Hippolytus says they were the first to assume the name ' Gnostics ',
asserting that they alone knew the deep things (v 6). No names of individuals
are recorded. The use of the serpent as a religious emblem (a relic of Totemism)
was common in countries which were specially receptive of Gnosticism {e.g. among
the Phoenicians and Egyptians). The serpent 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 was said that the Ophites alloM'ed tame snakes to

8G CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

as iiu evil power, acting in hoslility to the Supreme God, the
Fall became the emanripation of man f-rom the iiuthority of a
malevt»lont being: the 8eri)ent was the symbol of true wisdom
ami freedom, wishing to bo man's friend against the jealous
Jehovah ; and no the usual reading of the Old Testament was
reversed — the bad characters becoming good, oppressed by the
servants of Jeliovah.

Of sects with these general principles there wore many
varieties and degrees. In princij»le })robably, and in practice
c«rtiinly, they are the furthest removed of all the Gnostic
schools from the Catholic view of the purport of the (Jhristian
revelation, and exhibit the greatest admixture of foreign ele-
ments.^

The School of Bcmlidea

For the finest representatives of the Gnostic philosophy of
life we must turn to very different men — Basilides and Valen-
tin us.

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 uubegotten 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 spiiitual
being which had emanated from Him. Of these the higliest
— the first emanations from Him — were a group of eight (the
first Ogdoad), comprising in descending order Mind (or Reason

rrawl about and 'sanctify' the Eucharistic bread ; and their teaoliing and actions
no tloulit 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
r. 200 A.D. Tlie work is composed in the form of a dialogue in which the
disciples, male and female, put questions to Jesus and elicit ausAvers giving ex-
pression to Gno.stic concej'tions. There is a Latin translation by Schwartze, and
an English translation ]»ubli.^hed by the Theosojiliical Publishing Society.

- The Basilides of Irenaeus is described as an emanatiouist and dualist ; the
Basilides of Hippolytus as an evolutionist and pantheist (Stoic and monistic). So
Bigg (p. 27) says the aeon.s have no place at all in his system, follo^ving the
account of Hippolytus Refnl, Haer. His teaching was probably understood, or
developed by his followers, in diflferent ways.

GENTILE ATTEMPTS AT INTERPRETATION 87

in itself), Eeason or Word or Speech (the expression 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-live 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 wislied 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 Eedeemer, but merely the instrument
selected by the redeeming God for the purpose of revealing
himself 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 suffered his bodily nature to perisl"
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 capable are redeemed the rest will be
involved in utter ignorance of all 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 effected. The ethical

' NoCs, A670S, ^pdPTiffts, '^o(pta, At^ca/u;, 'Aperal.

- The whole s[)iiitual world, the totality of spiritual exi.stence, is thus expressed
by the mystical watchword ofteu found on Gnostic gems, ' Abraxas ' (the Sun-
God), which stands for 365 according to the Greek reckoning by letters of the
alphabet (a = l, /3 = 2, p^lOO, $ = 60, s = 200).

•^ It was also said that he did not sufter himself to be crucified, but substituted
Simon of C3'rene in his stead.

88 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINK

work of man is the cxtir])ati(»n of all traces of the low grade of
life which cling to him, as appendages which. niUHt bo torn away.'
The strength and the weakness of the system of Busilidoa
has been well ap]>raised when it is said that of all the Gnostic
systems it " least recognizes any break or distinction between
the Cliristian revelation and the other religious of the world.
His leading thought is the continnity 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. P)Ut 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 Valentinians

Similar to the teaching of Basilides, at least in many of its
chief conceptions, was the system of Valentiuus,^ 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 counterparts in the celestial
world, the earthly shadows only imperfectly reflecting the
ideal substances. From the pantheistic philosophy of India

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

2 Mansel Gnostic Heresies p. 165.

' Of the Valentinian school there are some literary remains. His disciple
Heracleon 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 Teo:is aivd Studies vol. i
no. 4). A letter by Ptolemaeus, another disciple, who roused the opposition of
Irenaeus, is given by Epiphanius [adv. Haer. xxxiii 3-7), ; and also an extract from
an anonymous work (ibid, xxxi 5, 6). Fragments from Valentirius are in Clem.
Strom, ii 8, 20 ; iii 7, 13 ; vi 6 ; and Hippolytus 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 the 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 spiritual 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 the 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 grace.
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

^ Alujves, probably from Plato's use of tlie singular 'aeon' to express the ever-
present form of the divine e.xistence prior to time, — so applied by Valentinus to
the manifestations of this existence.

- Each of these pairs is the consort (ffiyfiryos) of the other. Their names are as
follows. The Ogdoad— "A/JpijTos (or Bidos or UarTjp dyivvtjTOi) and -(.yn (or'Ei'voia
or Xdptj) ; NoCs (or llarrip or Mopoyevfjs) and 'AXijfleta (forming together the highest
tetrad, from wliicli proceeds a second tf-trad) ; A670S and Zwt? ; 'AvOpuiros and
EKKXijala. [the ideal man, the most perfect expression of the divine thought, is the
Gnostic spiritual man, separated from the rest as the Church (the ideal society)
is from tlie world]. The Decad — BvOios and 3Ii|ts ; 'Ay-rjpaTOi and "Ei/wcrty ; Airro-
(pirrjs and 'Hoo»'^ ; 'A/c^i'tjtos and 'ZvyKpairis ; Mo;'07€i'7js and MoKapm. The Do-
decad — liapaKKriTOi and IIiffTts ; IlarptKds and 'EXTrifs ; M7;Tpi/c6s and 'AydTrrj ;
AlihvLOi and Swe(rts ; '^KKKriaiaariKbs and MaKapiiryjy, 0eX7;r6s and Zoipia. The term
Bvdus (the ab3-ss) for the fi.st great cause, expresses the infinite fulness of Kfe,
the ideal, where the spirit is lost in contemplation. See Irenaeus, i 1. 1 (Epiph.
adv. HacT. xxxi) ; of. Tert. adv. VaUnt.

' It is in connexion with this conception, with special reference to the idea
that the cnicifixion under I'ontius Pilate was only of the animal and fleshly
Christ — a delineation of what the higher Christ had experienced in the higher.

90 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINH

origin in the self-linutation of llio Inliiiite, and it is of Ruprenie
importiiiice that euch form of lieing should iviiuiiii witliin the
limits of ita own individuality, keeping its proi)er jdace in
the evolution of life. This i)rinciplc is personified in Hovos
(Boundary), the genius of limitation, who fixes the hoimds of
individual existence and carefidly guiinls them against dis-
turbance. Even in the spiritual world this function had to
be exercised, for there too theie 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 which 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 (Wi.sdom), 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 tJie 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 this 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
Christ, 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
in reality. "Ita omnia in imagines urgent, plane et ipsi imaginarii Christiajii"
(adv. Valenl. 27 ; cf. Tgnatius loe. cit. supra).

* The accounts differ in details. All that is clear is that ^ k6.to} <To<f>la, as having
been in the Pleroma, has in her something of the spidtiial or real existence, and
therefore imparts to the matter into which 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 coinniunicates ; 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 Demiurge into the region of spiritual life. And
80 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 otlier 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 higlier 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 Infiuence 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 vvev/ia
or spiritual principle (such as was derived from Achamoth) ; (2) a \pvx^ or animal
sonl derived from the Demiurge ; (3) a ' heavenly ' body, formed by a special
dispensation, visible, tangible, passible, not of the substance of the Virgin — who
was only the channel by which it came into the world ; (4) the prc-cxisteut Saviour
who descended in the form of a dov-' at the Baptism anil withdrew with the spiritual
principle before the Crucifixion. (There was thus no real humanity or body ; it was
only apparent, docotic.)

^ Iren. ii 39— ZT. vol. i p. 34.5.

- Of the school of A'alentinus was Theodotus, whose writings were well
known to Clement. See the Excerfda ex Scriptis The-oifoti (extracts made perhaps

92 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

triumph would have meant the overthrow of Christiiinity as a
historical religion and the diKruption and ruin of the Church.
It is said that its inthionce was almost entirely no<j;ative — in
that it discredited Dualism and the ne<;utioii of the human free
will and Old Teytamont criticism, and by its ap])oal to a]K)Stolic
writings and tradition which were not genuine occasicmeil the
formal establishment of genuine apostolic standards in the
Church.^ If, however, it is diHicult to point to any definite
positive intluence 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 truth 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 P. G. ix pp. 653-698. An account of his
system in Bigg I.e. p. 31 ff.

^ E.g. Loofs, p. 73.

^ See King Gnostic Oeins. So Domer Person of Christ Eng. tr. vol. i p. 254
writes ' ' hardly any one could wish that the Church might have escaped the Gnostic
storms".

' See Harnack's account of the results — DG. 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. 14'9, Luke \^ ll'»).

® Domer (i p. 252) points out the witness both of Ebionism and of Gnosticism
to the Christological conceptions of the early Church. Ebionism asserted that the
geuuine 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 presupposes 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.

MANICHKISM

Manicheism was a school of thought in some of its chief f oatures
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 ]\fanes and Archelaus (a
Bishop of Carchar in Mesopotamia) in the reign of Probus (supposed to
have been composed m 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 ^Eanicheism assumed in the
West the works of Augustine on the system are the chief authority.

(2) Manes was born about 215 at Ctesiphon, whither his father had
moved from Ecbatana. 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 death 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 and evil, conceived in poetical form
(as was usual in the East) as a struggle between personal agents,
and elaborated in a manner somewhat similar tu that of the Gnostic

94 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINli

posmologies. No distinction wjis drawn between tlio physical and the
otliical, nnd llius "relijjious knowledge could bo nothing but the know-
ledge of nature nnd it«i elenien(3, nnd redemption consisted exclusively
in n physical deliverance of the fractions of light from darkness, . . ,
Kthica became n doctrine of abstinence from all elements arising from
the realm of darkness" (Ilarnack). The powers of darkness or evil
sought to bind men (who always had some share of light) to theinselvcs
through sensuous attractions, error, and false religions (especially that of
^^oses 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 — Avho was held to be the last and greatest prophet,
the guide, the ambassador of light, the Paraclete, by whose instrument-
ality ihe separation of light from darkness is accomplished. Practical
religion thus became a rigorous asceticism, abstaining from all sensuous
enjoyment (the three seals, the siynactdum oris, manus, et sinm — the
mouth, the hand, the breast — symbolized the complete abstinence from
everything containing elements of darkness), practising constant f.-vsts (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'
Mauichaeans — tlie elect — fuUillLng these strict rules, while the lower
class of secular Manichaeans, catechumens or hearers (aicdifores), were
ouly required to avoid idolatry, witchcraft, and sensual vices, and to
kill no living creatiu'e. Worship consisted exclusively of prayers and
h}Tans ; they had no temples, altars, or images,

(4) To the difficult question why Manicheism spread so far and
wide, Ilarnack gives the answer that its strength was due to the combi-
nation of ancient mythology and a vivid materialistic dualism wuth 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 ofifered 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
^vTitten, 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 Basilides and Marcion. His system had points of contact with the
ancient Babylonian religion — the original source of all the gnosis of
^Vestern 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
coloiu", while retaining its rigid physical Dualism, its rationalizing
character, and its repudiation of the Old Testament. At its first
appearance in the Roman Empire 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 Aiiditores there was
a carefully gi-aduated 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 agaiiist them were promulgated by Valentinian (372) and Theodosius
(381), but they were very active in the time of Augustine, who was for
nine years an av/Utor. They also reached Spain and Gaid, 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 doctrines 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 Manicheism lasted till far on into the Middle Ages in
East and "West. [See D. C.B. Art. ' Manichaeans ', and Harnack DG.
Eng. tr. vol. iii p. 316 ff. I am also indebted to a lecture by Prof,
Bevan.]

CHAPTER VII

Attemtts to Maintain, on ' Monarciiian ' Lines, alike thk
Oneness and Sole Kule of God and the Divinity of
Christ

monarguianism

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 the 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 mthout 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
themselves.-

The doctrine of the divinity of Christ, accepted at first with-
out precision of statement by the consciousness of Christians,
wlien 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
Eusebins misunderstood the difficulty of Florinus) that Irenaeus wrote to shew 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 vie;; with the trutli in
various ways, makes liiniself 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 di^'ine
' 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, Artemon, and Paul of Samosata. The other class,
merging the divinity of Christ into the essence of the Father,
recognized no independent personality of Christ, regarding the
Incarnation as a mode of the existence or manifestation of the
Father. To this class* belong Praxeas, Noetus, Callistus, Beryllus,
and Sabellius. They are known as ' Patripassians ' (see infra

' oUovofiia — the providential ordeiing and governmont of the world, so the plau
■or system of revelation, so especially the Incarnation. Tert. adv. Prax. 3.

- Origen on John 2-.

' Harnack labels them ' Adoptionist', but the title does not seem to be specially
.ippropriate to them, and it belongs peculiarly and by common consent to a mode of
thought of later date.

03 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

p. 103 n. 2), or Sahellians (from the chief exponent of the system
in its most developed form), or ' modalistif ' Mouarchiaus.

Tjie Alooi

The earliest representatives of these Monarchians seem to
have been the ' Aloj^i ', so called because they rejected not tlie
Logos doctrine altogether, but the Gospel of St John, v/hich 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. Tliuy did not, probably, admit
distinctions within the Godhead ; such deity as resided in Christ
beijig the deity of the Fatlier, pre-existent therefore, and
brought into peculiar union with the man Jesus, but whether in
that union remaining ])ersonal or being a mere force seems not
to be determined. And so tlie Alogi were possibly tlie point of
departure for both forms of Monarchian tliouglit ; but very little
is known about them, and it is not clear that they ever existed
as a detinite sect at all.^

{a) 'DYNAmc' MONARCHIANISM

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 tlie 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 Epiplianius adv. Haer, li. It is uurertain
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. Haer. 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 Pracscr. 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-
muuicated by the Bishop Victor (c. 195), himself a 'modaliat'.

The same views were held by a second Theodotus, a banker
at Piome, 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 Christ
' 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. This attempt to claim the authority of
Scripture and tradition for such views was vigorously contested

equipped by baptism, and prepared for exaltation by the resurrection (so that the
title God might be given him when risen) ; stress being laid on his moral derelope-
mcnt (irpoKoirr)) and the moral proof of his sonship — by growth in character he grew
to bo divine.

* On the biblical criticism and textual ' corrections ' and dialectic method of the
Theodotians, see Euseb. H.K v 28. 13, quoting the Little Labyrinth. The author
of this refutation of their teaching charged them with falsifying and corrupting
the Scriptm-es, and witJa prefemng Euclid and Aristotle and Galen to the sacred
writers. The charge may be true ; but it is at least possible that they were genuine
biblical critics making bondjide attempts to secure the true text in an uncritical
age, and to apply scientific methods of interpretation. So Harnack is disposed to
hail them as better scholars than their opponents (DG. Eng. tr. vol. iii p. 25).
They themselves, in turn, after the time of Zephyrinus, brought a coimter-charge
against the Roman Church, accusing it of having recoined the truth, like forgers,
by omitting tiie word ' One ' with ' God ' in the primitive Creed (so Zahn Jpostles'
Creed Eng. tr. p. 35).

- ir(piypa<p^ is the word used, see infra p. 110 n. 1.

100 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

l»y the author of the Little Labyrinth,^ who aimed at shewing";
that from the earliest limes Christians ha<l rej^rdod Christ as
God, :ind he succeodcd so far at least that this form of Mon-
archianism soou passed into obscurity in Rorue. The o-xplana-
tion that Christ was suiwrnaturally born, superior in sinlessnoss
and virtue to the pro])liets, and so attaining to unique dignity,
but yet a man, not God — this was felt to bo no adequate
interpretation of the powtjr 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

Of this dynamic or rationalist Monarchianism the most
influential teacher was a Syrian ; Paul of Samosata, — a man of
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
aU 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.

" Augnstine 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 Aurelian
decided ac^ainst him ; the ecclesiastical fabrics were to belong to the bishop who
was recognized as such by the Bishops of Italy and Rouie. Political motives, as well
as ecclesiastical, probably contributed to this decision. Paul's fall was one of the
early victories of Rome.

MONARCHIANISM 101

Logos therefore could not ever come into personal existence ;
even thougli 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 Son 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 Kesurrection is not decided ;
but the union, such as it is, between CJod 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 means disposed of his views.^ If we
cannot 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
Monarchian adoptionism of Paul with conceptions of the person
of Christ derived from Origen ^ ; while in the great theologians of
Antioch, a century later still, a portion of the spirit of Paul of

^ ovK oi)<rtw5(2s dXXA Kard, iroidriyra.

- So Eusebius says "he was caught describing Christ as a man, deemed worthy
in surpassing measure of divine grace ".

*' Cf. Ailianasius de Synodis 26, 45, quoting the Macrostich, £k npoKoirfii reOeo-
TToirjadai — i^ dvdpibwov yeyovi 6e6s. See Hahn ^ § 1 59.

* See Hahn ^ § 151. See note on Paul's use of o/jloovitiot infra p. 111.

' Harnack points to the Ada Arcliclai §§ 49, 50, as shewing the prevalence of
similar conceptions in the East at the beginning of the fourth century. The
Coimcil of Nicaea, by ordering the rebaptism of followers of Paul, treated them as
not being Christians at all.

* See Additional Note on Lucian infra p. 110.

102 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Siunosata lived iigain, and in the peryous of a Theodore ami a
Ne8tx)riu8^ was again condemned.

{b) ' MoDAT.lSTin' MONARCniANIPM

The rationalisi or '(iyiianiic' form of Monarohian tenohing
was 80 ohviounly destnictive of the real divinity of Jesus that it
can scarcely have been a serious danger to the faith in the
Inwirnalion. Much more likely to attract devout and earncat
thinkers was the ' modalistic ' doctrine. While maintaining the
full divinity of Christ it was safe from the reproach of ditheiKm,
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 background 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 effected 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 gi'eat
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 Monarchian views)
to Eome towards the end of the second century.

^ Paul seems to be differentiated from Nestorius chiefly hy 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. 'mensura Patris filius ') and
Clement of Alexandria (e.g. ' the Son is the countenance of the Fatlier') and Melito
{6ebi ireirovBev iirb 5e|tay UrparfKLTidos).

' Our knowledge of Noetus comes from Hippolytus (Ref. ITaer. ix ad init., x 23
(72>. and the special treatise c. Noct.). Hippolytus does not mention Praxeas,
against whom TertuUian wrote as the originator of the heresy, without mentioning
Noetus. Probably Praxeas had founded no school at Rome, and Hippolytus had
no knowledge of him.

MONARCHIANISM 103

Praxeas and Noetus

Praxeas, already a ' confessor ' for the faith, was welcomed
in Eome, 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 ' modalisin ' 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 tor 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 Monarchians. 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 the theory that the

^ The exact date is uncertain — c. 210, Harnack.

^ Origen explains ^atrvpassiani as those who identify the Father and the Son,
and represent them as one person under two different names. They did not them-
selves accept the inference ; e.ij. Zephyrinus avowed, " I know one God Christ Jesus,
and besides him no other oiiginate and passible", — but also, " It was not the Father
who died, but the Son ". In two cases only that arc known to us was the Creed
expanded (to exclude the idea that the Father suffered) by the addition of the words
' invisibile ' and ' impassibile ' to the first article : viz. in the Creed of the Church of
AquUeia (Hahn' p. 42), and in the Crefid of Auxcntius, the senii-Arian predfcessor
of Ambrose as bishop of Milan, whose Creed may bo the baptismal Creed of
Cappadocia (Hahn* p. 148).

^ Possibly by Callistu-s, whose modified ' Praxeanism ' Tertullian is thought to be

104 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Father, nnliorn, invisible (Ihougli us Spirit, as inviBiblo God, Ho
could not suner),8oim»lu)w participated in the surierings of Christ,
the Son who was born — " The Son sufVers, the Father however
shares in the sulVering " ; though really in such a compromise
the essential principle of Modalism would be lost.'

Noetus, however, wlien brought face to face with the logical
issue, seems to have scorned all comjjroniiae. There was one
God, the Father, invisible or manifesting Himself 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. Tlie Father, so far
as He deigns to be born, is the 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 their
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 Epipbanius
reports him ; or " Why ! what harm am I doing in glorifying
Christ ? " — as Hippolytus gives his words.^

Sahellius 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 Praxeas. "Filius patitur, pater vero compatitur. "
" Compassus est pater filio,"

^ It involves a distinction in tlie person of the Lord between Christ the divine
and Jesus the human — the latter suffering actually, the former indirectly; the
latter being the Son (the flesh) and the former the Father (the spirit). Cf. Irenaeus,
Hahn* p. 7. Cf. the Arian conception — the Logos cam/iatitur mth the human
y,hich. paJAtur in the person of Christ. See Hahn* § 161 (the Synod of Sirmium
357), and infra pp. 180, 181 notes.

- Ti oi'v KaKov neiroirjKa ; ?va. debv So^dfw — Epiphanius. ri odv KaKbv iroiQ, do^dj^av
-rbv Xpi<TT6v — Hippolytus.

MONARCHIANISM 105

exactly each coutributed we cannot tell : even of Sabellins 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
so far as to speak of three ' persons ', using the term irpoaoinra,
but in so different a sense (meaning parts or roles 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 Father as Creator
and Lawgiver ; secondly, in the ' person ' of the Son as Eedeemer
(in the work of the Incarnation up to the Ascension) ; and
thirdly, 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 by birth a Libyan of Pentapolis in Africa, active at Rome in the early
part of the third century (c. 198-217). Of his writings, if he wrote anything,
phrases may be extant in Hippolytus {Ref. Hacr. ix) and in Athanasius {e.g. Or. c. Ar.
iv) — the earliest accounts of him. Cf. Basil Ep}^. 210, 214, 235 ; Epiph. adv. Haer.
62. It is probable that ideas of which Marcellus was the originator have* been
erroneously attributed to him, but Athanasius {I.e. esp. §§ 13, 14, 25) c^-rt^inly says
that conceptions of expansion and contraction were taught by Sabellius, and not,
as some have argued, that their natural consequences were Sabellian.

- It is possible that he went beyond Noetus only in including the Holy Spirit iu
his theory.

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

■• As Hamack understands EpiphaniuB and Athanasius.

106 CHRISTIAN DOCIRINE

that thore is no pennunence about such ' personalities '. Thore is
no real incarnation ; no per8onal indissohible union of the God-
heAd with the Manhood took place in Christ. God only ni.iiii-
fested Himself in Christ, and when the part was played and the
curtain fell u]^)on that act in the great drama there ceased to be
a Christ or Son of GikI. This conception of u merely transitory
pereonality 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 tlieory 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.

Partwl Sywpathy with Sahellianism at Home

In Eome, 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 Harnack points out, the hold which they had
had for tvrenty or thirty years on the Eoman Church left a per-
manent mark. It was Eome that condemned Origen, the ally
of Hippolytus. Eome was invoked against Dionysius of Alex-

^ Contra.st with it the Catholic interpretation according to which Christ is the
eternal centre of regenerated humanity.

^ See esp. Eej. Haer. bk. ix, and see Additional Note on Hippolytus infra p. 108.

' Callistus was bitterly attacked by Hippolytus for his protection of the school
of which Epigonus and Cleonienes, and later on Sabellius, had I)een head. It is
probable that Callistus, as Zephyrinus before him, simply wished to secure as much
toleration and comprehension as }>ossible, to protect the Church from the rabies
thf.ologoTwnx (as Harnack phrases 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 Hippolytus.

* Cyprian could class Patripassnani witli ' ceterae haereticorura pestes ' {Ep. 73. 4).

MONARCHIANISM 107

andria. TJome and the West were chiefly responsihle for the
ofiooixnov formula of Nicaea (so long opposed as Sabellian).
Kome received Marcel) us, who carried out the Sabellian prin-
ciples, and rejected rpel^ viroarrdaei'i and supported the Eusta-
thians at Antioch, And finally, it was with Eome that
Athanasius was most at one. Indeed, Sabelhanism no doubt
prepared the way for the Nicene 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 ChriHt-
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 Eome.

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 terms), 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 cowmunio substantiae {oixo-ova-ta) is
combined with that of subordination. It is clear that he makes it his
special concern to oppose Sabellianism, and to maintain the personality
of the Son. So he keeps the personamm distinctio, speaks of Christ as
sevunda persoTia post patrem and of the proprietas personae suae, and
regards the imion in its moral aspect as concord. He even speaks of the
Son as proceeding from tlie Father when the Father willed. But at the
same time he insists on the suhsfanfiae communio. In respect of the
person of Christ he is concerned to maintain both the true deity and the
true humanity — the filiiis dei and the jilius hominis. The union is
emphasized — the jiliiLS hominis is made by it the filius dei — but the
nature of the imion is not discussed. The doctrine of the Logos falls
into the background. [The authority of Jeronie de Vir. lU. c. 70. \Aho
names the treatise as Novatian's, while he notes that many " who did
not know " thought it was Cyprian's (or Tertullian's) may be accepted,

108 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

in ppitc of more moilorn cioubts ; cf. Harnack Gewh. d^r attchriftt.
LUteralur i 652-656. The treatise is printed in Mi^iio P.L. iii
885-952. With it may bo CDinpured the Tractattis Oriijfuh diBCOvered
by Batifol and aiicrilu-d by Weyiuan to Novatian, thuuj,'h Doni HiiLh^r
with j^roator probabiUty a-^signs it to an anonymous writer of the iiftli
or sixth century. See J.T.S. vol. ii pp. 113 If. and 254 IF.]

Tliis work of Novatian is described by Harnack as creating for the
West a dogmatic vatle viecum.

THE THEOLOGY OF HIPPOLYTUS

It is worth while over against the thcniies of the NoptiaHi=; and
Sab( Ilians to set the theory of their uncompromising opponent, Hippo-
lytus — whose own theology gave almost equal offence and was charged
uith ditheism. It is to be found in his Refutatio Haeresium and in his
sermon against Noetus (which was earlier and less definite, but expre.<5!=es
the same views, often in the same words). For his Christology, see
especially Ref. Ilaer. x 33, and c. Noet. 10-15. The following ia a sum-
mary of Dt^illinger's account in his Hippohjtus and Callistua.

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.
oT€ rjOiXrjo-iv, fca^ws yj6e\r}(Tev — 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 bidding thereby created the world in its
unity dpi(TK(jiv 6e<3.

The whole is thus the Father, but the Logos is a power proceeding
from the whole — the intelligence of the Father, and therefore his ova-La,
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 perfect Son : that lie first became when he became
man. Xevertheless 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 hypostasis — 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 erepo? 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 Incarnation
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 per.son is irpoanovio^ before all time, but not from eternity
(liSios ; (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 mil ; (4) his representation of the Logos as the Koo-fio'; vorjT6<5 —
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 Hippolytus 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.

BERYLLUS

A kind of midway position seems to have been occupied by thinkers
of whom we have a representative in Beryllus, Bishop of Bostra in
Arabia, a learned writer and administrator of high repute. Almost all
that we know of his teaching is expressed in a sentence of Eusebius
{H.E. vi 33 j cf vi 20) recording that "he dared to assert that our

no CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Saviour and Lord did not pro-exist in an individiml existonce of his
own^ before his coming to reside among men, and that he did not
possess a divinity of his own, but only that of the Father dwelling in
him". This seems to indicate a seini-Monarchian 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 efllux 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 Trpoarwirov side by side with the waTpiKr] ^con;?, and Sabellius, with
his recognition of a distinct irpoatDirov or irfpiypa^i] both of the Logos
and of the Si)int. 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. 45^); "I an.l 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 14*-^^). Against his interpretation of such passages, see Ter-
tullian chs. xxi-xxiv. Other texts which Noetus used were Ex. 3*"
20-, Isa. 446 4514^ i>,ar. 336^ liom. 9^ (Christ— God over all)— see Hippo-
lytus contra Noetuin.

LUCIAN

Lucian appears, after the deposition of Paul, to have been in a state
of suspended 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 have 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

^ kot' Iblav oi}fflas vfpi-ypa<p^v — Tepiyf>a<p^ primarily 'limit-line', 'circumscription',
so used of jiersonal individual exittence, regarded as a 'limitation' of absolute
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 (irpoKOTr^) 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. i87.)

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 Avian writer, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis
of Nicaea, Maris of Chalcedon, and Athanasius of Anazarba. His
activity in textual criticisjn 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 6/iooi;o-ios

The Council which condemned Paul condemned also the use of the
word Homoousios to express the relation between Christ and God the
Father. But whether it was that Paul had used the word himself, or
that he 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 Semi-Arians that it
was rejected because it was taken in a material sense, and Paul used
the sophistical 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 piece of sophistry 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
himself 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
Sabellius than the teaching of Paul.)

112 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

It «o<»ni8 possible ilmt objection wns takon to Paul's rensoninpj that
the Logos wiis oup porson with (tod as the reason is one with man, on
the ground that the doctrine of the Chtiroh required one God but more
than one tt/mJo-wttoi', and tl)at to nu'et tliis objection he dnr,lare<i tliat he
recognized such irpuaioTra — God and Christ standing over against f-ach
other as Homoousioi — meaning alike personal (ova-ia being taken in the
sense of particular, individual being) ; (roSt ti). This would be, in the
opinion of his opjwnents, to introduce a human personality into the
Godhead, and so the word would be rejected. (It is of course quite
clear that if ovaia wore 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 Horaoousios, 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. C. ii 1 and Newman Arians 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 Syn. § 43). "Yes, surely each Council has a sufficient
reason for its own language."

[The tradition that the use of the term ofioovatos was considered
and disapproved by the Council of Antioch has recently been questioned
by Dr. Strong in the Journal of Theolor/ical Stwlies 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 Son 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 ditferent (or foreign) in being {ovctlo), and
so not of the same being with the Father (homoousion). Jesus
himself had said " I am the vine, my Father is the husband-
man ", and so it was right to describe the relation between
him and the Father as analogous to that of the vine to the

' He took a leading part in all the controversies of the time, conceriiiug the
lapsed, re-baptism, Easter, Paul of Samosata, Sabellianism, and the authorship of
the Apocalypse. Many of his letters, festal {iwLaroKat iofyracrTiKaL) and others, are
mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome (the sixth and seventh books of the history of
Eusebius are mainly based on them), but nearly all are lost. Only fragments are
extant, e.g. of a treatise wepl ^iVews — a refutation of materialism and the theory
of atoms, of the irepl iira.yye\iQiv — a thorough rejection of millennial expectations
ami a vindication of the allegorical interpretation of the proplirtic descriptions of
the Messianic kingdom (and incidental denial of the Johannine authorship of the
Apocalypse).

8 113

114 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

husl)an(linnn, or Unit of the bout to tho Hhiphuilder. lie insisted
on the fact that tliere were three (iJHtinct hypo.staseK in the
Godhead, and for these and other similar ex]iression8 he wa8
elmr^ed with error l>y Rome members of the Alexandrian (,^hurch,
and the jndgement of the liishop of Eome, his namesake (Bp.
259-268), was invoked. A synod, accordingly, was held at
Rome,' which condemned the views repoited to it, proclaiming
the verbally simple creed that the Father, Son, and Spirit exist,
and that the tiiree are at the same time one : and a letter was
written by the bishop^ expressing the sentiments of the synod,
exposing the erroneons nature of the arguments on which
other views depended, and asking for an explanation of the
charges. In reply Dionysius of Alexandria conjposed four books
of ' liefutation 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 i t. Wliat more there was
can only be inferred from the reply of Dionysius of Alexandria, of which considerable
quotations of the mo.st important passages are preserved in Athanasius de Scntcn-
tia Dionysii (cf. de Synodis 44 and dc 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 three powers (as it were) and partitive 'hypostases' and three godheads, . . .
and preach in some sense three gods, dividing the lioly Monad into three hypostases
foreign to each other and utterly separated ". The faith which he maintains is "in
God the Father all-sovereign, and in Christ Jesus His Son, and in the Holy Spirit,
and 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. dc Deer. 26). It
should be noted that Dionysius of Alexandria in t])c passage quoted uses the words
6/u.o7f y^s (and ffvY^evf)^) and 6fio(f>vris as though they were near equivalents to bjj.oo'ucnos.
Tliis usage is significant. It shews, 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 suhstanlia of Godhead existing in
ilixtQ pers(m<ie. He thought more naturally of the three pcrsonae of the same genus
and nature ; that is to say, he was more ready to acknowledge the getieric than the
essential oneness of the Godhead. See further infra p. 236, Note on inrbaracris.

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE DIONYSII 115

evidently as being homogeneous, saying tliat 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; and 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 names 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 the 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 arc though they like it
not, or they must utterly destroy the divine Trinity ". ^ So, he
concludes, " we extend the Monad indivisibly into the Triad, and
conversely gather together the Triad without diminution into the
Monad ".

It is obvious that the difference between the two bishops
was a difference in the use of terms rather than in doctrine.^

' Ath. de, Sent. Dion. 18. 2 Basil de Spirilu S. 72.

' Dionysius of Rome contented himself with sliewing the false cousequences of
the teaching attributed to Dionysius of Alexandria. Atlianasius at a later date,

116 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINli:

The fact that the one was accuatonied to Hpeak aiid think in
Greek aud the other in f^itin is ahnost onough in itself to
account for the mienndt'iHtanding.

Ovaia — Being, Existence, Essence — was used in two senses,
particulur and general. In the first sense it meant a ywirticular
being or existence or essence, and so in such connexions tis this
was almost equivalent to our word individual oi- ' p(!rson '. 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
so plunging straightway into all the errors of Sabellius ; and
these were the very errors against which tho 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 \inderstood fiuhstaiifiu, the Latin equivalent of the term,
and in this sense Diouysius of Alexandria (though much more
willing to declare imity of nature, i.e. much less than substantia
meant) was induced to agree to proclaim the Son of one ovaca
with the Father.

Again, the word viroaraaL^ — hypostasis — could bear two
different meanings. Primarily it was that which un^lerlay a
thing, which gave it reality and made it what it was. It was
generally used by Greeks as almost equivalent to ov(rla iu 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 ova id) 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
so 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
iu 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
up the one divine existence — a Trinity within the Unity.

The matter was still further complicated as regards the
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 Roman.
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 Eome,^ and the more concrete term ' substantia ' (substance)
— with some suggestion of material existence — usurped its
place. But this was the very word that was the natural equi-
valent of the Greek ' hypostasis'. When 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), but
the Greek irpoaco'rrov 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 ovala 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 ovala 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 Dionysii 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 6fxoova-io<; from use. The great influence of
Origen in the East supported the tendency to emphasize the
distinction of persons even at the cost of their unity, so that at
Alexandria itself Pierius, 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 the Son ; and Theognostus,
in the time of Diocletian, worked out still further the subordination-
elements in his theory. Pierius was the teacher of Pamphilus,

^ Seneca {Ep. 58. 6) apologizes for using the word and shields himself under
Cicero's name, who also used indoloria, saying, "licet enim novis rebus nova nomina
imponere " (see Forcellini) ; and Quintilian (ii 14. 1, 2) speaks of it and entia together
with nratoria (to represent pijropiKri) as equally harsh translations, but defensible on
the ground of the poverty of language resulting from the banishment of terms formed
from the Greek.

118 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

the picsbytor of Caesftrea, whose great collection of hooks and
dovotion to the memory of Ori;j;cn were iuheriled by EuBebius,
— the spokesman and loader of the great majority of Eastern
bishops in the controversy which, during the following century,
seemed to thre<iten the very foundations of the Cliristian 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 tliey 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 Alonarchian teaching.

CHAPTER IX

The Logos Docti:ine

In tracing the developenient of the Logos doctrine we are at once
confronted by the statements in the preface to the Gospel
according to St John/ which in unteclinical 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 personal distinction is perhaps
less obviously decisive, and misunderstanding might more easily
arise in this than in other respects.

That the doctrine was not fully reahzed, 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 aspect and now to another pro-

^ See "VVestcott Gospel according to St John.
119

IL'O CHRISTIAN nOCTRINK

niiaence is givtMi. Now one relation, now another, is crapliasi/.ol
by dill'eront writers. Tlu> limitationH of human thought and
experience are such that wo are perhaps justified in saying in
sucli cjises that only the jjarticular aspect, the particr.lar relation,
was giasped 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 prol.)ably 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 cliief 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 readUy suggested the idea of reason
ruling in the universe, when it was treated as the chief expres-
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 Romans whose hostility they desired to dis-
arm, and so 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
Christ 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 DG. Eng. tr. vol. i p. 330.

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

THE LOGOS DOCTRINE 121

TJie Ifjnatian Epistles

In the epistles of Ignatius references to the 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 witli 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 David, yet of the 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 pre-existence in the personal relation of sonship
to the Father {n.h., 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 which the word is used.
Yet Ignatius was obviously not really of opinion that the
Logos first became a person at the 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^. 8. 2 p^om. 8. =• Eph. 19. ■* Magn. 8.

' There is some jnstifiration for the descrij>tion of his theology as ' modalistic'
« Eph. 7. ' Ibid. 18. ** Ma^jn. 6.

122 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

partly ia a Inxity in tho use of terms due to eomo iiuliHlincl-
ness (rather th.iii iuaccurjicy) of theologicuil conception ; aiul
j>artly also iu the close eiiuilaiity in the Greek of the words
ingouerate or unbo^utton and uuoriginate or without origin.
The doubling of a single letter changes the latter into the
former, which Ignatius wrote, though he really meant the latter.
l>y clas.sical writers the distinction was always observed, but iu
Christian writings the one woid 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 liis 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 cliastity and
temperance abide in Jesus Christ both in the flesh and in the
spirit ",2 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. e. Ti-yph. 5 and 8. The words iu question are dyhriro^ and
ayivvTjTos. Against the argument that tlie interdiange of the words is due to clerical
eiTor in the uianuscript.s — the v being wrongly repeated or omitted, see I.ightfoot
J(/iuUius vol. ii p. 90. Lightfoot points to the discussion by Athanasiub in 359 {de
Syn. 46, 47 on the meaning of ofioo^ixios) of the twofold sense of dyii>i>7)roi — (1) that
which exists but was ndt generated and has no originating cause, and (2) that which
is uncreate. In the latter sense the word is aii[>Iicalile to the Son, in the fornirr it
is not ; and so he says both uses are found in the Fathers, and therefore apparently
contradictory language may be orthodox, a different sense of the word being in-
tended. [In the other passages referred to by Lightfoot, de Deer. 28 and Or. c. Jr.
i 30 (written earlier c. 350-355 and c. 357-358), it seems certain, as he implies, that
the word under discussion is dyfVTjTov. So Robertson insists that in the later passcage
{de Syn. 46, wiitten in 359) Athanasius wrote dyepijros, not dyewi^Tos. See his
note 'Athanasius' N. and P-N.F. p. 475.] Properly dyevrp-os denies oiigin, and so
maintains eternal existence : while dyew-qros 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 yevvrjrdv, but not yePTp-ds ("begotten, rot ha\ang come
into being ") ; and when the Arians tried to confuse the issue, saying the two words
were the same, they were told that this was so only in the case of creatures, not in
regard to God (Epiph. adv. Haer. Ixiv 8). In this way the Father only was dyew-qrot,
but the orthodox had no liking for the phrase and were disposed to retort upon the
Arians that it was unscriptural (Epiph. adv. Hae.r. Ixxii 19). When, however, the
fear of Arianism had passed, it became a convenient terra by which to exjtress the
relation between the Father {dyivvi\To%) and the Son {yivvi]rh%^ but not yivriroi) —
Lightfoot I.e.

2 Eph. 10, 20.

THE LOGOS DOCTRINE 123

The Letter to Diognetv.s

The writer of tlie 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 Euler 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 faithfully
keep, from whom the sun received the measure of the courses
of the day to keep, whose bidding to give light by night the
moon obeys, whom the stars obey as they follow the 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, the earth and the things in the earth, the sea
and the things in the sea, fire, air, the void, the things in the
heights, the things 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 passage
as this, addreosed to a heathen, a Stoic philosopher, 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 immanent
relations of the Logos and the Father in the inner being of the
Godhead.

' Ep. ad Diognetum vii-x.

124 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Justin Martyr

A much moro systematic treatmont of the doctrine is foimd
in the writings of the Greek Apologists. Justin Martyr, in the
Bialofjiie with Trypho,^ gives deliberate expression to the chief
conceptions in cle^r view of the objections to them from the
monotheistic standpoint.

He insists that Christians really hold monotheism inviolate
and yet recognize true deity in Ciirist. 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 Father'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 this 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.

^ See esp. ch. 61 — Otto's edition.

- This when argning that it was to him personally that the words "Let us make
man " were addressed.

' It is uncertain here and frequently throughout the Dialogue whether Justin
wrote the word meaning 'come into being' or the word 'be bom' {i.e. yevrp-bs or
ytvvtp-bi), 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. 1 22 n. 1 .

THE LOGOS DOCTRINE 125

But though Justin, with the other Greek Apologists, may be
«aid 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,^ and those who, before liis 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 hved 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
length 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, the whole Logos
appeared, and fully revealed the Father so that all might know
Him. It is in this fact that the newness and the greatness of
the revelation in Christ are seen. And so Christ, the first-born
of all creation, has become also the beginning (the principle) of

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

- Cf. Apol. ii 13 : 6 airepfiariKbs deios X670S, It was the seed of the implanted
word that enabled them to see clearly realities (cf. ii 8).

^ He names among others Socrates and Heracleitiis and Abraham and Elijah.

* That Justin fully recognized the humanity of Christ, and asserted it strongly
against Docetic tendencies, is patent. The Logos was made man (Dial. c. Tryph.
102, \6yos avopdideis). The question has, however, been raised— Did he recognize a
human soul in Christ ? There is no doubt he speaks of auixa, \6yos, and ^vxri (body,
Logos, soul) as the constituents of his person, and he uses \pvxv in the sense of ypvxv
AXoyoi, the animal principle, — so that it might be inferred from this phrase that
he regarded the Logos as taking the place of the human (rational) soul or spirit or
mind. But he may have used the popular division of man into ' body and soul '
rather than the more precise and technical threefold division into aiofia, ^vxv,
TTVfO/jia. There is, however, nothing to shew that the question had ever presented
itself to Justin's thought. All that can certainly be maintained is that he regarded
the manhood of Christ as complete and would not have consciously used expressions
which were inconsistent therewith.

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

120 CHRISTIAN DUC^IRINK

anotlier race, — the race wliich is born aguin by him through
water and faith and wood (the tree), wliich jMjsacsscis tlie secret
of the cross.^ Those who arc thus prepared beforoliand and
repent for their sins will escape (bo acquitted in) the judgonient
of God which is to come.

Tntian

Tatian was, both as his ]»upil and in thought, closely con-
nected witii .lu.slin. In his defence of Christian doctrine To
(he Greeks^ 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, wlio 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 (virecrTrjaev, subsisted). By the simple will of
God 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 Tartavoi/ irpb%
EXXijxas. The text of Otto is followed (but see ed. Schwartz).

^ V ^PXV — 'beginning', and also first cause or guidin<^ governing principle.

* Svva/Ms. The conception is tliat the Logos was not actually, but only poten-
tially, existent (dvvdfiei not ivepyeiq.).

^ i] viruffraffis — "that wliich makes things what they ai-e and gives being or
reality to them." See on the Correspondence of the Dionysii p. 116. All things
were potentially in Him.

® " The part of olKovofiia ", 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 potentiality
of the Father, has not made Him who has begotten him destitute
of Logos. For I myself speak and you hear, and T 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 in
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 for
the work which is assigned him.

TheopMlus

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 fortli ' : — He begat him as " proceeding, first-born of all
creation ; not himself being made empty of the Logos, but

* The twofold sense of \lyyo^, reason and the expression of it in speech, must be
borne in mind ; but the dominant thought in this passage is of the outward
expression.

^ His Defence of Christianity ad Autolycum, see esp. ii 10 and 22.

3 The Triad named is " God and his Word and his Wisdom ", of which the three
days which passed before the lights in the firmament of heaven were created are said
to be types.

* ivSiadfzoi and tfpo^opiKbs. The use of these terms is of Stoic origin, marking
the two senses of X67oy {reasmi and word), so mental and vttercd or proiiouitcaK
As representing two aspects of the same truth the use is recognized, but neither
term isolated fi-om the other would be accurate.

128 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

begetting IjOgos and continually consorting with his Tjogoa".'
The lA)g(>8 is clearly regarded as the medium for the Futhor'.^
work in the world and among men. Always with Cod, he i.s
the jn-ineiple of all things. The Father Himself cannot be
ctinUiiued in space — but the Logos can ; and so he assumed in
the world the part '^ of the Father — the Lord of all.

The Distinction of the Logos from the Father cosmic rather

than hypostatic

Neither Justin nor Tatian nor Theophilus, accordingly,
woidd 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
(oua-ui), 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 whicli
this criticism of the Apologists may fairly be accepted have
been already noted at the outset.^

Athenagoras : ?ois fuller recognition of the conditions to he

accounted for

Tn AtheuHgoras is found a clearer view of the personal
existence of the Logos (or the Sou) 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 Cliristians, 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
(ev(i)cn<;) of all these and the distinction {Biaipeai<;) of the

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

^ The word used is irp6<T(airov. * 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 ".2 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 ' {Kocrjios:), 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.

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

^ Ltg. 12 (for Son he writes Trats). The best edition of Athenagoras is that of
E. Schwartz, Leipzig 1891 (Textc und Uiitersuchunrjen iv Bd. 2 Heft).

^ Leg. 10. So "who would not be perplexed", he writes, "to hear described as
'atheists' men who believe in God the Father and God the Son and the Holy Spirit,
and declare their power in unity and their distinction in order"; and again, "the
Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son by unity and power of the Spirit"
(the conception expressed by the later temi Trepix'^/"?"'") see infra p. 226 n. 2).

- Ibid. The terms are t'S^a and ivip-y€i.a — the latter being the actualization of the
former.

l.U) CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

of the parly Church. It iR unnecessary here to enlarge on the
importance of the various ]»artH ho played. Hie thought was no
tlouht mainly moulded hy 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 ct)existence 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 Reason 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. Haer. v 5 and 25 ff.,
ed, Harvey).

* See Loot's Leitfaden* 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, ApoUonius, and other Montanist writers, whose names
are unknown), and as the home of a special theology, of which he notes the follow-
ing characteristics : — (a) The clear recognition of the distinction between the Old
and the New Testaments, {b) The concern to make Christ the centre to which the
whole history of the divine olKovofila converges, (c) The appearance of modalism
which resulted from the close connexion of its Christology with the popular con-
ception that Christ had brought perfect knowledge of God (the revelation of Christ
— the revelation 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 ^vith 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.

" The generation from eternity, whereby the Godhead exists both as Father and
as Son in itself ; and afterwards the generation in time, when the Son became man,
being 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 suflered 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 fuUilment 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 which 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 checked. 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

i;52 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

leacliing this consunimnlion are offered to individuals in the
institution of the Sacraments of Baptism (which gives for-
giveness of sins) and the Lord's Supper (partaking of the
Eucharist our bodies no longer are corruptihle but have the
hope of the resurrection), — but tliere 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 wlio afterwards should see him with the eye of faith —
" They who see God will partake of life. It was for this reason
that the infinite and incomprehensible and invisible offered 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-
prehensible 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
communion with God ; for this is man's glory — to preserve 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 ^ionditioned
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 adi: Haer. iv 34. 7 {ed. Harvey). ^ Ibid, iv 34. 6.

^ Credere autem ei est facere ejus voluntatem {ibid, iv 11. 3).

* Hid. I.e. and iv 34.

^ Ibid, iv 25. 1 {ed. Harvey). Haniack finds in Irenaeus tAvo 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
redemption was only effected by the appearance of Christ. But these two ideas are
part of the stock — the very root — of all Christian thought.

« E.g. in the Epistle to the Ephesians l^' 3".

THE LOGOS DOCTRINE 133

The thought aud teaching of Clement of Alexandria is in
several ways closely akin to his, and comparison of the one with
the other is instructive. Clement's travels before he went to
Alexandria had taken him to gi-ound familiar to Irenaeus 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.

The cliaracteristics of the Alexandrine school are clearly
marked in Clement, one of its chief representatives. 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."
But 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 himself." *

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 he has is the same as the being
of God the Father.^ He is the ultimate beginning (cause or

' C. Bigg Tlie Christian FlatonlsiH of Alexandria ch. iii p. 98 f.

" "One must assume ", says Harnack, "that the word [Homoousios] was really
familiar to Clement as a designation of the community of nature both with God
and with men, possessed hy the Logos." He certainly wrote {Strom, iv 13) with

1;M CHRIS I I an nOCTRlNIi

principle) of all tliinyn tliut arc, himself without hej^iimiug (or
origination). He is author of the world, the source of light and
life, in a sense himself at the head of the series of created l)eings,
but, by reason of his divine being, specifically dillbrent from
them. He is the interpreter of the Father's attributes, the
manifestation of the truth in person, the educator of the human
race,^ who at last became man to make men ]»ar takers of his
own divine nature.

That Clement thus held clearly u distini^tinn between the.
Logos and the Father need not be argued. The real question
which wills for consideration is wh(^ther 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 Tlod (the Logos
immanent), and the Sou - 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, but 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 doctriue of a peculiar race sent 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.ff.
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 Harnack {DG. Eng. 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'^os
irpo(popiKbs ;is applied 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 higher
X670S ivbi.d.6eroi and the lower X670J irpo<popiK6s.

THE LOGOS DOCTRINE 135

Clement's great trilugy — the conception of tlic Logos, one and
the same, from the beginning to the end of things, drawing men
to faith, training them, iiad 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.^

^ Tlie prologue to the Exhortation to the Greeks is really quite decisive —

The Word is the harmonious, melodious, holy instrument of God {Exhortation

to the Greeks i).
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. He 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 tlie 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 plainly calls to salvation.
The teacher from whom all instruction comes {ibid. xi).

And Clement puts these words into the mouth of Jesus, the one great High
Priest of the one God his Father— -an appeal to men, "Come to Me, that you may
be put . . . under the one God and the one Word of God ... I confer on you
both the Word and the Knowledge of God, my complete self. . . . This am I . . .
this is the Son, this is Christ, this the Word of God ... I will give you rest "
{ibid, xii ad Jin.).

Our Instructor is like His Father God , . . God in the form of man . . . the
Word wlio is God, who is in the Father {Pacd. i 2).

"The good Instructor . . . the Word of the Father, who made man . . . the
Saviour . . . 'Rise up' he said to the paralytic " {ibid.).

"One alone, true, good, just, in the image and likeness of the Father, His Son
Jesus, the Word of God, is our Instructor " {ibid. xi).

"The Word Himself is the manifest mystery : God in man and the man God.
And the Mediator executes his Father's will : for the Mediator is tlie Word, who is
common to both— the Son of God, the Saviour of men : His Servant, our Teacher "
{ihid. iii 1).

130 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINK

There arc fn-qnent reft'iences to tlio Sou being what ho is
and exorcising the functions lie exercifes 'by the will' and
'according to the will' of the Father, but they are obviouHly
intended rather to safeguard the authority of tlio Father than
to limit the power of the Son. Such jjhruKes do not iniply
any non-Catholic conception of the subordination or ' inferiority '
of the Son to the Father. Tliey 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 soiuce
than the very essence of the divine.^

The influence 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 lal)our8,
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-
gi-aphical 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 Figypt 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 I^gos 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 light
. . . 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",
but this is said to shew that "being the Father's power, he easily prevails in what
he 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 background of theological thought. The main ideas liad
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 ie
familiar.

So the conception of the Souship 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 Tovl.ullian Uiat wc first find tlio accurate definition and
teclmical terms that passed over into Catholic theology, winning
prom]>t acceptance in tlie West and seeming — 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 efifectively 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 so 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 cliief opponent of the
modalisti?. form of Monarchianism, which he understood to
mean that the Fatlier Himself suffered ; and it was uuder 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 wa.s a dominant influence in the West. So it was Ter-
tuUian's doctrine that Dionysius of Rome pressed on his namesake of Alexandria.

2 See Harnack DG. ii' p. 285 fr.(EDg. tr. vol. iv pp. 122, 123). But the passages
cited infra shew that the conceptions and expressions of Tertullian were by no
means entirely controlled by legal usage, and the philosophical sense of the terms
must also be bonie in mind.

188

TERTULLIAN 130

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
proprietas), 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 natiu'e. So too
there might be various kinds of ' substance ', each marked by
special characteristics or ' properties ' (in the sense of that wliich
is proper or peculiar to each) or ' nature ' (proprietas, natura).

Tlius, if these human analogies be applied 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 Roman law, there is nothing to hinder one
and the same person from holding at tlie 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

1 Melito {de Incara. Christi (Ronth Rel. i p. 121)) uses ovala as Tertullian uses
SHhstanCia in this connexion, and speaks in regard to Christ of rds 8vo avrov
ovfflas — the two realities, Godhead and manhood, v/hich were his.

' Tertullian seems, however, to avoid the use of the word persmia/: in this
connexion, usinpj trcs alone to express ' the three ', without adding ' persons ' in
the case of the Trinity ; just as later Augustine, while feeling compelled to speak of
three 'persons', apologized for the term and threw the responsibility for it on to
the poverty of the language {de Trlnifate v 10, ^^i 7-10 ; see infra). Tertullian
has the definite expression only when it cannot well be omitted — e.g. when support-
ing the doctrine of the Trinity from the baptismal commission, he writes " nam nee
semel, sed ter, ad singula uomina in personas singulas tinguimur " {adv. Prax. 26).

On the other hand, he has no scrapie about using the tenu persona of Jesus
Christ, both man and God — combining in himself the two subdantiaf, but one

140 CHRISTIAN DOrXKINK

regards the constitution of the peiBon of Christ of two sub-
sUinces and one person, lie being at once God and man {Dcils et
homo).

In this way the unity of the Godhead is strongly marked ;
it is one and the same divinity wliicli all three share alike.
This is " the mystery of the providential order wliich 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 (gradits), 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
powor, 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 TertuUian 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. Frax. 27 " Videmiis duplicem statum, non confusum. Bed con-
iunctuni in una persona, deum et hominem Jesum."

' Adv. Prax. 2. Trcs autem non statu sal gradu, nee substantia sed/orma, ntc
poicstaie sed speck. Apparently Ijy gradits (relation or degree) is meant " the order
whereby the Father exists of Himself, the Son goes forth immediately from the
Father, and the Holy Sjiirit 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 expressions formae and specifs
(forms and aspects) he seems to have meant to indicate the different modes of
subsistence {Tp6irovi virdp^eu^), whereby the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit
subsist in the same divine nature" (Bp. Bull Drf. N.C. ii, vii).

Between 'species' and 'forma' there is no perceptible difference, at least
Cicero {Op. 7, cited by Forcellini) says the same thing is signified by species as
by forma, which in Greek is ibia.

- Unam substautiam in tribus cohaerentibus {adv. Prax. 12).

^ De Anima 32. Similarly {adv. Prax. 26) he distinguishes between substantia
and the accidentia or proprietaies imiuscuiu^que suhstantiae.

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 who 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 different from the Father ". He speaks, it
is true, of the Father as being ' the whole substance ', while
the Son is ' a derivation from, and portion of, the whole ', and
so ' made less ' than the Father ; ^ but his only purpose is to
mark the distinction between them as real, and not as in-
volving diversity between them or division of the one substance.
The relation between them may be illustrated by human
analogies. The root produces (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 the offspring : they are two
things, but they are inseparably connected. The being of both,
is one and the same. That which proceeds, moreover, is second
to that from which it proceeds, and when you say ' second '

* See further Journal of Theological Studies vol. iii p. 292 and vol. iv p. 440.
« Adv. Prax. 4. 2 j^j^^ 5. ■» Ihid. 7. » Ibid. 9.

142 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

you say that then* are two. It i« in order to mark clearly
tho distinct i)ei-sonality of the Son that he calls him ' second '.
There is no suggestion or thouj^jlit of Hubordination, 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 conies from the shrub is third from the
root, and the rivei- which Hows 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 Fatlier is one, and
the Son other, and the Spirit yet other ; as he who g(3nerate8 is
other than he who is genenited, 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
with Him the Logos as His reason and word) is shewn by the
analogy of the operation of human thought and consciousness,*
and by His very name of Father — which implies the existence
of the Son ; 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. Prtxx. 8. Yet it is a 'trinUas unius dlvinitaiis'. See de Pvdicilia § 21.

- Adv. Prax. 26, and cf. ibid. 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 (unvji) ; as it was said, ' I and the
Father are One (unum) ', in regard to unity of substance, not in regard to singularity
of number."

3 Adv. Prax. 3. * JMd. 5. * 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 nom-ished, grew to man-
hood, spoke, taught, v/orked, 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.
But there was no kind of mixture ; each substance remained
distinct in its own characteristics — the Word was never any-

^ ' Homo deo mixtus. ' Tertullian did not mean that the two together made
a third thing. He expressly repudiates the conception, using the iUustratiou of
electrum, a compound of gold and silver, neither one nor the other (see adv. Prax.
27) ; and he emphasizes the distinct parts played by the divinity and the humanity
respectively as clearly as Leo himself (Ep. ad Flav.) more than two hundred years
later. But had lie lived in Leo's time he probably would not have used this phrase.
See infra p. 243 n. 3 and p. 247.

2 Adv. Prax. 27. Cf. also de Came Christi, esp. § 18, where he insists on the
distinct origin of the spirit and the flesh and discusses the interpretation of John 3*
as spoken by Christ of himself, shewing that each remains what it was.

144 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

tiling but GihI, Mio iK.'sii was never auyLliiiig but man. He vvlio
was Son of God as regards the K]»int was man and sou of
man. " Wo see ", he says, " the double status, the two not con-
fused but conjoined iu 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
atVairs, that i.s, the deeds of power and works and signs, . . .
and the flesh underwent its sulTerings, hungering in tlie instance
of the Devil (the Temptation), thirsting in the instance of the
Samaritan woman, weeping for I..{izaruK, sorrowful unto death ;
and finally it died." It is clear, he insists, that both substances
e.vercised their functions each by itself. Qua llesh 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 tliat 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 Iiaving 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 tlie Father
' suffered with ' the Son, on the main ground that in the divine substance (which
was all the Father and the Son had iu common) the Son himself did not suffer.
On the parts played by the two substances see also de Came Chrisli (§ 5),
where the doctrine of the commtinicatio idiomatum is expressed for the first
time.

^ Hamack (DO. 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 posse.ss 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 simply 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. Praz, which follows it (Harnack D&. Eng.
tr. vol. iv p. 122).

5 Cf. Hamack DG. Eng. tr. vol. ii p. 235. So Bull could write {Def. 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 ; he theie asserts the consubstanti-
alityofthe Son so frequently and so plainly, that you would suppose the author
had written after the time of the Nicene Council."

CHAPTER XI

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 mnch the know-
ledge of previous controversies may have stimulated his own
thought and aided to determine his exposition, he has the great
advantage over previous theologians that his work was not im-
mediately called forth by apologetic motives and the exigencies
(»f 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
ho'inincm ; he had perhaps some ooiter 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 the
Scriptures and the custom of the Church — but he put his own
mark upon it all and aimed at giving it his own expression.

' Hamack says we can clearly distinguish in the history of dogma three styles
of building, and names as the masters of these styles, Origen, Augustine, and the
Reformers {DG. i p. 10).

^ This seems to be the fact, although it is true that "his wiitings represent an
aspiration rather than a system, principles of researcli and hope rather than
determined formulas" (Westcott 'Origenes' D.C.B., an article of the highest
value. Cf. his Essay on Origen in Relirjious Thovghl in the West). See also
particularly C. Bigg The Christian Platonists of Ahxand/ria (Bam]iton Lectures,
1886), esp. pp. 152-192 ; but for the study of the conceptions of Origen the
I most helpful book is still perhaps that of Redcpenning, with its rich quotations
' from bis writings.

^ Cf. the aayiijg of Jerome, that in souic of his earlier treatises, written in the
immaturity of youth, Origen was ' like a boy playing at dice '.
lO 1^5

146 CHRISTIAN DOCTRIXR

ll is in his great writing Trcpt apx^*^^ {'f^ J'rhicijnis) that Hub
oxprossiou is chiclly to be found.'

Basing the wliole 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 tlie 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 pi-ovidence,
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-Christiau — philo-
sophers.

In his interpretation of the Christian revelation, accordingly,
Origen started from the philosophical conception, to which Plato
and the Neo-Platonists had given currency, of the One and the
Many. The One represents the only real existence, the Source
of all being: the Many represents the Universe with all its
varying 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 imderstood : 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

1 Besides the dc Principiis (228-231), the most important works in which his
theological teaching is set forth are the Comrnentaries on St John (228-238), the
C'oiUra Celsum (249), and the de OrcUione.

ORIGEN 147

ini])art Himself. Love cannot be thought of, except as giving.
(4oo(iness desires that all shall share in the hif^hest knowlcdfic.
And so there must be some medium, some channel, by which
He effects the revelation of Himself. As the 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 cannot 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 ouly iu connexion with the revelation of God that Oiigen conceives, or
at least expounds, the Trinity. God is goodness — the avrb ayaOov : He must there-
fore reveal Himself. Origen does not, as later on Augustine did, deriva the
essential Trinity from this conception of Love as the very being of the Godhead,
so that a plurality of Persons was a necessary inference from this main character-
istic. It is only the Trinity of revelation (God in relation to the world) that he
sets forth. See wfra pp. 204, 228.

^ See e.g. dc Princ. 1 2. 6.

^ Ibid, i 2. 2. "Let no one imagine that we mean anything impersonal. . . ,
The only-begotten Son of God is His wisdom existing as a hypostasis."

■* Pamphilus {Ajjology for Origen c. 5 tr. Rulinus) quotes him as using, iu his
Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, the very word 6fioov(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 ;
tor an effluence (aporrhoea) is evidently homoousios, that is, of one essence (sub-
stance) with the body of which it is an effluence or vapour." 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 good quality in him being essential 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 iire {ibid, ii 6. 6), and of
the statue {ibid, i 2. 8).

* "Who . . . can suppose 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). "Hi|) generation is as eternal and everlasting as the brilliance which is
produced from the sun" (i 2. 4 ; cf. i 2. 9) ; and "No one can be a fjither without
having a sou" (i 2. 10 ; cf. iv 28). And in Jcrcvi. Horn, ix 4, "The Father did
not beget the Son and let him go from the Source of his generation {and t?}?
ycvicTfus avTov, i.e. Himself the Father, — or perliaps 'after, or in consequence of,
his generation '), but He is always begetting him (deJ yevvq. aOrdv)."

148 CHRISTIAN l)( KVIKINI-:

tiuuous timeless jirucess Llmt brings the idea of tlio generaUou
of the Sou, wliiih earlier thinkers had expresHed, into the sphere
of living reality. It eeases to be an act in time, and becomes
an action outside time — living and moving .and real. It is
f Origen's chief permanent coutril)ution to the doctrine of the
Person of (.'hrist.

Th(? Stin is iiidceil said to be begoLlen oi" or by the will of
the Father *- -but within the being of the Father no contradiction
could be thought of — His will is of His very essence. And so,
though there shoidd be an act of will, there would he also an
inner necessity for it, and the Son woidd be equally truly said
to be begotten of the essence of the Father.'-^

The function of revelation is also exercised by the Holy
Sjiirit,^ who is the most exalted of all the beings that have
come into existence through the Logos.*

These three existences together constitute the Trinity, which

' E.g. dc Frinc. i 2. 6, "who is born of Him, like an act of His will proceeding
from the mind ".

- Loofs {Lcitfadai? p. 125) sets in antithesis various i)hraH(w, extracted from
ditlerent contexts, to shew the .subordinate rank of the Son in relation to the Father.
The Father alone is ay^wrjros {dc Princ. i 2. 6 ; m Joh. 2"), the Son in relation to
Him a Kria/xa. [Justinian is the only authority for the assertion that Origen styled
the Son a KzlapM. Origen certainly never meant it in any Arian sense.]

The Father is avrbdeos and oKiidivb^ deds (in Joh. 2'), the Son is de^npos
0e6^ (c. Cels. 5. 39) and A^tos rrjs oevTepevoJLiffrjs fura, rbv debv tup SKwv rifXTJs (ibid.
7. 57).

The Father is iirapaWdKTus ayadbs, the Son is eiKuv &ya66rt)TOi rod 0eov, dXX'
ovK aifToayadbs (dc Princ. i 13). [But this antithesis must be corrected by reference
to de Princ. i 2. 10 and ii 6. 5, 6.]

The Father is 6 6{6%, the Son is debs (in Joh. 2^), and prayer should be made to
the Fathci only (de Oral. 15). [But nevertheless the Son is equally with the
Father an object of worship, Father and Son being two actualities rp viroTrdaei,
but one in unanimity and harmony and sameness of purpose (c. C'cls. 8. 12). So
worship is offered to Christ as he Ls 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.)J

In the case of such a writer as Origen it is jieculiarly dangerous to isolate
particular phra.ses : — 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 general scope and proportion is not to be misconceived. (Ci^.
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 obtained by revelation of
the Son through the Holy Spirit", but "we are not to suppose that the Spirit
derives his knowledge through revelation from the Sou ". He has the .same know-
ledge and, just like the Son, reveals it to whom he mil.

* See Comm. in Joh. i 3 and infra p. 202.

ORIGEN 149

ill its real inner being transcends all thought — essentially of
one Godhead, eternal and co-equal.^

But in manifestation to the created universe a dilTerence
Ijetvveeu 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 things 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 ; and tlie 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 earl 6e6<;), and his co-eternity with the Father (ael
yevvaTai o acorrjp viro tov irarpo';) : 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 (vTrepo^n) 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, nihil in triuitate niajus 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 Prviic. i 34 and iv 28.

- De Princ. i 3. 5, Gk. fr. Cf. Athanasius ad Scrap, 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 Oratione 15 : 'irepos /car' owlav Kal viroKel/jLevou tov Trarpi^ — oiKxia being
used in its primary sense of particular or individual existence.

•• Bigg {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 entirely upon the words of Jesus, 'My
Father is greater than I ', ' that they may know Thee the only true God ', ' None is
Good save One'. The dominant text in Origen's mind was the last. Hence lie
limits the relativity to the attribute to which it is limited by Christ himself. The
Son is Very Wisdom, Very Righteousness, Very Truth, perhaps even Very King ;
l)ut not Very Goodness. He is Perfect Image of the Father's Goodness, but not the
Absolute Good, tliough in regard to us he is the Absolute Good. . . . Where he
pronounces his real thought, the difference between the Persons is conceived not as

ir>0 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

The 8i)L'cial aliinity m whieli tho Sou stands to rational
l>eiug8 establishes the litiicss of the Incjirnatiou, aud through
the human soul * the divine Logos was united with the man
Christ Jesus — perfect nmnhood, subject to the conditions of
natural growth, and perfect divinity becoming one m him, while
each nature still remains distinct. To describe this unity he
was the tirst to use the compound word God-Mun {QedvOpwjTo'i),
and the relation between the two natures was expressed by the
image of the tire aud the iron, when the tire heats and pene-
trates the ii'on so that it becomes a glowiug mass, and yet its
character is not altered — the fire and the metal are oue, but 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, aud 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, Ijut as modal simply. The Sou qua Son is inferior
to the Father qua Father. ... He could not, he dared not, shrink back where tlie
Word of Gtod 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
daimtless spirit these words of the Master seemed to be not a scandal but a flash
of light."

^ See de Princ. 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. In-espeetive 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
Chiist. See de Princ. ii 6. 3, 5, where he exjtlains 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 fm-ther on this point infiu Ai^ollin-
arianism p. 242, and Note p. 247.

2 See de Princ. ii 6. 6. The human soul is the iron, the Word is the fire which
is 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. 3).

ORIGEN 151

absolutely in Christ is to be fuKilled in due measure in eacli
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 nature.^

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 realize 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 the great controversy which

^ Westcott {I.e.), who refers {for the statements in this paragraph) to c. Cels.
iv 3 f., 15 ; vi 68 ; iii 79 ; ii 64 ; iv 15 ; vl 77 ; iii 28 ; iii 17. On his theory of
the atonement see iTtfra p. 337.

- The matter cannot be better put than it was by Bp. Bull Def. N.C. ii, ix § 22
(Oxford translation): "In respect of the article of the divinity of the Son and
even of the Holy Trinity, [Origen] was yet really catholic ; although in his mode of
explaining tliis article he sometimes expressed himself otherwisu tlian Catholics of the
present day are wont to do ; but this is common to him with nearly all the Fathers
who lived before the Council of Nice." Cf. also Harnack DO. Eng. tr. vol. ii ji. 374 :
"To Origen the highest value of Christ's person lies in the fact that the Deity has
here condescended to reveal to us the trholc fulness of his essence. ..."

162 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

hroke out early in tJic ftillowiiig ciuit.iiry — were rather with th(
Ariniis than with tluMr ojiponcnits.

ORIGKMSTIC THEOLOGY AND CONTROVERSIES

Amoiij^ the special ninccpLions aiul thcones of Origen, which led at
a later time to his contleiunation a.s heretical (apart from miscoiiceptiun
of his doctrine of the Trinity), are these. Moral evil is negative, a state
from which good is ahsent, rather than a positive active force. AH
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 ia
the moral continuity of being. 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 Methcxlius,
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
Methodius first, and then Eustathius of Antioch, and ApoUinarius, and
Theophilus.)

The attack of course produced defenders. Chief among the champions,
who included his successors Pierius and Theognostus, were Pamphilus
and t^usebius 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 153

faith — see Zahn Mareellus p. 55fl'.)j 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 be taken as the real sentiment of
the 'labour-loving' man (de Deer. 27 ; of. ad Scrap, iv 9 if.), 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 Il^yssa 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 Kufinus, and led to the condemna-
tion of Origen by Anastasius, Bishop of Rome (though probably not at
a formal synod), after Eufinus 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 teaching,
and Leo the Great regarded him as justly condemned, at least for his
doctrine of the pre-existence 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 monks of Palestine, and
about the years 541-543 he Avas again condemned by a synod of bishops
held at Constantinople (the ' Home ' Synod), in obedience to the rescript
of the Emperor Justinian, who had drawn up an elaborate statement

ir>4 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

of hie errors, a refutation of tlu>ui, and anathemas on all his followorfi
(Hahn^ p. 227). WhcthtM- tlii.'- « I'lidi'mnotion was or was not miowcil at
the Fifth (Joneral Council whi«li met in 553 cjinuot be dotcnuinoil. The
lK>lief that it was has prevailed from an early date, and he is included
among other heretics in the eleventh of the anathemas ascribed to the
Council (llalui" p. 16S), l)ut there is some reason to think that the name
is a later insertion, and no direct evidence that his opiniims were con-
sidered on that oc<'asion. In any case, thoufjh the ideas of Origen have
found supporters in all ages, Ori^^'cnists asa party were cllcctually stamped
out. [See A. W. W. Dale 'Origenistic Controversies' D.C.B., and C.
Bigg cyy, c. pi>. 273-280.]

CHAPTER XII

The Akian Contkoveksy

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 adheients for a time,
the communis sensus fidelium had rejected in the end any that —
when tested by fuller experience of their significance — were seen
to be inconsistent with the principles which were involved in the
ancient faith and institutions of the Church.

But when, at the beginning of the fourth century, persecu-
tion ceased, and the Church won peace and protection from the
State, the ordinary course of developement was interrupted. Tlie
influence of pagan conceptions was felt with fresh force within
the Church, and victories which seemed to have been already
achieved had to be fought for and secured again. No sooner

156

ir.G CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

luid outwanl ponce from pers(^eution been won than llie inwaid
ponce of the Church was shattered by the outbreak of the Arian
controversy. It was in and round this controversy tluit all the
forces of the old religions and philosoj)IiieH of the vvoild were
massed in the elVort to dieUite an iuLerpreLation of the Christian
revelation which would have nullihed 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, tlie Western Church was never
in such doubt, and Arianism never gained such hold in tlie
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.^

AriiLS and his 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, 1st ed. 1882, 2nd ed. 1900, and The Aricm Controversy in the
series ' Epochs of Church History '.

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 157

ception, and in sonnd 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 devclopement of the doctrine of the Person of
Christ up to the time of Arius is given by Professor Gwatkin {Studies of Arianism
\\ 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 tliis God in Jesus Christ — the Incarnation and the Resurrection.
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 fixed 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
interpretation 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 aixl the Father. By the fourth
centm-y 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 Sabellianism with its oecouomic Trinity, satisfied the conditions of the
problem. So it was necessary to revise the idea of divine personality and to
acknowledge not three individuals but three eternal aspects of the Divine, in its
inward relations as well as in its outward relations to the world (that is, three
eternal modes of the divine being, God existing always in three spheres). But this
was just what the heathen could least do. 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 aspects (Tr/socrwTra) of the One ; and
the Arian Trinity of One increate and two created beings). Insistence on the Lord's
divinity was leading back to polytheism. The fundamental idea of God at the back
ol all must be rectified before the position was secure.

^ The extant writings of Arius are few — a letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia (Theo-
doret H.E. i 4 or 5), a letter to his bishop, Alexander (Epiph. adv. Uaer. Ixix, and
Ath. dc Syn. 16), extracts from the Thalia (Ath. Or. c. Ar. i, ii, and de Syn. 15),
and a Creed (Socr. H.E. i 26, and Soz. H.E. ii 27). Asterius seems to be
regarded by Athanasius (see Or. c. Ar. i 30-33, ii 37, iii 2, 60, and dr Deer. Syn.
JVic. 8, 28-31) as the chief literary representative of Arianism (for his history see
Gwatkin, p. 72, note), but we have only quotations from his writings in the works
of Athanasius and in Eusebius Caes. contra Marcellum (who had written against
Asterius). Philostorgius, a Eunornian, of Cappadocia (c. 368-430), ^^•^ote a history
in twelve books of the time from tJie appe;irancc of Arius to the year 423, in which
lie defended Arianism as l)eing the original form of Christianity. Of this there arc
extant many short pieces and one long passage (see Migue P.G. Ixv 459-638). The
letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia to Paulinus (Theodoret H.E. i 5) is of importance.

158 CHRISTIAN nOCTRlNK

To be inc'lu<b'd in his theory there was God, and the Son of (Jod,
and the Son liad to be accoiintod 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 liim
wjis the ' simplicity' — the singleness — of God, as being absolutely
One and transcendent, far-otl", unknown, inaccessible, and incom-
municable, hidden in eternal mystery and separated by an inHnitc
chasm from men. God willed to create the world ; but in virtue
of 1 1 is nature he could not directly create the material universe,
and so He created the Logos for the )»urpose as His Son. (This was
the reason for his existence.) The Son of God is therefore before
time and the world, independently of the Licarnation, and distinct
from the 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 fatheihood there is priority of existence
of the Father ; therefore in regard to the Father and the Son
there is such priority of existence of the Father. Therefore
once there was no Son. Tlicreforc he must at some time,
however remote, have been brought into being.

For the refutation of Arianism proper tlic writings of Atliauasius are of peculiar
importance (a useful summary of the teaching of Arius in the letter of Alexander on
the Synod of 321 in the tract — probably composed by Athauasius — called the
De^msitio Arii ; see also the letter of Alexander in Theodoret H.S. 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 Anomoeans see Basil's five
(? three) books against Eunomius, and Gregory of Nyssa's twelve, written 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 statement of what Arius himself .said of his own conceptions, sec
his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, his ' fellow- Lucianist ', the ' truly pious '
(etVe^Tjs), 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 uube-
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 unbegotten. We are persecuted
because we say that the Son has a begiiming, but that God is without beginning, . . .
and likewise, because we say that he is of the non-existent. And this we say because
lie is neither part of God, nor of any essential being." In this phrase there is no
doubt reference to the notion supposed to be contained in the term ofiooijcnos of some
ovaia prior to Father and Son — a tertium 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 tlie isolation and 8])irituality of
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 hyjjothesi 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 objcolion. So, for example, Justin wrote Kara
TT)V Tov irarpbs ndvTuiv koI deffirLrov deoO ^ovXtjv dia irapOivov ivOpwiroi aTreKir^dri
{Apol. i 46), and used similar expressions (Dial. c. Tryiili. 63, 85) ; Origen, see
siipra p. 148 ; and Novatian (less accurately) ' ex quo {sc. the Father), quando ipse
voluit, sermo tilius natus est'. Cf. the Creed in the Apostolic Constitutions vii 41 —
rbv wpb alwvup evdoKla tov warpos yevvrjOevTa. 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
description. See further additional note p. 194.

' A typical instance of Arian logic seems to be furnished by Asterius in this
connexion. He wrote a ti-act (see Ath. Oj: c. Ar. i 30-33) of which the main
thesis apparently was that there could not be two ayivTjTa. He then defined
dy4vTiTov as rb /at; iroirjBev dW del 6v, and jiroceeded to argue that as the Father
alone was dyevrfrov it was to Him alone that the descrijition ov TroirjOiv dXX' del ov
applied. That description was thus not true of the Son ; and tlierefore as it was not
true to say of him ' not made but always (eternally) existent ', he must have been
made and have come into existence at some remote period.

The formula dyivriTov, as sounding more philosophical and having traditional
sanction, became a plausible substitute for the original phrases of the Arians when
they were diiven from ' out of nothing ' and ' once he was not '. See Ath. de Deer.
28, and Or. c. Ar. i 32. And so objection was taken on the part of their opponents
to any such use of the words dyivrjTov and y(vr)Tov — e.g. by Athanasius de Deer. 31 :

I(i0 CHRISTIAN DOCTKlNli

into existence before liuic ' and before all otliur creatures, and
not like other creatures (inasmuch as they wore 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 beinj; of the Father, he must be subject to
the vicissitudes of created beings, and so he mu.st 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 he\\) of grace and be kept sinless by his own virtue and tlie
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 worsliip.
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 Imman 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 l)ia\', say, God Unorigiuated ', but rather when
ye pray, say, 'Our Father, which art in heaven'." And "He bade us be baptized,
not iuto the name of Unoriginate and Originate, not into the name of Uucreate and
Creature, but into the name of Father, Sou, and Holy Spirit" — thougli at the same
time it is of course allowed that the term Unoriginate does admit of a religious use
{ibui. 32).

' For this reason they were careful to say only ' there was once when he was not'
{ftv TTore 5x6 o{jk Tiv), and not ' there was a linic when he was not'. Cf. their phrase
dxp<5i'ws 7rp6 irdvTUf yevvrjOeis (Ath. clc Synod. 16).

- The Logos took the place of the human rational soul, the mind, or spirit. Sec
in/ra on the Human Soul of Christ p. 247.

* 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 met,aphor
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. Ea^th metaphor must be limited by the other.

The title Son may obviously imply later origin and a distinction amounting to
ditheism. It Ls balanced by the other title Logos, which implies co-eternity and
inseparable union. Neither title exhausts the relations. Neither may be pressed
80 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 leginning of
his loays for his vjorks, before time (the age) he founded me in the
heginning . . . before all hills he begets me. On this passage we
have the comments of Eusebius of Nicomedia in his letter to
Paulinus (Theodoret ff.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-Lo), 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 Father'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
sous, and they set me at nought ' (Isa. 1^), and ' Thou hast
forsaken the God who begat thee'(Deut. 32^^); and in other

* Among the chief passages to which they appealed were these : — For the unity
of God, Deut. 6^ Luke 18>9, John 17=' ; for the nature of the Sonship, Ps. 45»,
Matt. 1228, 1 Cor. l^* ; for the creation of the Logos, Prov. 8=3 (LXX), Acts 2=*,
Col. 1^*, Heh. 3^ ; for his moral growtli and developement (ttpo/cotpt}), Luke 2'-,
Matt. 26^«'-, Heb. S*- », Phil. 2^"-, Heb. l"* ; for the possibility of change (t6 rpeirrSi-)
and imi)erfection of knowledge, Mark 13^, John 11** 13^' ; for his inferiority to the
Father John 14=8, ^att. 27^«. (Cf. Matt. 11=7 26»» 28'*, John 12^, 1 Cor. 15=«.)

162 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

places it says, ' Who is he that begat the drops of dew ? '
(Job SS-'^), not inii)lying 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, tliat 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 the 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^, IVho is tJie image of the invisible {unseen) God
7rp(OTuT0K0<; Trda-T}^ KTiaeca. If the last three words were isolated,
their meaning might be doubtful, and it might be supposed
that the irpwroroKO'; (first-born) was included in the iraaa KTtai'i
(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 TrpcoroTOKo^ does not himself belong to the
KTiav<i. 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 ' {avTo<; earcv
TTp'o Trdvroiv). It would also be inconsistent with many other
passages in St Paul.^

^ See Liglitfoot's note ad loe. He argues that the word is doubtless used with
reference to the title irpuT6yoi>os given to the X^vos 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 Messiah in the Old Testament (Ps. 89^), implying that
he was the natural ruler of God's household with all the (Hebrew) rights of primo-
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
the 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 I-nUrnaMonal Critical Cora-
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 14^8, My Father is greater than I. . . . This
saying 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 (1)j. 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 Outbreak of the Controversy a,nd 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 Origen'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. Theodoret {H.E. i 2)
says Arius was disappointed in his expectation of succeeding to the bishopric. He
was certainly not free from intellectual vanity. He probably thought the teaching
of Alexander unsound and Sabellian, and perhaps attacked it as such. But it may
have been his own teaching that aroused opposition. (Controversy in the fourth
century was not trammelled by rules of courtesy to opponents, and Athanasius
himself describes the Arians as madmen, or fanatics, and enemies of God and
of Christ, and — frequently in allusion to scriptural similes — as dogs, lions, wolves,
chameleons, cuttlefish, leeches, gnats, hydras. See also the Historia Arianwum of
Athanasius.) Many of the same ideas, and the same terms and texts, are found
current and matter of controversy in the middle of the third century. See the
Corresiiondence between the Dionysii supra p. 113, and the extracts in Ath. de
Deer. 25-27.

^ "It is not clear that Lucian of Antioch was heretical "—Gwatkin Studies of
Arianism^ -p. 17. It will be borne in mind that the style of exegesis at Antiocli
was literal, and that the Lucianists thought that logic could settle everything.

1G4 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINK

to its churacter. Tho hiHhop, Alexander, seems to have been at
first conciliatory ; Imt Anna was convinced that ho was right
and would not yield. Persviaaion and arfj;unieiit havinj.^ failed, a
synod was sumiuoned in 321, and Ariua was depoKcd from hin
olUce. He enlisted support, however, both in Ej^ypt and farther
alield — especially from fellow-pupils in tho school of Lucian,
many of whom occupied positions of power and inlluence. In
particular, he won the sympathy of Eusebius,^ bishop of the
capiUil, Nicomedia, and high in the emperor's favour, who called
a Council at Nicomedia, and issued letters to the binhops in
support of Arius. Many of the 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 Chuxch 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.

^ Cf. the letter of Arius to him (Theodoret H.E. i 4), and his letter to Paulinus
of Tyre {iJnd. i 5— or 5 and 6).

* This is the treatise known as the Depositio Arii among the writings of
Athanasius. It is described by Robertson ('Athanasius' Nicene a-nd Post-Nicene
Fathers vol. iv) as the germ of all the anri-Arian writings of Athanasius.

' The bishops assembled numbered three hundred and eighteen, about one-sixth
of the whole body of bishops. The Coimeil lasted about three months.

THE ARIAN CONTROVI-RSY 16o

The Council of Nicaea and Us 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 status 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.^

^ To this ' middle ' pariy the name ' Conservatives ' has been given. The label
is a useful one, and true in the sense explained above ; but it is capable of
misleading, 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 uncompromising adversaries were the tme Conservatives. This
became quite clear in the course of the controversy, while many of the ' middle '
party at Nicaea leant more and more towards the Arian side. It is therefore only
in this limited sense, and with this temporary application, that the description holds.

^ Eusebius, c. 260-340, a native of Palestine, probably of Caesarea, spent his
early life at Caesarea, where he was fortunate in the friendship of the presbyter
Panjphilus, who left to him his great collection of books. At the time of the
Council he was beyond question the most learned man and most famous living
writer in the Church (Lightfoot, Art. D.C.B., q.v.). His teaching may fairly be
taken as representing the prevailing doctrine of the Trinity and the Person of
Christ, which made it possible for many to vacillate between Subordinationism and
Sabellianism, and shewed the need for more precise definitions. Dorner describes
his doctrinal system as a chanieleou-hued thing — a mirror of the unsolved problems
of the Church of that age. It was the Arian controversy which compelled men to
enter for the first time on a deeper investigation of the questions (see Dorner Person
of Clirist Eng. tr. div. i vol. ii pp. 218-227). But on the main points he is explicit

166 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINK

rroininent in support of Arius were two Egyptian bibhops,
Seciindus of Ptolenmia and Theonaa of Marniarica, unfaltering
in their opinions to the end : and with them at heart three other
hisliops, pupils of Lucian — Kusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of
Nicaea, and M.iris of Chulcedon, and a few more.

Of the resolute op]»onents of Arinnism, Alexander, the Tishop
of Alexandria, was of course the centre, with Athanaaius 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 IMarcellus of Ancyra. with a few other
Eastern bishops. The test which was at last agreed upon eman-
ated apparently from this small group.

Agreement was not easy. That the Arians 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 Ariauisni, namely — (1) that the Logos was not a Krlafia like other creatures,
and (2) that there wsis not a time when he was not ; though he speaks of the Father
as pre-cxisteut 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 his 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 policy of 'comprehension'. (Cf. Socrates ff.H. ii 21, where passages are
cited to prove his orthodoxy against those who charged liim with Ariauizing. )

^ The Western bishops present were few, but thoroughly representative. Africa
was represented by CaecUiau of Carthage, Spain by Hosius of Cordova (the
capital of the southern province, Baetica), Gaul by Nicasius of Dijon, Italy by the
two Roman presbyters and the Bishop Mark, metropolitan of Calabria, Pannonia by
Domnus of Stiidon.

Hosius had been for years the best known and most respected bishop in the
West (bom in 256, he had already presided at the Synod of Elvira in c. 306), 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 speech recorded
by Eusebius {Vit. Const, iii 12), Hosius presided, and the term ofwovaios is only the
Greek equivalent of the Latin miius suhstantiae, with which all Latin Christians
were familiar from the days of Tertidlian and Novatian. On Hosius, see P. B. Gams
Kirch-.ngeschichte von Sjmnien 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 him to abandon his policy of protection of the Arians and
persecution of their opponents {Hist. Arian. § 44).

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 167

It was in drawing up this that the difficulty was felt. The
luajority 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 Ariaus. They
could put their own interpretation on them. The historian of
the Council 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^.i;. 17.

- The Creed is given by Socrates E.E. i. 8 (Hahn^ p. 257), in the letter which
Eusebius Avrote to his Church explaining the proceedings at Nicaea. He describes
the Creed 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 liis baptism, with
his own knowledge leamt from the sacred Scriptures, and with his belief and teach-
uig as 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, expanding
some and omitting or curtailing other clauses (see Hahn' pp. 131, 132). The words
as to the Son are, "And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Logos of God, God from God,
light from light, life from life, only [begotten] Son {vlhv fiovoyevij), first born before
all creation {irpurbTOKov irda-rjs Krlaeus), 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 {(xapKwdevra) and lived as a man among men {iv avOpwirois
Tro\i.TeviT6.fj.svov — 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 went up to the Father, and will come again in glory to
judge living and dead." To the Creed Eusebius added an assertion of the individual
existence of each person in the Trinity (the Father truly Father, the Son truly Son,
and the Holy Spirit truly Holy Spirit), with an appeal to the baptismal commission
(Matt. 28^^ which was no doubt intended to be taken to heart by any who, in
opposing Arianism, might tend to slide unawares into 'Sabellian' error. For this
anti-Sabellian declaration, however, in the Creed of the Council there was substituted
an anti-Arian anathema.

168 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINK

small altenitione ; and at tho cud wiih added an oxpreRa repudia-
tion of the chief expressions of the Arians.'

The Creed thus nioditiod was in its final form as follows:'-^

" We believe in one IJod tlie 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 tho Creed of Nicaea from tho Creed of Euseblus tho following
jihrasps wore stnick out : (1) X67o»' — which represented the vaguo Eimebian Christologj',
instoaj of wliicli the Soiu>hip was to be brought promint'ntly forward ; (2) Trpwrdro/cov
Tdcijf Kr/o-ewt and irp6 irdyTUf tuv aiLOvuv tK toC n-arpdi ytytvvritJLivov, liucauso sui-i-
ceptiblo of Arian intrrpretation ; (3) iv dvOpJnroii ToXirtvai/ievov, because too vague,
not expressing explicitly the real manhood. Modilications of jihrases, in cflnrt new,
wore the following : rbv vibv toO dtov, and yivvi)divTa (k roO Trarpis fj.ovoyn'ii (iofitoad
of \6ryov and later on in the Creed vlbv pLovoyfVTJ), and ivavOpuiir-ficavra. Three
phrases only were quite new additions ; Tovriffriv iK t^j oifflai toO irarpds, ytvvqOivTa.
oil iroiriBlvra, and bfioo'lxn.ov t<J3 narpL

^ The Creed agreed to by the Council must not be regarded as a full and oomploto
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 Arian doctrines,
and to declare the authoritative teat^hing of the Church on the matters in (ii.'jpute —
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 resmTcction
of the flesh and life eternal ".

^ TavTOKparup, the termination signifies the active exercise of rule — 'all-ruler',
'all-ruling'. In the New Testament it is used in the Apocalypse (o debs b tt., 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-
Suva/jLos. Both words are represented by the Latin omnipoleiis.

* That this is the construction intended is strongly maintained by Hort Two
Dissertations 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 nopoytvii and always treats the
clause iK rij! oi/fflas rov waTpbs as a mere exegetical expansion of ^k toO Trarpbs or (k
Ofov (see next note), and the order of the clauses is extremely awkward if Dr.
Hort's interpretation be right. However familiar tho collocation fiovoyevrj dfbv
was at the time, I am not confident that it was intended here, and the more
generally accepted rendering, which Ls given in the text as an alternative, may be
accepted with less misgiving.

' iK TTji oixrlas rov waTpbs. Oiffla here certainly means the inmost being of the
Father, his very self. The 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 ot 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 tlie real meaning, and ' nature ' too is strictly quite inadequate. The phrase
is intended to mark the essential unity of the Son with the Father, declai-ing that
he has iiis 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 Athanasius {de Beer. 19) says
the Council wrote ' 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 which it is true that all things are 'from God'. Of
nothing originate conld it be said that it was ' from the essence of God '. Tlie
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, though
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 es.sence ' (Ath. de Deer. 23 and 24).

" In these words the analogy is dropped. It is no mere reflection of the divine
being that is in the Son. Father 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 agent through wliom Creation was effected.

•• ofj-oovdiov T($ ircLTpl. The ovcrla. of the Son is the oxxrla of the Father : as far as
oxktIo. goes, no distinction can be made between them. Yet it is a distinct existence
which the Son has in relation to the Father. So, as €k rrjs oiala.'s tov TrarpSi expresses
the one idea, 6fj.oov<nov ry iraTpL safeguards the other ; and Basil was able to insist
that the latter phrase, so far from agreeing with the SabeUian heresy, is plainly
repugnant to it. "This expression", he says, "corrects the evil of Sabellius : for
it does away with the sameness of the hypostasis (i.e. the oneness of person — Ti]v
raiT^TTjra ttjs inroaTdaeujs — accordii)g to Basil's limited use of virSffTcurii), and intro-
duces the conception of the persons in perfection. For a thing is not itself of one
essence with itself, but one thing with another." — Basil Ej}. 52 (and see Bull op. c,
p. 70).

' ivavdp(i3Tri](yavTa. The preceding phrase (rapKudivra, ' was incarnate ', ' became
flesh', was not enough in view of the Arian Christology (see supra p. 160). So
this term was added. The Son, whose oiala is the same as the Father's, became
wMiM. Whatever is necessary to human nature — all that makes man man, all the
constituents of a normal human existence — he took upon himself.

170 CHKISTJAN DOCTKINK

" And those that say tliore was once when he was not,
and before ho was begotten lie was not,^ and that he cau»e
into being out of nothing, or assert that the Son of God
is of n dilVcrent essence (subsistence) or boinfj,''^ or created,
or ca])ab]e of change or alteration " — the (Jatholic Church
anathenuitizea."

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 eflected.

' It seems certain that the thesis here aDatheniatizcd ' he was not before he was
begotten ' is the Arian tlicsis cquivnlciit to the di'uial of the eternity of the Sonship
{i.e. which negatives the Catholic doctrine of the eternal generation^the existence
from eternity of the Son as Son — and upliolds the Arian conception expressed in the
previous clause * there was once when he was not '). The anathema is thus intended
to maintain simjily the eternity of the existence of the Son — though lie is Son j'et
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. Ifoct. 10) and Thcophilus {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 Niceue anathema
has not reference to the Arian thesis stated above, but expressly maintains (in this
sense) that "the Son was .though not yet, strictly speaking, generated) before his
fjcncraticn " — this generation being only one of a succession of events in time liy
which the real and eternal truth was shadowed out. See Robertson Alhanasius
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.

^ i^ fT^pai virocrrio-eus fj oMas. The words are certainly used as synonyms,
as they were by Athanasius till the Council at Alexandria in 362. In repeat-
ing the anathema {de Deer. 20) he has only i^ iripas oixrlai, shewing that to
him at least no new conception was added by the alternative viroa-rdjews. It
was perhaps intended for the West {= substantia). See Additional Note on
vv6aTa(Ti.% infra p. 235.

' TpewTov rj dWoLwrdv. In these words we pass from metaphysics to ethics, — and
the chief ethical inference of the Arians from their metaphysical theory is rejected.
See supra 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 explain. It is content to repudiate the
Arian teaching, which was inconsistent with his being God. See infra p. 250.

* So Theofloret. Socrates, however, says all except five.

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 171

. The Renction 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 Marcellus ^ were singled out
as most obnoxious. They had to bear the brunt of the attack.

' Tl.e objections to the new terms iK ttjs oiulas and 6/j.oov(tios were numerous.

(1) There was the scriptural (positive) objection which every one could appreciate.
The words were not to be found in the inspiied 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 teclinical interpretation. (This
objection Athanasius meets in dc Decretis 18, where he turns the tables on the
objectors, asking from what Scriptures the Arians got their phrases e^ ovk 6vto}v,
Tfv wore '6t€ ovk y]v and the like, and shewing that scriptural expressions oft'ered no
means of defence against such novel terms. The bishops had to ' collect the sense
of the Scriptui-es ' — ibid. 20. )

(2) There was the ' traditional ' or ecclesiastical (negative) objection. Tlie use
of the word oyuooi/crtos 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. To all who held to the conception of the
singleness — the simplexity — of the divine existence, to all who took oixria in the
primaiy sense of particular or individual existence, it was difficult to see any but
a 'Sabellian' meaning in the word which implied common possession of the divine
oiiaLa.. Ditheism (and Tritheisra) all were agi'eed in repudiating, but this word seemed
to imply that the persons were only temporary manifestations of the one omia.

(4) There was the philosophical objection. The words implied either that there
was some ovffia piior both to Father and to Son, which they shared in common (and
tlu'n this oyfft'a would be the first principle and they would be alike derived from it);
or else they connoted a materialistic conception, Father and Son being as it were
parts or pieces of one oi)<r/a. (This objection being based on the identification of
omia with efSos or vKt).) See Ath. Or. c. Ar. i 14, De Sy7i. Arim. el Sel, 61 ;
Hilary de Fide OrieiU. 68.

- See Additional Note on Marcellus, p. 190.

172 CllKlSTIAN DOCTRINE

After years of intrigue and misrepresentation Arius was
recrtlled and would liave been reinstated but for his sudden death,
and Athanaaius and Marcolhis were exiled (M.'^G 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 attemj)t to
get rid of the obnoxious Creeil--the terms of which so rcdent-
lessly excluded Arian conceptions. The reaction ceases to be
80 personal, and becomes more openly doctrinal — a formal
attack ujKin the definition 6fj,oovcrio<i under cover ol the pretexts
to which reference has been made.

Alkmph to supersedr. the Niccne Crc.rd — Council of Anfioch 341

The opportunity was found at the Council of Antioch in 341 ,
when Rimu! 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 Eome,
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
any 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

1 They are given in Ath. de Synod. 22 ff., and Socr. H.K ii 10 (Hahn = p. 183 ff. ).

' The appeal which is made thruugliout to Scripture aud Tradition (though the
authors are forced to admit some non -scriptural 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 Sou, the only-begotten ^ God, by means
of whom [were] all things, who was begotten before the ages
(worlds) from the Father, God from God, whole 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-born 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
suftered 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
living 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

1 ' Only-begotten ' must in tliis case certainly be joined with * God ', which other-
wise would stand in an impossible position. See sicjnu p. 168 n. 4,

^ These words are directed against any notion of jjartition of the Godhead, as
though a portion only of the divine were in the Son and the entirety of the Godhead
were thereby impaired. God is entire and the Son is entii's.

' I.e. the son alone was begotten by the Father alone, all else being created by
the Father not alone, but through the Son whom He had first begotten alone. See
Ath. de Deer. 7. This phrase is in accord with the Arian explanation of fiovoyevi^i,
and became a favourite formula of the Anomoeans.

* This is the nearest equivalent to the discarded dfiooijaioi>. The passage should
perhaps be punctuated with a colon after 'unalterable', but the four words which are
bracketed are clearly explanatory of the ' deity ' of the Father, of which the Son is
said to be the unvarying image. eiKwv means the complete representation, and
elKiiv TTj^ oi/ff/as ToO irarpSs, if fairly interpreted, might suffice to exclude Arianism ;
but Arians could accept it as being practically true.

* There is nothing in the Creed to exclude the Allan interpretation of this phrase.
See supra p. 162.

® This emphatic reference to the Father's will would be agreeable to Arians.

174 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

of the IToly Spirit — clearly nieiming^ of a Fatlier who Ih truly
Father, and of a Son who is truly Son, and of the Holy Spirit
who is truly Holy Spirit, the names not being applied in a
general sense (vaguely) or unmeaningly, hut indicating accurately
the peculiar existence'^ (? individuality) and rank and glory belong-
ing to each of tiie [three] named — namely, that they are three
in existence (? individuality), but one in harmony.^

" Inasmuch therefore as this is the faith we hold, and hold
from the beginning and to the end, before God and Christ we
anathematise every heretical evil ojnnion. 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
one 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.

' vvtxrraffiv. 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 imity of the three persons moral rather
than essential, has been described (Robertson Athanasius p. xliv) as an artfuUy
chosen point of contact between Origen, 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 seemed
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 acceptance 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 times, 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 175

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 effect
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, v/ished to maintain. Such
as 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 different essence (vTroaracn^;) ' 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.

Lucianic. [The argument is that the Creed in the Apostolic Constitutions vii 41
(Hahn' p. 139) is Lucian's, and that the Fourth Creed of Antioch more closely
resembles this Creed than the Second does. But the resemblance is not in any case
at all close, and the attribution of the Creed in the Apostolic Constit utions io Luciau
is quite hyjiothetical (though its basi.s may well have been the old Baptismal Creed
of Antioch).] The assumption of a mistake seems unnecessary. The bishops' state-
ment that they had found it iu the writings of Lucian (see Sozonien) would not be
inconsistent with its having been touched up here and there before the Council
approved it. (See Hahn ^ pp. 139 and 184.)

176 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINR

Opposition of the Wed to any New Creed — Cowncil of Sardica 343

Constiius refused to lecoivo the deputation. The Western
bishops were averse to tiny tinkerin<^' with tlie Creed, and, in the
ho|)e of j)uttinj» a stop to it, Constans, with the assent of Con-
stantius, summoned a general Council to meet at Sardica.^ The
Council met in :M3, 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 Philippojjolis,
at which they reiifhrmed the condemnation of Athanasius and
approved a Creed which was substantially the same as tlie Fourth
of Antioch with the addition of new anatliemas.^

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—345) 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
modem Sophia in Bulgaria. According to Tlieodoret 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 i)resent {Studies of
Arianism * p. 125). Hosius, Athanasius, and Marcellus were among them.

- Hahn * p. 190 (a Latin version).

» See Theodoret H.E. ii 6-8, and Hahn » p. 188.

* fiaKp6<iTixoi ifKdeffii — so Sozomen {H.E. iii 11) says it was called. The Creed
is given by Socrates H.E. ii 19, and Hahn » pp. 192-196.

THE ARiAN CONTROVERSY 177

merits 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 tlie subordina-
tion of the Son is asserted but balanced by words d' laring him
to be by nature true and perfect God and like the j.^ather 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 Marcellus 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.
Duiing 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 the ' Conservatives ' had nothing to fear from that
quarter. They could breathe freely again so far as Sabellianisui
was concerned. And so they were at liberty to reconsider their
]-)Osition in relation to their Arian allies, with whom the dread of
' confusion of the persons ' had united them, and to reflect whether

^ The use of this phrase t(^ irarpl Kara iriura 8/j,oiov is notable, but it does not
occur conspicuously till 359 (see infra p. 182).

- 'ZKOTeiv6$, ' Son of Darkness ' rather than ' of Li^ht ' — his o[)pon(nts' perversion
of liis name, it seenis — is the fonii which Athanasius givc.'f.

' For the Creed of this synod (the Fourth of Autioch with new anathemas)
seeHahu^p. 196.
12

178 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

after all Aiijiniem was compatible with tlio doctrino of the Lord's
divinity.

Derelo}^mfnt of Extreme Form of Arifuiism

r>y the deiith of Conslnns in 350 Constantins was left solo
emperor, without the restraining infhicnce of any colhiagnc of
Xicene 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 Arianisin (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 Kudoxius.'

At Councils hold 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 Bnsil of Ancyra
and Eustathius of Sebaste. Gallus, who was at the time in charge of the Government
at Antioch, ordered him to be put to death by ' crurifragium ', but he was rescued by
the intercession of friends. A sliort treatise in forty-seven theses, and a preface
%vrittcn by liim defending his use of the watchword dvdfioios against misrepre-
sentation of his opponents, are preserved in Epiph. adv. JIacr. Ixxvi, and lettci's
to Constantius in Socr. H.E. ii 35. He was condeumed at Ancyra in 358 find at
Constantinople in 360 ; recalled by Julian and made a bishop ; but he had chequered
fortunes till his death in 367 (see Socr. H.E. ii 35, and Bid. Christiaa Bwg. '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 cajiital 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 Anomoeau party, was ordained and made Bishop of Germanica (on the
confines of Syria, Cilicia, and Cappadocia) after the deposition of Eustathius (331),
who had refused him orders as unsound in doctrine. Having impro])erly 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 be was
appointed patriarch of Constantinople in 360 in succession to Macedonins, 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. Socrates, 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 be deemed the Canon".
Gwatkin (p. 149) says "the Council . . . only yielded at last to open violence".
Three 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
A'alens,^ 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
dilficulties 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 pcrsoual disciples of Arius, probably during his
exile into Illyricum after Nicaea. Later on they found it politic to profess ' con-
servative piiuciples' (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 the
•liarges against Athanasius, but that there was no genuine recantation of Arian
views is proved by their part in the Sirmium 'blasphemy'. After that, they
formed the Homoean party in the West (Acaeius in the East), on what seemed to
be the line of least resistance, and accepted the ' Dated Creed ' at the Sirmium
conference in 359, where Valens distinguished himself by trj'ing to omit the words
Kara wdfra. They were at Ariniinum and Nice, and Valens by artful dissembling
and jugglery with words succeeded in getting Arianizing phrases adopted. Valens
was Bishop of Mursa in Pannonia and Ursacius of Singidunum (Belgrade).

* Germinius was Bishop of Sirmium.

3 The Creed is in Hahn » p. 199 (Latin), and (Greek) Ath. de Syn. 28 ; Socr.
ir.E. ii. 30. 'Ofioiotiaiov occurs here for the first time.

^ Though the West never felt the stress of the Arian controversy to the same extent
as the East, and was fortunate in having — for some time — emperors who favoured the
Nicene rather than the Arian cause, yet the work of Hilary, a religious layman elected
Bishop of Poitiers in 353 ('the Athanasius of the West '), and Ambrose in establish-
ing the Homoousian doctrine must not be passed by in any account of its history.

Arianism was strongly (and at times violently) championed in Gaul by such men
as Ursacius, Valens, and Saturninus ; and after the Council of Milan in 355, at
which the condemnation of Athanasius was pronounced, Hilary and a number of
other bishops withdrew from communion with tlie three, who thereupon, liy repre-
sentations (probably false) to the emperor, secured an edict banishing Hilary to

180 i:nRlSTIAN DOCTRINK

8uj:^,'est<Kl — ' the blasphemy of Sirmium ' ' — it has since beoii

riirypia (;J5(J). Tho oxilo lasted thriH* years, and during it Hilary carried dii the
\v!ir a>;ainst Arinnism by his writin^fs, dr. Synodii (conciliiitciry iis AtliHiiiiHius was
towanls suiui-Ariaus. who si'ciutMl roally to nocoiit the Nioiiio toachiiighiit to utunihit)
at the Nioone terms) and rfc TrinitaU. And on his return, till his death in [\60, by
leal tfiujicred by tact and mutual explanations of uncertain tenns, he < (Toctivcly
won over tho wavorcrs and reduced tho Arian party to the smiUlest dijnensions.
(Sco J. O. Cazenovo 'llilarius I'icUv.', D.C.B. ; and for his doctrinal teaching
osi>ooially Horner Doctrinr of lh>- Person of Christ Eng. tr. div. i vol. ii p. 391) WA

Hanlly less important was tho work of Ambrose later— like Hilary, a layman
suddenly elevated to the episcopate to be a pillar of tho Faith (Bishop of Milan
374-397). The suc^^es8or of tho Arian bishop Auxentius, and unliinching in his
resistance by word and by dood to Arianism, however supported in imperial circles,
lie .steadily maintained the Catholic teaching against all heresy. As a diligent
.student and warm admirer of the Greek theologians, especially Basil, ho exerted all
his gre«t influence to secure the complete victory of tho Nicene doctrine in the West.
^.See especially De fide ad Gratianuvi (od. Hurler, vol. 30) and De .S'piritu ,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 Valcns,

Ursacius, and Germinius. It is certain that there is one God, all-mling and Father,

.IS is believed through the whole world, and His only Son 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. 3-"- *').

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 usia, that is— to make it more clearly undeTsiood—homousion, or

the term Iwmoevsim, 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 t ho

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 gieater, the Son subject along with all the things which the

Father subjected to Himself ; that the Father has not a beginning, is invisil^le, is

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

is read, took upon him flesh or body, that is, man (humanity), 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

iu suffering. Futhermore, the chief thing and the confirmation of the whole faith

is that a Trinity should always be maintained, as we read in the Gospel, 'Go ye and

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 181

known.* It was mucli too late in 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 Fast

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

baptize all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit '
{Matt. 28^^). Entire and complete is 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 sanctify 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 his human nature. The Son as a divine being is contrasted with the
human nature which he assumed. A reference in the explanation of the Creed
which was offered at Sardica in 343 in order to repudiate Arian conceptions (Hahn ^
p. 189), '-'This (sc. the Spirit) did not suffer, but tlie human nature {dvdpuiros) which
he put on suffered — which he assumed from JIary the Virgin, the human nature
which is capable of suffering", shews that Arians t^iught that the divine nature
itself in the Incarnate Christ shared the .suffering. That is, no doubt, the view in-
tended here. Such teaching obviously makes the divine nature of the Son (passible)
different from the divine nature of the Father (impassible), and as such it was
repudiated by the opponents of Arianism, The later exact teaching of Cyril of
Alexandria and Leo on the subject (see infra pp. 268, 290) wa.s already in some con-
nexions expressed by Athanasius (Or. c. Ar. iii 31-33), as it had been previously by
Tertiilliun (see stipra p. 144).]

1 See Hilary de Hynodis 11 and adv. Cmistautium 23. Hosius, Bishop of Cordova
— to whose suggestion the term Homoousios at Nicaea wa« probably due — was present
at this synod, and was comjielled by violence to sign the Creed (see Soz. U.E. iv G).
So Hilary could call it also 'the ravings of Hosius', a singularly uncharitable
obiter dictum in view of all the facts and the gieat services of Hosius.

'' See Hahn=* p. 201.

182 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Ariau theses, and Lho omphatie declaratiou that the Son was
like the Father even in CBsence (i.e. in his very beinj^) was
at this juncture just the bridge which was needed to lead
wanderers back to the Nicene faith in its fuhiess. But now
the ' moderates ' went too far for the temper of the time. The
good effects of their action were largely undone when they
procured a sentence of exile against Aetius, Eudoxius, and a
large number of the Anonioeau party, whom Constantius obliged
them to recall after an Arian deputiitiuji 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, wilh 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 Simiium within the decade, and the Creed \?
commonly counted the ' third ' of Sirmium (there was, however, one drawn up
at Sirmium against Photinus in 347, whieli, strictly speaking, is the first of
Sirmium— see Hefele Councils ii 192). It was probably composed by Mark, Bishop
of Arethusa, perhaps in Latin, but this cannot be proved (see Hahn' p. 204, and
Bum Introd. Hist. Creeds p. 92). The 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 opponents (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
is given in Ath. de Syn. 8 ; Socr. H.E. ii 37 ; Hahn^ p. 204.

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 183

not contained in the Scriptures. Such was the Creed ^ by
which it was hoped to unite all imrties 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 as 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 (to iKelae olKovo/Mrjaavra), and when the door-k&fa{*r3 of Hades
saw him they were affrighted " (Job 38" LXX) — a clause which probably sliews the
influence of Cyril of Jerusalem, who refers to the Descent several times, and in his
list of ten dogmata includes it as explanatory of the burial {e.g. Cat. iv 11, 12).

2 Basil of Ancyra, one of the ' cabinet ', felt it necessary to draw up a statement
that the formula Sfioiov Kara wavra really embraces everything, and is enough to
exclude any difference between Father and Son. He shews at length that though
the bare term oi/cria is not contained in either the old or the new Scriptures, yet
its sense is everj'Avhere. The Son is not called the Word of God as a mere force
of expression {ivip^eia XeKTiK-rj) of God, but he is Son (a definite hypostasis) and
therefore oiala, 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 tc
proscribe oiVia, says tliey wished to do away with the name ovaia in order tliat it
it were no longer uttered by the mouth their heresy might grow in the hearts of
men. He suspects they will be caught writing ' like in will and purpose ', but
' unlike in oixxla '. But if they bond fide accept ' like in all things ', 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 regard to his very being
as Son. In a word, he declares the formula ' in all things ' embraces absolutely
everything and admits of no difference. See Epiphanius ffaer. Ixx iii 12-22
(esp. 15). [It is the theology of Basil of Ancyra expressed in this treatise that
Hamack regards as ultimately adopted, with developements, by the Cappadocians
Basil and the Gregories. See infra p. 193.] See Additional Note on 6/iO(oyo-toj and
tlie Homoeans infra p. 192.

*See Socr. H.K ii 37 ; Ath. de Syn. 8 ff., ad Afros 3.

184 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

stjintius to oxpliiin alVairs and urge that no cliange oiiLjbt to l»o
allowed. Tho eiajxTor sliewecl all Ijonour to UrBaciua and
Valens, and sent back the other dopnUition 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 Thruce, near Hadrianople, a few-
bishops (whether the original de[»utie8, or the partisans of
l-rsaciu8 ^ 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 reaffirm the Creed
of the 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 faitli,
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.

^Halin* p. 205. The phrases now run, 'like the Father according to the
Scriptures ' and ' even as the holy Scriptures say and teach ', and the expression fxia
inrbcTacn^ also is forbidden.

" Hahn ' p. 200. This declaration was not really accepted by the synod, which
the Quaestor Leonas dissolved, as agreement seemed impossible ; but the 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 Dial. 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 Athanasius
d^ 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 (witli ' in all things ' omitted), was issued as the faith
of the Church ^ — and the victury of Arianism in the lloinoean
form was apparently complete. As representative and scape-
sfoat of the Anoinoeaus, 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- Avians and Convergence of Parties

to the Nicene Definition

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 which 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 integrity of his human nature and its perfect union with
the Word was asserted.^ Furthermore, in connexion with the

convince the genuine semi-Arians that notMng but hfu>oii<Tiov would suffice, and
that it really was what they meant (§§ 41-54).

^ Hahn ^ p. 208. It was at this Council that Macedouius, Bishop of Alex-
andria, ordained by Arian bisbojis in opposition to Paul and Athanasius, was
deposed. See infra ' Doctrine of tho Holy Spirit ' p>. 212.

- Lucifer of Calaris, who had been exiled to Egypt, was present at the Council.
He could not agree to the .Arians obtaining veniam ex jwenitmiHa. Hence his schism.
Ue too had consecrated Paulinus in opposition to Melctius at Antioch.

* The Arian thesis with regard to the Son was being extended to the Holy
Spirit, and apparently some, who were now willing to accept the Nicene teaching
as to the Son, still wished to be free from any similar detiuition as to the Holy
Spirit, and to distinguish between them in regard to deity. See infra pp. 206, 209.

* This was in opposition to the christological conceptions already noted {■•nipra
p. 160), which were destined to excite greater attention when championed in
another interest by Apollinarius. "They confessed", writes Athanasius, "that
the Saviour had not a body without a soul, nor without sense or intelligence ; for
it wa.s not possible, when the Lord had become man for us, that his body should
bo \\ithout intelligence ; nor was the salvation elfocted in the Word himself a
salvation of body only, but of soul also " {Turn, ad Ant. 7).

186 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

most ' practical ' probk'in before the Council — the position of
afluire at Aiitioch, the disKeusions between tlie Nieene party
(EusUitliiaus) and the Honioiousiau party (Meletians) — the
meaning of the word ' hypostasis ' in relation to the (jodhead
was discussed. It was recogni/.ed that two usaj^es were curnMit,
and that questions of words ou^dit 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
Niciiea, in which the word is an equivalent for ovaia ; 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 . sijbstance
(three ' persons '). In the E.ist there had been some disposition
to use the word ' hypostasis ' in this latter souse — 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 wliich they were used, and so to reveal to the disputants
the merely verbal nature of their apparent diflereuce, 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 reattirmed 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 ovcla of the Father ' and * that he is
like the Father in ovaia ' ; 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

^ See the account of the Council in the Letter which he \vrote to the Church of
Antioch (the Tomus ad Aniiochenos) — ' calm and conciliatory, the crown of his
career' — urging them to peace. Both sides are represunted as agreeing to give up
the use of the terms in dispute and to be content with the expression of the
faith contained in the Creed of Nicaea,

2 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 Nieene
Creed may therefore have been to some extent opportunist. See Socr. H.E. iii 2r>.

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 187

the following year drove Athanasius again into banishment for
the winter, but the revolt of rrocopius and the indignation of
the people of Alexandria led to hiss 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 Coimcil

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 present, and Meletius of Antioch, who was held
in universal estimation (though he had been so much distrusted in the AVest), was
appointed to preside. Gregory of Nazianztis had already 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 jjossible again to
give the Catholics of Constantinople a diocesan administrator. But as bishop only
of the insigniticant Sasin;a, he had hardly ecclesiastical rank enough to preside.
The first act of the Council was to appoint him, nmch against his will, Bishop of
Constantinople; and on the death of Meletius, shortly after the beginning of the
synod, he naturally took the place of president. When, however, the synod
insisted on electing a successor to Meletius, and so continuing the schism at
Antioch (in violation of the agreement that when either of the two bishops
Meletius and Paul died, the survivor should be afknowledged by both parties) ;
and when the Egyptian liishops (who probably desired the recognition of Maximtxs,
an Alexandrine, who had been previously secretly consecrated Bishop of Constanti-
nople) protested against Gregory's appointment as a violation of the Nicene canon
which forbade the removal of a bishop from one see to another ; Gregory insisted
on resigning and was succeeded by Noctaiius. See Hefele Councils vol. ii p. 310 tf.

The West had no part in the Council, and it was not till 4.51 that it took rank
as ecumenical — the Second General Council — and then only in respect of its decrees
on faith (the canons as to the status of the Bishop of Constantinople not being
accepted at Rome).

In preparing the way for the acceptance of the Nicene definitions the work of
Gregory and Basil and Gregory of Nyssa — the Cappadouian Fathers — had been of
liighest value. See further in regard to them Cliapter XIII.

188 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINK

in its on^^inal slmi»e/ and c.ondonunid all forniB of Arian teach
ing ; and edicts of Thoodo8iu8 were iRsued — in accordance wKli

' No new CtochJ was fnuiiod (seo Soer. JI.K. v 8, nnd Soz. U.K. vii 0). An en
largt'd Creed, jiftPi wnrds known as tho Creed of tho Council of Con8taiilinoj)Iu, was
ajijiarontly cntirt'd in tho Acts of llu' Council (which arc not iixttmt), as it wan rem!
unt from thoni at tho Coum'il of Chulcodon. Possibly it was tho (heed jirofusHcd
l>y Nectarius on his baptism and consecration as Bishop of Constantinople dminLC
tiio progress of the Council. See Kunzc Da^ vicfini-arh-kmutlantiiicpolitanischt
Stjmlioi, ami A. E. Burn Guardian, March 13, 1901. I'ossihly Cyril of Jerusalem.
whoso ' ortliodoxy ' had boon more than doubtful (ho certainly disliked the test-
word liomoousios), and who on thi.s ocension pul)licly iirodaimed his tidheicnco
to the homoousian formula (see Socr. I.e.), recited in ovidenco of his opinions the
form of Creed which was in use in liis Church — a form based upon tho old Baptisnuil
Creed of JerUNalcm (which can ho ^^athcrcd from his catechetical lectures on it lu
348-350) -revised and augmented from the Creed of Nicaea about 3C2, aftur he
was reinstitod in his bialiopric. And this Creed, being ajiproved by the Council,
was entered in the Acts — though not intended for imbliciition and general use ;
and then, inasmuch as it was manifestly useful in view of later developuments ol
teaching as to tho Holy Spirit, it passed into wider currency, and came at lengtli
to be regarded as a Creed drawn up on this occasion bj' the authority of the
Council itself. (As early as the very year following the Council a synod of
bishops who met at Constantinople, in a letter to Dainasus, Bishop of Rome,
i-eferred to 'a more expanded confession of tho 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 tho Council
met, when it was appended to an exposition of the Faith (styled o 'kyKvpwrbs —
Aticoraivs —the Anchored One), composed by E])iphanius, Bishop of Salamis (Con-
stantia), in Cyprus. The connexion of Salamis with Jerusalem (its motropolis) would
lead to the use of the same form of Creed in both placet). Epiphanius seems to
regard it as the faith of the 318 bishops who met at Nicaea ; but it is scarcely
possible that such an error 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 Chalccdou seventy
years later. At this Council of Chalcedon the genuine Nicone 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 obviously not based on the Niccne Creed, though
in close agreement with its teaching as to the Person of Christ. Thus it does not
contain the clause iK t^s ovaias tov warpos, 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 fijvst of these clauses could be dispensed with
more easily when there was no longer danger of Sabellian ideas threatening the
personality of the Son ; and though it is true that no words so efi'ectually jire-
clude the possibility of the Homoean interpretation of the Creed, yet Athaiiasius
always insisted that they were only an explanation of ii: tov Trarpis (see Addi-
tional Note). To sura up — (1) All tlie historians of the Council say that it was
(only) the Nicene Creed that was alCrmed. (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
lieffire 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 unsiiccessful, the heresy was

rigorously suppressed by force and expelled from the greater

part of the empire.^

has as its basis not the Nicene Creed, but the Baptismal Creed of Jerusalem (being
an enlarged edition of the latter with Niccnc corrections and amendments). See
Hort Two Disscrtation.<. It is possible that before the time of the Council of
I halcedon 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 in 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) Constantinopolitan Creed. His argument will
need careful examination ; but meanwhile at all events the view stated above holds
the field. Sec also infra pp. 214-217.

^ Though Arianism was thus banished from the Church of the Roman Empire it
became the faith cf 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, Theodoric) were Arians from the days of the great work among
tliom of the Arian bishop Ulphilas. The Lombards were Arian till the time of
Queen Theodelinda, at the end of the sixth century. So were the Visigoths in Spain
tiU the time of King Reccared (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 procession of the
Spirit well illustrates 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 Homoousion 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
was an illogical compromise. It went too far for heathenism, not far enough for
Chri-^tianity. It conceded Christian worship to the Lord, though it made him no
better than a heathen demi-god. As a scheme of Christianity it was overmatched
at every point by the Nicene doctrine, as a concession to heathenism it was 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 degraded the Lord of Saints to the level of his creatures."
In breadth of view and grasp of doctrine Athaua.sius was beyond comparison
superior to the Arians. Arianism was indeed "a mass of presum^jtuous theoris-
ing, supported by scraps of obsolete traditionalism and uncritical text-mongering —
and, besides, a lifeless system of unspiritual pride and hard unlovingness ",

The victory of o/Moovcnos was clearly a victory of reason. It was, further, the
triumph of the conviction that in Jesus of Nazareth had actually been revealed a
Saviour in whom the union of humanity and deity was realized.

And there is no doubt that "Arian successes began and ended with Arian command
of the palace". "Arianism worked throughout by Court intrigue and military outrage."

100 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

MAUCKLLUS

The chief authorities for tlic teaching of Marccllus, the chief rcprc
sentjitive of the suppt^scd Sabellian tendencies of the Nicenc Christo-
logy, are two treaties of ICuspbius of Cacsarea {ruiifra Marcellum ami
lie Eccleaiantira Tlteologin), wliich contain extracts from his own work
On tlw Snhjertion of the Son ; a letter to Julius in I'lpiplumius Ifarr.
Ixxii ; fra^'inents of u wrilin}^ of Acinius against him, and n Creed of
the Miircollians, also in Epiphatiius, I.e. (Migno P.O. xlii 383-388,
395-400). In Atliunasius Ur. c. Ar. iv (as Newmnn thinks, and Zahn
insist-s) the system of Marcellus is probably attacked (without his
name). Sec Th. Zahn Marcellus von Anrijra, Gotha, 1867.

He wa.'i r.ishop of Aiu'vra in Galatia (perhaps as early as 315), and
at Nicaca was one of the minority whose persistence secured the inser-
tion of the test-word o/ioov'o-ios ; and after the Council he wrt)to his
treatise irtpl t^s tov vlov xmoTayrj<; 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 crdled
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 Cacsarea took in hand the
refut'ition 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 acconlingly 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 iuimanent 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 so 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. ttpcutotokos) 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
d too much in common with Sabellianism — the bugbear of the East.
Marcellus was regarded as teaching that the Son had no real person-
ity, but was merely the external manifestation of the Father.

[Ifarnaek 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 Epj). 69, 125, 263.

It is impossible to determine how far the picture of Marcellus, which
Kusebius 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 \b^) '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 ultimato
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) asserts
that he boasted, that he was fortified by communion with Julius and
Athanasius, 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
(Epiphanius, who tells the tale, ad\h Haer. 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 duplicity of the adherents of Eusebius; for what Marcellus had
simply suggested as a point of enquiry, they accused him of professing
as a point of faith. The statements which he had made, both before

192 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINK

aiul nftor the enquiry, wpn« road, and his fiiiLh Wfis provtvl to l>r orthodox.
llo did not utlirm, as they represented, that the b<'j,'innin}^ of tlie Word
of God was dated from liis conception by the holy Mary, or that his
kingdom would have an end. On the contrary, he wrote that his
kingdom liad had no beginning and would have no end " (Theodorot
Ui«t. AVW. ii 6— A^. and P-N.F.).

Hilary indeed doclarep that at a later time, by siuuc rash utterances,
and by hi.>< evident sympathy with IMiotinus, he camo to bo su«poctod
by all men of heretical leanings j but in face of the evidonce it is
difiicult to suppi»80 him heretical at the earlier time, however strong
the extnicts in Kusebius (who was clearly bia-ssed) may seem.

What the followers of Marcellus said for thcnisnlvcR may be seen
from a statement of belief whicli 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 Marcelluf-),
under the leadership of the deacon Eugenius (see Ilahn* 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 birtli from Mary, They thus
clearly maintain the eternal Sonship and the reality of the three xmoa-
Tcio-cis of the Deity.

HOMOIOUSIOS AND 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
speak 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. 356-360 ; cf. 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 irdvTa, 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 ' eWier ' 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 oiaia" with the Father the

THE ARIAN CONTROVERSY 193

Council meant "that the Son was from the Father, and not merely
like, hut the same in likeness ..." his likeness being diflerent
from such as is ascribed to us : and he proceeded to show (§ 23) that
mere likeness implies something of difl'erence. " Nor is he like only
outwardly, lest he seem in some respect or wholly to be other in
ouorta, 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 'like' in
connexion with ovcria 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 imlike 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 ovala) Father and Son
were not like but the same — of one oia-ia: in their special attributes
and individual characteristics they were not like — they were distinct
v7roo-Ta<rcis.

THE MEANING OF HOMOOUSIOS IN THE 'CONSTAN-
TINOPOLITAN' CREED

Dr. Harnack (following Dr. Zahn and Prof. Gwatkin to some
extent) maintains that though Homoousios triumphed 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/iooucrios at Nicaea, 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 Godhead that had
stood out plain and clear : the plurality had been 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 likeness,
that is, to interpret Homoousios as Homoiousios, thus changing the
' substantial ' unity of being into a mere likeness of being.

194 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

This is, in elVect, to say thiit it wns permitted to believe in three
beings with natures like ench other, oixria receiving a sense nearer to
' nature ' than to * being '. 1 nstead of one Godhead, existing permanently
in three distinct forms or spheres of existence, there are three forms
of existence of like nnturo with one another, which together make
up the Godhead.

It would indeed be strange if expert theologians, after so long a
I'ontroversy, at last agreeing to reject homoiousios in favour of the Nicene
horaoousios, strained out the term and swallowed the sense. It would
indeed be a scathing satire on the work of councils and theologians.
It would bo proof of strange incompetence and blindness on the ]>art
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 wliich the Church has all
these centuries been committed to an essentially tritheistic interpreta-
tion of the Person of her Ix)rd. [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 Avithin 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
de facto true, and would not be grounded in the very essence or being
of the Godhead.

If it were the case, as the Arians taught, that the Son w^as 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
Ai-ian 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 Avill, 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 of 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. Syn.) argued that the generation, as an act of the divine
nature, goe^ far beyond an act of the will (cf. Greg. Naz. Theol. Or. iii
3 fip.). And Cyril of Alexamlria makes a distinction between the con-
comitant and the antecedent will of the Father ; maintaining that the
former, but not the latter, is concerned with the generation of the Son
(o-wSpo/AOS 6iXr](n<i, not Trporjyovfxev'rj — see de Trin. ii p. 56)."

So Dollinger writes, but he goes on {Hippolytus and CaUistus 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 pui'e 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. But this volition is not a single decree of God ; not
something which must be first thought or determined, and then carried
into effect : but it is the first, essential, eternal movement of the divine
will operating on itself, and the condition of all external, that is,
creative, acts."

Movoyev7?s— UNIGENITUS, UNICUS

The word ixovoyevq<;, according to the original and dominant use of it
in Greek literature, and by the prevailing consent of the Greek Fathers,
was applied properly to an only child or offspring. So Basil adv.
Eunom. ii 20 explains it as meaning 6 /idvos yevvrjOek, and repudiates
the meaning 6 /xovos Trapa fiovov Ycvo/iicvos (ov yevi^^cts) which was

196

CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

arbitrarily put upon it by Kuiiomius. The special Idnd of unicity
wbii'li brlongs to nn only child is latont in tho word in the few uku^'ps
in which it is not apparent, as when it is uP(>d of tho Phcnnix, or hy
Pluto Tiut. .'Hb with ovpav6<i (iis niadn by the Fntht'i of nil, ih. '28("),
and by later writors of the »co<r/io?. In a few cases only tho wonl is
liHisely applied to inanimate objects thut are merely alone in their kind,
as if it wore connected with yevos.

Tho pamphnuse ^jlovo^ yevvydtU, which Basil jjfives, is essentially true
to the sense, but the passive form goes beyond ixovoya'-q<i. So proliably
does uniyeni/us; and 'only-begotten' is still narrower in meaning. If
it is connected with vlU, 'only iSon ', as in the Ajwstles' Creed, would
be the nearest (equivalent in English. If it is connected with 6'cos,
'only' would not, of course, be a possible translation : 'solo-born' might
express the meaning more exactly.

Uniciis was the rendering of ftovoyivq^ througliout the Bible iu the
earliest Old Latm versions, bat it was supplanted by unigenitus in some
forms of the Latin before the time of Jerome in the five pa.ssages in tho
New Testament in which it has reference to our Lord (namely John P''- 1®
316. 18^ 1 John 4'). Nearly all tlie native Latin Creeds have Jilium
uninim eins, 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
in the course of time the more explicit word prevailed, except in
the Apostles' Creed. So we have Jiliuvi unicuin in the Apostles' Creed
(English 'only'), h\i\, jilium unigenitum in the Latin translations of the
' Constantinopolitan ' Creed (English ' only begotten '). Seo Hort Two
Dissertationt.

CHAPTER XIII

The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit and the Trinity

The Course throiigh which the Dodritie 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 them, the exact mode of existence, she has not
wished to lay down definitions, 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 opinion may be held as to the date of the Jolianiiine \vritings, tlie
Acts of the A}iostles and the Epistles of St Paul seem to give decisive evidence
in regard to belief in the Holy Spirit which was daily acted on in the practice and
life of eai'liest Christian communities.

1B7

198 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINP:

lions. In seekiuj^ unj^uardedly for closer dofiuition tliey some
times reiiched results incousi.steiit with main principles, or in
devoting attention to particular lines of reasoning they ignored
others.

Trticing out the history of the doctrine, therefore, means
Lnu'ing out the touching 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 unmistakcable expression of what had
ofti-'u hitherto been only half-cousciously held.

The Docfrive of the Spii'it 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 i.s exjjlicit
and unanimous in its witness that he is divine.^ " V>\\\> 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 Sphit 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 expressions of the doctrine. Ct also supra pp. 11-15.

^ Ibid. ; cf. Ps. 433 57* 139'', Isa. 48'« es**- 1».

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 190

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
^apia-fiaTa 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 '
(Eorn. 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. 15*^); while in some cases the Holy Spirit is
apparently identified with Christ (Eom. 8^- ^^), since through the
Spirit the ascended Lord dwells in the Church and operates in
believers.

The Doctrine in the Early Church

Incidental references in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers ^
shew the same teaching ; but in The Shepherd of Hermas, which
contains many allusions to the Holy Spirit, language is used
which identifies the Spirit with the Son.^

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 iu some cases they shew a disposition to rank the Spirit
lower than the Son.*

^ E.g. Clement 1 Ep. 2. 48, 58, 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, his mission by the Son, his operations in the
Incarnation, and in members of the Chirrch {Magn. 13 ; PMlad. 7 ; Eph. 17, 18, 9 ;
Smyrn. 13). He is included in the doxologies in Mart. Polyc. 14, 22, and Mart.
Ign. 7. See Swete ' Holy Ghost' D.C.B., an article which so thoroughly covers the
field that a subsequent worker over the ground can probably reach no true results
that are not already carefully stated there. Here, for the most part, a short sum-
mary of them is all that is possible,

- See Swete Hid.

' See supra p. 124. This is true perhaps especially of the teaching of Justin
Martyr in regard to the \byoi <nrepfiari.K()S. He also says that the Word himself
wrought the miraculous conception {Ajml. i 33). Similarly Theophilus speaks of
' the Word, being God's Spirit ' coming down on the prophets (ad Aulol. ii 33), and
the wTiter to Diognetus used .similar e.xpressions.

•• E.g. Justin, " We place the Spirit of prophecy in the third order", but in the
same breath " for we honour him with the Word " (yueT-d \6yov Tifubfiev — Apol. i 13 ;
cf. 60 ; see also Apul. i 6) ; and Tatian describes the Spirit as the minister of the
Son {Oratio ad. G-racc. 13),

1*00 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINK

Conspicuous among those of these eiuly writers who arc
known to ns sUuid Thooi)hihiH, who is tlie tirst to use tlio term
Triad (Trinity) in reference to the Godhead (though it must be
noted that lie does not actually name the Holy Spirit),* and
Athenagora8, who sees in the Sjiirit the bond of iniion by which
the Father and Son coinhore, and implies the doctrine of his
essential procession by the image in which he doscrilics him as
an etlluence from God, emanating from Him and returning to
Him as a ray of the sun or as light from iire.'^

Gnostic thought ujiou 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 intluential in stimulating interest on the
matter and arousing thought.

The 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 Aniol. 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 the school of Sabellius. The earlier
Monarchians, so 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. The Son is the Offspring,
the Spirit is the 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 {ilnd. iii 38, v 36). See further Harvey's hidex '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 recogni/cs 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.^

Ori{jen'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 his great work On first Principles, which he prefaces
by a statement of the points clearly delivered in the teaching of
the Apostles.* Third among these points he says : " The Apostles
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

1 See su2}ra p. 140. This doctrine is expressed particularly in his tract against
Praxeas. See §§ 2, 4, 8, 25, 30.

2 See supra p. 108.

8 See esp. Faed. iii 12, i 6 ; Siro7)i. v 13, 24.

* He says they delivered themselves with the utmost clearness on points which
they believed to be necessary to eveiy one, leaving, however, the grounds of their
statements to be examined into by those who should receive the special aid of the
Holy Spii'it ; while on other subjects they merely stated the fact that things were so,
keeping silence as to the manner or origin of their existence, in order to leave to
their successors, who should be lovers of wisdom, a subject of exercise on which to
disjilay the fruit of their talents. De Princ. Preface 3 — Ante-Nicene Christian
Library.

* The Greek of this passage is not extant. Rufinns translates ' natus an inuatus',
which represents yevvr)Tbs fj dytwriTos. Jerome, however, has ' factus an infectus ',

202 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

which have to be eiuiuired into out of sacred Scripture according
to tlio best of our ability, and wliich domand cjirefiil investi-
gation. And that tliis Spirit inspired eiicli one of the saints,
whether prophets or apostles ; and that there was not one
Spirit in the n)en of the old dispensiitiou and .mother in those
who were inspired at tlio advent of Christ, is most clearly taught
throughout the Churches." Tiiis 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 ^t 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 througli
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 ^ ayevrjTo^ (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 svjjra p. 122 n. 1.

^ Origen Comm. in Joh. i 3, ed. Brooke vol. i p. 70 f.

2 ayefvriTov, but the argument requires rather ayev-qrov, unoriginate, the ojjposite
of yiVTyrbv, to exclude Him from the class of yevrp-i.

* fiT]Si oiaiav riva iSiav v^effrivai. rov aylov irye^fiaroi irepav irapa. rbv irarepa Kal
rbv vi6v.

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 203

perliaps is why he is not also called ' Son ' of God ; since the
Only-bogotteu 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 called 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 the 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
lionour 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,
so the Holy Spirit, who alone searches the deep things of God,
reveals God to whom he will."^ The Son alone has his being
direct from the Father, but he is not therefore — in Origen's
thought — a creature. Nor is it necessary that all things that
have come into being through the Son should be creatures.*

'To this thought Origen is led by the passage in 1 Cor. 12-"''- : "There arc
differences of charismata, but the same Spirit : and there are differences of ministra-
tions, and the same Lord : and there are differences of workings (modes of bringing
to actuality), and it is the same God who works all things in all."

- Passages exan)ined are Isa. 48'®, and the Siu against the Holy Spirit
(Matt. 12»2).

^ De Princ. i 34.

* Cf. dc Prinr. i 33 : "We have been able to find no statement in Holy Scrip-

204 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

The special idea of creation does not seem to be proscnt 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 nses — tho word on which he is commenting ;
and it is really tho origination of the Sj)irit thnnigh the Logos,
and conseqnently his inferiority in order to the Logos, that he is
concerned to maintain.

He does ind(MHl definitely extend to the Spirit^ tho 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
atUnn])ting to deal with the inner being and relations of the
( Jodhead." 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 Thaumaturyus

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 moved (was borne) upon the waters is no other than the
Holy Spirit."

^ See de Friiic. 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 Spirit."

- See e.(/. such strong assertions as de Princ. i 37 : "Nothing in the Trinity can
be called greater or less. . . . There is no dili'erence in the Trinity, but that which
is called the gift of the Spirit is made known through the Son and operated
(actualLsed) by God the Father."

^ See Swete I.e.

* Known as Thaumaturgus, the evangelist of Pontus and Cappadocia. See his
Creed (Hahn ^ p. 2.03), composed probably soon after 260.

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 205

pecially closely with the Son, as he is in the preceding clauses

' the Creed which describe him as " having his existence from

ifod and appearing through the Son, the Image of the Son,

[.erfect (image) of perfect (Son) ; Life — the first cause of all

' hat live ; Holiness — the provider of hallowing, in whom is made

lanifest God the Father who is over all and in all, and God the

M.u 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, so 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 (aTrrjXXo-
Tpioyrai) from the Son, nor is the Son banished (cnrwKLaTai) 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."

JEusebius of Caesarea

Eusebius 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 Son. The
Spirit is third in dignity as well as in order — the moon in the
divine firmament, receiving all that he has from the Word ; his
very being is through the Son. " He is neither God nor Son,
since he did not receive his genesis from the Father 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 Sunt. Dionys. 17, and supra p. 115.

20G CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

seems not to discritnimite botwoeu tlie procession and the
mission of tlie Holy S])irit, luul uses the same torni both of him
and of the Son.'

The Arian Theories expresst^d hut not emphasized, and for

a time ignored

At the Council of Nicaea the battle raged round the doctrine
of the Crodhoad 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 " ; '^
80 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.
Hut 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 The 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 Son ;
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
the 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. Evan^. vii 16 ; de Eccl.
Thcol. iii 6.

- Basil Ep. 125, in explanation of the absence of any detailed profession of faith.

* See su/pra 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 (Caf. xvi and xvii) are reaUy the firs ; system-
atic attempt to present the doctrine of the Spirit that we have.

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 207

I'lict that the Holy Spirit spoke the Scriptures, and said about
himself all that he wished or all that we could receive, we may
sell limit ourselves to the teaching of Scripture (§§ 1, 2).

He disclaims the attempt to accurately describe his being
(hypostasis), aud will only mention misleadiug 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 suflicient 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 {(j^vaiv rj vTroaraa-iv), — 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 chiefly from the Old Testament ; in Cat. xvii
from the New, especially the Gospels and the Acts (time failing him for more).

2 See particularly Cat. xvi §§ 16, 19, 20, 30, xvii 36, and the fine passage
xvi 12, in which, applying the words of Job. 7^ and 4" to the Spirit, he declares
the Spirit the source of all that is beautiful in moral and spiritual life, as it is on
water that the varied charm aud loveliness of the life of nature depends.

^ He is himself given to us in Baptism when he seals the soul {Cat. xvi 24), and
in the Chrism {Cat. Myst. iii 2, 3), and effects the consecration of the elements in
the Eucharist, so that the very body and blood of Christ is received {^ihid. iii 3, iv 3,
v 7) ; aud he is the giver of various gifts and graces for ministry.

208 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

by way of negation, when he declarea that none of tlie things that
have come inti) bcin^ \» eijuul in honour witli liiui. None of
the order of the angels has e(iuality with him. He has no ])eGr
among them ; they are contrasted with liim as recipients of a
mission of service : whereas he is ' the divinely appointed ruler
and teacher and sanctitier ' of all angelic orders.' But he also
insists that the gracious gifts which he gives are all tiie 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 Fnther 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. Ho 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 tlie 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
Sou\a of the Son.

■ xvi 24. » xvi 4 ; cf. iv 16. * E.g. xvii 9, 28, 33, 34.

" xvii 5. • 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 Gaddance 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, Sou, and Holy Ghost ' one
person ' {irpocrwirov), or spoke of the Holy Spirit as the ' unbe-
gotten God ', or as not other than the Son, or as a ' part ' ((Ltepo?)
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 di\dne, and this furnishes
Athanasius with his chief argument all through. The relation
of the Son to the Father 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 comraittcd to me by the Father ", and "he receives
of mine and shall declare it to you ".

2 Hahn » p. 198.

^ He sent four letters in all {ad Sarapioncru Orationcs iv) — the first a long one,
the seconil and third intended to be simpler (the second really deals with the
Godhead of the Sec, while the third summarizes the first), and the fourth in reply to
objections (particularly with regard to the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit). [A
convenieut edition of the letters in Bibliotlicca Pair. Qraec. dof/iaatica, ed. Thilo,
vol. i.]

The opponents of the doctrine against whom he argues he culls Tropici (Meta-
phoricals), because they would interpret as tropes or metaphors the passages of
Scripture in which the doctrine was expressed.

210 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

of the Spirit is a necessary inference from them. On this theme
he rin»^ the cliangcs. 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 thoroforo tlie Son is not a creature, it is impossible
that his Spirit can be. And furthor, 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 Ood ' (i 17)
indivisible and homogeneous. The term ' Spirit ' is used in
various senses in tiie 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 which they
supposed he was represented as a creature (but which, Athanasius says, do not refer
to him) is Amos 4'^.

- The chief [jassage 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 ' son '
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 Kiver,
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 case 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 \6yov) who is from the Father (§ 20).
He is the Son's very own {l8iov rov viov) and not foreign to God
i^evov TOV Oeov) (§ 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
(tSio<i rr}? ovaia<i avrov) ; 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 (tSiov Kar ova-lav tov viov). ... He is proper to the deity
of the Father.3 ... 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, the immutable nature one (§ 30).

This is the ancient tradition and teaching and faith of the
CathoKc Church, received from the Lord, preached by Apostles,

' Cf. iv 6. The Father is always Fatlier, and the Son always Son, and the
Holy Spirit is and is called always Holy Spirit.

- The terms are wapa (or 6k) tov irarpbs 8ia rod viov.

' He is also in Him (iv 4).

'» The Scriptures further prove his divinity by shewing him to be immutable ami
invariable and ubiquitous (§ 26 ; cf. iii 4), So too his functions prove his difference
from men— the principle of sanctification cannot be like that which it sanctifies :
the source of life for creatures cannot itself he a creature.

212 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINK

and preserved by the Fathers, — it is tho very fouiulation of tlic
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
whieh the Lord himself bade the Apostles lay for the Church
when he said to them '(}o ye and make disciples of all nations,
bjiptizing them into tho name of the Father and of the Sou and
of the Holy Spirit' (§ 28).

Those who dare to separate the Trinity and reckon the Holy
Spirit amonj^ created thiiu^s are as audacious as the riuirisees
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 Niccno
faith in the West, was maintaining similar teaching in more
systematic form ^ in his 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 {jjer) 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 Fatre per filium.'^

The Theories of Macedonius

The chief repiesentative 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 Hilaiy (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 tlaough Augustine was destined to
overshadow and supersede Hilary. (Aug. De Trinitatc was published more tliau
fifty years later, c. 416.) See Cazeuove ' Hilarius Pictaviensia ' D.C.B.

' See Swete ' Holy Ghost ' D. C.B.

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 213

deposed by the Synod of (Jonstantinople in 360.^ In his
retirement he is said to have elaborated the theories connected
with his name ; teaching that whereas the Sou 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 ^eo? uiwz/o?.^

77ig Doctrine declared at the Council of Alexandria 362, and
subsequent Synods in the Bast 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 the Arian interest, the strict
Iloinoean formula (' like ' only) was agieed to, and Semi-Arians and Anomooans
alike were suppressed, ilacedonius and others {e.g. Basil of Ancyra and Cjril of
Jerusalem) were deposed really because they were Semi-Arians, to whom the strict
Homoeau formula seemed ' Arian ', but nominally on various charges of irregularity.
See Hefele Councils vol. ii p. 273, and supra p. 185.

'So Soz. H.E. iv 27. His followers were known as Macedonians or Pneuma-
tomachi (contenders against the Spirit) or Marathonians, from Marathonius, Bishop
of Nicomedia, a chief supporter of the teaching.

' See e.g. Greg. Naz. Or. Theol. v 7, and Athanasius supra p. 210.

* See supra, p. 185, and Atli. ad Antiochenos, esp. §§ 5, 6. Note the claim to
liold the Nicene faith along with the ' Macedonian ' doctrine of the Holy Spirit. Cl'.
TheodoretiT.i;. iv 3.

L>14 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

fathers said ; while the Holy Spirit is not a creature, nor foreign,
but proper to, and inseparable from, the essence of the Father and
the Son. . . . For we believe that there is one Godhead, and tli:it
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 Sjiirit than the Creed of Nicaea
svipplied 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 fif.), synods at Kome 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-

1 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 pui-pose (his olKovofiia) — " to the weak he becomes weak to gain the weak ".
He is utterly astonished at the boldness of those who venture to speak against
him (Ath. E'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 as the ' Tome of Damasus '. The anathemas repudiate in detail
aU 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 siipra p. 188 n. 1.

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 215

pliaiiius, 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-existerice 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 deov irarepa
— Koi ets" €va Kupcov . . . tov vlov — kol el<; to irvevfia to ayiov.
He too is Kvpiov as the Son, and he proceeds e'/c tov •jraTp6<; (i.e.
e'/c T^9 ovaia^ tov 7raTp6<;, he was therefore in the Father). He
is worshipped and glorified together with (aw) ... as a person.

(b) The Eternity. This is implied in the phrases which
shew the personality, particularly by the present eKiropevofiwov,
which connotes neither beginning nor end ; also, to some extent,
by the operations attributed to him, especially the title ^(oottoloi:

(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
aKve — 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 the Spirit from the Father (without denying
it from the Son also, hut preferring the expression ' through the Son ' as medium —
as TertuUian in the West had said a Paire per filium). So Epiphanius never uses
the word ' procession ' to express the relation of the Spirit to the Son. He only
says that he receives of him ' proceeding from (iK or airb) the Father and receiving
of the Son' {tov TloD Xd/jL^avov ; cf. John 15-* and 16"). But he does not hesitate
to say that the Spirit is 'from the Father and the Son' and ' from the same essence'
or Godhead (always using the prepositions iK or irapd ; see Ancor. 8, 9, 67, 73,
69-70 ; adv. Ecier. Ixii 4).

It will thus be seen that though, in common with the Greek Fathers, he does not
express the y/rccfssitwt from the Son, he comes nearer in his language than others to
putting the Father and tlie Son together as the joint source of derivation of the Spirit.

In the West, Ambrose, writing a little later (381) (see dc S'p. S. i 11) makrs
the derivation of the Spiiit dependent on the Son ; and the declaration of Cyril of

21G CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Compjirod witli the Creed of Nicaea (which, however, wh8 only
intended (o deal with the doctrine of the Tersou of (Jhrist, see
supra p. 168 n. 2) all those clauses are new, except the one bare
statement of faith ' in the Holy Spirit '} But they only amount

Alexandria tliat the Spirit i.s tlio Son's very own (Anathema ix against Nefltoriua
— Hahu' p. 315) was approved by tlie Couneil of Ki)he.s;is in 431.

The first definite denial that the Holy Spirit receives his essence from the Son
(as well as from the Fatlier) was expressed by Thcodoret in answer to Cyiil's
anathema. If, by the Spirit being the Son's very own, Cyril only meant to desorilio
him as of the same nature and proceeding from the Father, he would agree and
accept the phrase as pious ; but if ho meant that the Spirit derived his being from
the Son or through the Son, then he must reject it as blaspliemous and iinj)ious.
Cyril in re]>ly justified his expression (without going into Theodorefs charge), on the
ground that the Spirit juoceeds 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 hath 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. xcui 1), taught '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 Latin version without the insertion attracting attention. At a Council held at
Toledo in 589 (summoned by Rcccared, king of the Visigoths), to emphasize the
national renunciation of Arianisiii, 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 Pater
nosier in the Eucharist. As a defence against Arianisni 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 Hatlield in 680. But it was
not till after the middle of the eighth century that the doctrine of the procession
was formally debated at a Coimcil : 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 procession 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
Pope, Leo lll., 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
Coimcil 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 Introd. to Creeds p. 115.]

' The CreexJ contains all the chief Nicene clauses and anathemas.

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 217

to a scanty summary of the teaching which, as is shewn above,
;in ordinary presl)yter gave his catechumens before any con-
troversy as to the Holy Spirit arose. (The words tov irapd-
KKrjTov wliich 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 ^ (probably 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 (et?
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

1 Hahn ^ p. 135.

* A variant reading gives the active sense ' receiving ' ; cf. .lolm 16'^. The pliiase
is first found here.

218 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

lie had used two fuinis of tlie doxology, " to God the Father
through the Son in the Holy Spirit", and " iritk the Son together
wilh the Holy Spirit " ; ^ that the two forms were regarded iis
mutimlly inconsistent, and the latter as an innovation. Ao.tius
had framed a rule hy which the use of the jnepositions iu
Scripture was governed, and argued that the dilVcrence of use
corresponded to, and clearly indicated, a dilVcrence of nature (§ 2);
and according to this rule the first f<n-ni of doxology only was
legitimate — CJod being widely dillerentiated from the Son, anc
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 'ivitlc
{fjL€Tn), sometimes through (Bui), is the more appropriate ; accord-
ing as, for example, pi'aise 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." 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-

' 5ii Tov vloxj iv Tif ayUj} irvevfiari and /icrd rov vlou <tvv rt^ irvetj/jMri t<^ ayl(p.

2 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 co-ordinate with Father and Son but subordinate to thenj, 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 tho 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 Son) ; 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 aud 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 {wKeiwukvov Kara rrjv (ftvatv
avru) § 46); he is as it were an ' intimate' of the Son. He is
thug 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' {avv § 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 sphere in which they are operating (§ 60).

Other 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 another
the chief offices in all the Churches.

doctrine adopted a curious verbal subtlety and argued that he was not ' numbered
with' them, but was 'numbered under' them, and that co-numeration suits tilings
equal in honour, but sub-numeration things relatively inferior (§§ 13, 41, 42).
Basil says this doctrine of sub-numeration introduces polytheism into Christian
theology (§ 47). Number has not really any place in the sphere of the Divine.
Cf. also Greg. Naz. Or. Theol. v 17 if.

220 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Grtffory of Nyssa — Quod non sint tres Dei

The same teuohing was being given by Gregory of Nyssa
too about the same time. The devoted yt)unger brother of Basil,
of whom he constantly speaks as his ' master ', while not intending
to depart in any way from iiis brotlier'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 NotioTis (Migno P.G. xlv pp.
175—186), so in his letter to Ablabius, That there are not three
Qods {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 irpoawTrcoi' BtjXcotikov but oi>(Tia<;
crqjxavTiKov) ; and therefore it is, and must be, always used in
the singular with each of the names of the persons. So we aay
' 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 terra ' 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 polytheism 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 (ivepyeta) 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

' An English translation in ' Gregory of Nyssa' N. omd 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 — that by not admitting the difference of
nature there was danger of a mixture and confusion of the
persons — leads him to 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 difference in regard to that which
causes and that which is caused {tt]v Kara ro atriov koI ahiarov
Bt,a(popdv), 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 difference in that which 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 he is Only-begotten, and does
not exclude the Spiiit from his relation of nature to the Father."
At the same time, the difference 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 ho^v He is.
" The divine nature itself is apprehended through every concep-
tion as invariable and undivided ; and therefore one Godhead
and one Crod, 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

oausiition serves only to distiiii^'uish the throe modes of existence.
CJoil is one (6 ©toV) ; but within His boing there is Cause
(TO aiTiov), to which the name ' Father ' corresponds, and there
is caused (to aiTtaTov), which includes tlie immediately caused
(to irpoa-ey^Mf tx toD irptltiTov) to which the name ' Son ' corre-
sponds, and the inodiatoly caused (to hia rov 'rrpo(Ti')(Co<i ck tov
TrpcoTov) to whicli the name ' Holy Spirit ' corresponds. Tlie
lloly Spirit is thus in such wise 'fro?n 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 Wiis enough, but that in doxologies the Spirit should be
glorified togetlier with 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
retlected in one of the sermons which Gregory of Nazianzus

' Cf. the Oratio Calechetica ii, ' ' an essential power existing in its own proper
jifrson, but incapable of being separated from God, in whom it is, or from the "Word
of God, whom it accompanies" ; On the Holy Spiril (Migne xlv p. 1304), eV rov Oeov
i<TTi, Kal TOV xp^<^'''ov 4<TTi, KaOijis yiypairrai ; "not to be confounded with the Father
in being unoiiginate, nor with the Son in being onlj'-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 TrinUy (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 jiroves identity of nature or essence.

He also touches the line of argument which Augustine afterwards worked out so
f'dly (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.^. Oratio Cat. i-iii.)

It is to be noted that Gregory of Nyssa does not claim that the oiala of the God-
head in itself can be known, but only its Idiibfiara or yvupicT [lara. See de Conimunihus
Notioniln(s (Migne xlv p. 177), Hcfut. alt. lib. Evnoiaii (ibid. p. 945), Quod m/n
sint tres dii {ibid. p. 121). So, among others, Augustine in Jolt. Tract, xxxviii 8,
" ego sum qui sum, quae mens 'potest eapere V

* Hefele Councils vol. ii j>. 290.

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 223

r>reached at Constantinople about the year 380, while engaged
I his noble task of building up again a * Catholic ' congregation
1 the city which had so long been given over to the Arians.
" Of the wise among us ", he says, " some have held the
■ Spirit to be an Energy, others a Creature, others God.
others again have not decided which of these he is — out of
! uverence, 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 enoucrh 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 plainly revealed the 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. TJifoL v § 5).

- Lauguage ol' this kind might have seemed to the Moutanists of earlier times to
support their main conceptions.

224 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINli

Son ; and, so long as this was still not accepted, to impose the
burden of tlie Spirit, if so bold a phrase may be allowed." *

From the }»oint of view of CJregory the Macedonians would
be lag^'ing behinil the necessary — the divinely appointed — course
of develop<}nient of revelation of the nature of the Godhead.
And before, and at the time of, the Council of Constantinople in
381 every elfort was made to win them over to the recognition
of the truth luid 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 retiffirmed the Nicene Creed with an explanation ^ of various
points of doctrine, among which the Godhead of the Spirit was
alilrmed, 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

» Ibid. § 26 ff. See the whole of this Sernion, esp. §§ 9, 10 and 28 for the testi-
mony of Scripture to the Holy Spirit.

- Tliey included (besides tliose mentioned) Cyril of Jerusalem, Hf^lladius the
successor of Basil at Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa. and Aniphilochius of Iconium — all
well versed no doubt in the Catholic doctrine.

^ This is not extant, but tlie 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 p. 348). It is not
certain to which of the Councils — in 381 or in 382 — some of the canons attributed to
the CouncQ of 381 belong. The synodical letter of the Council of 382 (to Damasus
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 {viroardaecriv) and three perfect
persons (irpoiruTrois) ".

* The heresies specified are those of the Euuomians or Anomoeans, the Arians or
Eudoxians, the Semi-Arians or Pneuraatomachians, the Sabellians, Marcellians,
Photiniaus, and Apollinarians.

* " 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 Spuit." —
Soz. H.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
jtrnnps gion nfj ^bft 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 liis summary of it may be given in conclusion.^

Ai(fjustine's Statement of the Doctrine

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 corporeal
or outward means were adopted we cannot rashly affirm which
Person it wa3 that appeared.^

' The next Latin writer on the subject after Hilary was Ambrose, the spiritual
father of Augustine, in the year of the CouncU of Constantinople. He answers
objections and sets forward such arguments 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 oomjileted the presentation of the
doctrine for the West. He had stated it shortly in the sermon he preached before a
Council at Hippo in 393 (see dc Fide et Symbolo, 16 ff.), and again a few yeuns
later in a Sermon to catechumens (§ 13), and also in his sermons on the Gospel of
at John (see Tract, xeix esp. 6 tf.) ; but it was not till after the 3'ear 415 that he
published the treatise On the Trimly, at which he had been working at intervals
for many years, and in which he gave to the doctrine the fullest expre.ssion.

- Bk. ii ; the means beiug further considered in bk. iii.

226 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Just as the Son, tliough 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 Fatlier but also from the Son.* The Lord
himself says of the Spirit ' w^hom I will sand unto you from the
P'ather ' 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 hero and again in bk. viii ad init., later
theologians applied the term Treptxwpjjiris. Both senses of the verb X'^P^'") ' 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 oh. ix), —
and so the numerical unity of substance is maintained. Latin equivalents of the
term are thus either circumincessio (the thi-ee mutually pervade each other) or
circuminscssio (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 1'* 10^ and 14'"- " ("the only-begotten Son which is
in the bosom of the Father ", and " I am in the Father and the Father in me . . .
the Father that dwelleth in me ") : and Athanasius 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 thought (in language very near to the later technical term),
"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 " (^/x^tXoxwpf '" t(^ Oeifi
Kal evSiairairdai — in Deo manere et hahita/re), and supporting it by the same passages
of Scripture {de Decrctis § 26). Similar expression is given to the doctrine in the
Macrostichos (Antioch, 345) § ix. "For we have believed that they (the Father
and the Son) are conjoined with one another without medium or interval and exist
inseparably frotn 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 Ix)rd 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 tres), 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.

1 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 eterasilly existent (as a gift may exist before
it is given) (§ 16).

228 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

vif the arfjument (bk. viii), in which he eni})ha8izeR the perfert
equality of all the ' rersons ' and the completeness of ouch in
respect of Deity (no ono in the Trinity, nor two to^etlier,
nor even all three together, being greater than each one
severally) ; Augustine passes on to the most characteristic
argument of iiis essay. On the ground that man is the inuige
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
l)eing understood ever since the creation by the things He has
made ".'

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 ; and
the love is not less since it loves itself just to the extent of
its knowledge and of its being.*

' Rom. 120. cf. Wisd. 13i-» (bk. xv § 3).
^ AmaiLS, et quod aiiiatur, et amor.

^ Mens, notitia qua se novit, auioi quo se notitiainque suam diligit.
* Nee minor proles, dum tantara se novit mens quanta est : nee minor amor dum
tan turn se diligit quantum novit et quanta est (ix 18).

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 229

Other trinities may be seen in the mind — in memory, uuder-
stfinding, will ^ ; in sight — the object, the act of seeing or vision,
the attention of the mind or the will which comljines 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 Cod^);
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 botli (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 the 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 which
remembers and understands and loves itself, but above all
God, and so is brought into most intimate relation to Him.
So it is that the constitution of man himself, made in the

' Menioria, intelligentia, voluutas suimetipsius (x).

2xi2-T0. ^xiiitr. M^k. xiii.

» Bk. xii. 6 Bk. xiii. ^ Bk. xiv.

230 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

image of God, boars wiLiiess to the truth of the doctrine i»£ the
Trinity.

The main thesis of the treatise is tlms apparently conchided ;
but it is of the Trinity itself, not only of evidence for its
existence, that Aui^ustine writes ; and in the last book he adds
larjjjely to what he has before said in regard to the Holy Spirit,
ptvrticularly as to his relation to the Father and the Son.

The Holy Spirit, he says,' according to the holy Scriptuiea,
is neither of the Father alone nor of the Son alone, but of both :
and so ho 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 siieeially 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

1 Bk. XV § 27 tf.

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 231

that he is begotteu 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 Sou 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 Eemesiana in Dacia (near Palanka in Servia),
a great admirer of Basil. His treatise was written, Mr. Birrn thinks,
soon after 381, as part of the third book of his Ldbelli instructionis. (It
is printed in Migne vol. lii p. 853, under Mai's mistaken title de Spiritus
sancti potentia.) He begins by reference to the puzzles put forward by
some as to whether the Spirit was ' born 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 1^^, Eom 8^^,
John 2022 161^ 1 John 2\ 1 Cor U'-^). Scripture and all his operations,
whether benignant or awe-inspiring, shew his fidl 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 noun from substo, means * 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 he refers to his Sermon on St John's Gospel — in Joh. Trad, xcix 6ff.,
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 Trinitate esp. ii 29-35, viii 25, Lx 73, xii 55.

232 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINIi:

liavo tmhufanfia. an* oontrasUMl witli IIiksc which tmly hav*^ an iniaf^inaiy
oxist^'nco, ]Knn^ fa^hioiieJ by ilhisury or unreal llunight, liko CciiUiuih
or giants (Sonccn A)). 58): — a contrast which shows tlio moaning of
itHhstantia 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
nuhstaritia (xr. his real existence, the fact that he is) : so that you cannot.
make the question of his hn'ni/ a subject of examination (Quintiliaii
vii 2. 5). That is to say, substantia denotes '•eal existenf(>, as to the
pjirticular form or character of wliich enquiry may be made. So, too,
substantia and qualitas are distinguished as subjects of investigation
(i7». 3. 6) ; and in this way it comes about that the substantia of a thing
is an easy periphrasis for the thing itself.

A socomlary sense of the term — ' property ', ' patrimony ', ' fortune ' —
has been siifhciently referred to in the text in comicxioii with Tertullian's
usage (see sitpra 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 (sujira p. 117), for both oixna and t/Troo-Tams.
Both words alike arc 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 TevtuWiiMi de A nirna 11,
where he distinguishes between the soul as substantia and its acts or
operations ; and in the adjectival forms which he employs, for instance,
(f-e Res. Carn. 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 (siibstantivus), he declares that he is a
suhstantiva res, whereas ' the power of the Most High ' and the like are
not, but only accidentia subsfantiae. Or again ' faith ' and ' love ' are
not sjibstantiva animae but conceptiva, — that is not the substantia but
the concepts of the substantia.]

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 substardia has its own
natura which is inseparable from it, but the sidjstantia is not the natura.
The retention of the distinction is plainly perceptible in the expressitm
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 SPH^IT AND THE TRINITY 233

the twi) 'natures' merely. If they do not actually employ the term
mbdantia (speaking of the mhsfantia of Godhead and the substantia of
manhood as united in the Person of the Son), they use some other
jthrase to represent it rather than naiura. Thus forma Dei and forma
servi are preferred by Hilary, as jilitis Dei and filiufi hominis by
iVovatian and Augustine; and Leo, though he freely uses ufraque
nafiira, is careful to mark his full meaning by adding et substantia to
Tiatura, and by interchanging with it the expression utraque fornia
{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 ApoUinarius as the refusal to recognize in Christ
two substances (diias mhstantias), 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 TertuUian'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, fijst 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
unius substantiae with us secundum humanitatem), and then it is
declared that the one person exists in the two natures. (See further
I'exts and Studies vol. vii no. 1 pp. 65-70.)

PERSONA— TrpoVoTTW

The history of the word persona outside ecclesiastical use is 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 rdle
assumed by any one without regard to its duration. Secondly, it is the
condicio, status, munus which 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 OT that persona. Thus slaves, as not possessing any rights of citizen-
ship, were regarded by Roman law as not having ^iersona : they were
dTrpocrcoTToi or persona carentes. (Cf. the phrase personam amittere 'to
l(Ase rank or status ' and the Vulgate rendering of irpoawTrov Aa/i./?av«tv —
viz. respicere or aspicere personam.) It is this second sense of the word
by which ecclesiastical usage is controlled ; and the most important fact

2;U CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

to notice is that it never moans what * person ' means in morlorn |>opn]iir
usage, even when it seems to be used very nearly in the sense of
' person ', and when it has no otiier reprosontative in Knglish. It
always designates status, or character, or part, or function : not, of
course, that it is conceived as separate from sonic living subject oi
agent, but that attention is lixed 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 Dasil's rpoTros vTrap^ews denoted, and what uTroo-rao-is was
ultimately narrowed down to mean.

The history of Trpoa-ayTrov is similar, as to its primary uses, to that of
jyersona. In the New Testament the regular sense of the M'ord is ' face ' :
either literally (of living beings or frop. of e.(/. the face of the earth), or
as equivalent to 'presence'. It is also found in the phrase TrpoaoiTrnv
\afji(3dvtiv 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 cv TrpocrwTrw
Xpia-Tov, 2 Cor 2^** 4", where it stands for ' character ' or ' part ' ; (3)
2 Cor P^ where it is almost exactly like TertuUian's persona. But
it is probably 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 Avhich 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 the 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 r61es (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 Iheolngians were left without
any suitable way of expressing the conception, till they could agree
among themselves to use another term which properly meant something
ijuite 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 — 'YTrocrTacrts

The word oiaCa 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 (ra (f>aiv6ixeva) : 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 oio-ia, namely, the Idea — so far, that is
to say, 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 suhstantia in Latin) it is equivalent to to
eivat ; but particularly he uses it to express real concrete existence — to
uv, TO (iTrAws 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 (crvix^e/^rjKOTa). And thus, in
accordance with Aristotle's inductive method, it is primarily and properly
descriptive of individual particular existence — each particular entity (the
ToSe Ti) : and this primary sense is distinguished as irpuirr) ovata. But
inasmuch as there may be many examples of one particular oima, 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
oevrepa 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 ^I'o-t? or
' nature ' — the sum total of the attributes or properties (a-vfxfSefS-qKOTo).
But it is never employed as a mere synonym for <fiv(Ti<;. It always
means much more, including (fivcns perhaps, but logically to be dis-
criminated from it.

'Y7rocrTao-t9, as a philosophical term, 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 usage of the term is derived directly

236 CUULSTIAN DOCTKINb:

and naturally from an onrlior and not unconinion uso of tho verb of
vliioli it is tho noun. Tho nxxriu was said to oxiat at the outset, to be
the underlying existence (i'</>f(rTai'ai) ; and so the noun u7ro<rr«o-ts was a
possible equivalent for ovcri'a, expressing the essential siihsfrafimi, tho
' foundation ' of a thing, tho vehicle of all qunlitica. The earliest
examples of its use are found in Stoic writers, and thenceforward botli
words, ovo-t'a and iVdoTttcris, were current without any clear distinction
being drawn between thcni. Hut ova-ia was by far the commoner term,
vwooTao-ts being comparatively rarely found. So Socrates {H.K. iii 7)
could say ' the ancient philosophical writers scarcely noticed this word ',
though ' the more modern ones have frequently used it instead of
oitria'. It wa.s, however, as has been stated supra p. 117, the equi-
valent of uTrwrratris (viz. snhsiantia) which was acclimatized in thf( Latin
language more readily than the equivalent of ova-ia (viz. essentia), and
therefore snhftauiia was all through tho normal term by which Ijatiii
theologians expressed the conceptions for which ova-ia stood.

Tho LXX translators of the Old Testament employed the word to
express the ' gi'omid or foundation of hope '; and it was introduced into
Christian theology by the Avriter of the Epistle to the Hebrews. In his
phrase )(apaKTr)p rijs vTroo-Taorccos avTov (Heb. 1^), i^oa-raais is exactly the
equivalent of ovaia ('being', 'essence', 'substance', as in the /xia ovaia
or una subsfantia of later technical theology) ; and so it was expounded
by the later Greek theologians, who would themselves have used oia-ia
there instead and have kept vTrdcrTatris 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 eXTri^o/utVwv v/rdo-rao-ts
(Heb. IP) — 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 vTroa-raats occurs (Heb. 3^*, 2 Cor. 9* IP'^ — in which at
least the meaning 'subject-matter', 'tlie matter of is possible; cf, the
Vulgate and Tyndale's versions).

So ovo-ta and vTrdo-Tacris remain in use side by side. Origen was the
iirst to attempt to discriminate between them ; but the use of vTroaruais
as the equivalent of ovcrta was too firmly rooted to be much .shaken.
The supposition that Dionysius of Alexandria was familiar with a
different usage, and that rpcis iwoo-Tacrccs 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 develoiiement 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
substantial entity of Deity (see s^q^ra p. 114 n. 2). So great was his

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE TRINITY 237

nputatioM, that if the discrimination liad 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
ovcria and {iTroo-rao-t? 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 l^ iTepa.<; oro-tas ; and in one of his latest writings ad Afros 4,
refuting the objections brought against the words as non-scriptural, he
says " v7roo-Tacrt9 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 ova-La without mention of vTroa-Taa-is,
the Synod of Constantinople in 360 declared against wocrTao-ts 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 of the word vn-ocrrao-is which made it possible to speak of the
Trinity as rpeis uTroo-Tao-ets, 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 /x,ta vTroo-racris only could be said,
received like recognition (see Ath. ad Antiochenos 5, 6, and Socr. H.K
iii 7). By this time many ' orthodox ' theologians were becoming
accustomed to the usage of the two terms ovcria and vTroorao-is, whereby
(ivcria expresses the existence or essence or substantial entity of the
Trinity as God, and woo-rao-/,? expresses the existence in a particular
luode, 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
vTTocTTatris as TO iStcos A.c-yo/>t€i/ov — a special and particular sense of ovcria.
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 apparent gives fixity and circumscription to that which is common
and uncircumscribed (Ep. 38)." And again (Ep. 214) : " Ovcria has
the same relation to uTroo-rao-ts as the common has to the particular.
Every one of us both shares in existence by the common term of ovcria
and by his own properties is such or such an one. In the same
manner, in the matter in question, the term ovcria is common, like
goodness or Godhead or any similar attribute (i.e. it is not ' goodness '
or any attribute) ; while uTrdo-Tao-ts is contemplated in the special

238 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

property of Fathorhootl, Souship, or the power to sanctify." That is
to say, vTrfkrrao-i? oxpressos tlie particular motlc of existence or special
function.

So the two toruiK passed (ni^'otlier into Catholic use to express
respectively the one Godhead and the forms of its existence. There is
^'a oitrt'a and rptis viro<rTd.afii, or fua ovcria iy TpLtrlv vTroardcrtariv — one
substance or essence or entity, in three subsistoncies or forms or modes or
spheres of existence or conscioiisness : one God permanently existing in
three eternal modes. The ovcria of Father atul Son and Holy Spirit is
one and the same. Roth Father and Son together with the Holy Spirit
are the Godhead. The one Jieiug exists in three forms, or spheres, or
functions. The one God is tri-personal. (See further Texts and Sludvss
vol. vii no. 1 pp. 74-81.)

CHAPTER XIV

The Christological Controversies — Apollinarianism

The Results of the previo^is 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 Spirit : the three names representing three eternal re-
lations existing within the Godhead, 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 distingmshed 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

839

240 CHRISTI.W DOCTRINE

any precise ami clear couceplion of pereonality. And this difli-
culty, not even yet surmounted, was at the root of the next great
controversy to which the Cliurch 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 ultiiuiitcly framed, took note of four main factors —
his full and perfect divinity, his full and perfect Ininmnity, the
union of the two in one pors(jn, the relations existing between
the two wlien united in the one person.

By the time the Arian controversy ended, tlie first two
explicitly and the third implicitly of these four factors had been
fully recognized in the doctrine of the Trinity ; but tlie 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 fi^tli
century, in tlie prelude to which ApoUinarius played the leading
part.

The Points of Departure of ApoUinarius and His Theories

Apollinarius ^ had been a chief champion of the Nicene
doctrine against the Arians, and it was in opposition to them

' ApoUinarius, Bishop of Laodicea, in tlie latter half of tho fourth century, was
son of the (frammatista (schoolmaster) of Berytus, and afterwards presbyter of
Laodicea, who undertook the composition of Christian works, in imitation of the
old cla-ssics, when Julian's educational laws precluded Christians from studying and
teaching the ancient Greek and Latin literature. In thix work the son heljied his
father, and also wrote in defence of Christianity against Julian and Porphyiy,
and against heretics, such a.s the Arians and Marcellus, besides commfntaries on
Scripture and other works, of which only fiagnients are extant in tlie answers of
Gregory Naz. Epp. ci, cii (to Cledonius), Gregory of Nyssa Antirrheticus adv. ApolL
and Ep. ad Theophilum adv. ApolL, and Theodoret. Cf. also Epiphanius adv.
Haer. Ixxvii, 'Athanasius' CoiUra Apoll. (Eng. tr. Bright Later Treatises of St
Atfuinasius, probably not the work of Athanasius — see Draseke Zcitschrift f. wiss.-
scliaft. Theologie 1895 pp. 2.54 ft". — but written while the controversy was at its
height), Theodoret Fabulae Haer. iv 7, v 9, 11, and Basil Ep. 263 (very vague).
Jerome was among his pupils in 374, and he was at first on terms of warm friend-
ship with Athanasius and Basil, on account of his learning and support of the Nicene
party in the Arian controversy. His, or a similar, doctrine was condemned by a
synod at Alexandria in 362, but tlic doctrine docs 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
public worship of ApolUnarians 388-428, till they became absorbed in the Church or
the Mouophyaites. He died in c. 392. See P. Schaff Art. ' Apollinarius ' D.C.B.

APOLLINARIANISM 241

that he was led to devise his peculiar theory. Two motives in
particular determined him.

First, the Arian teacliing of the possilDility 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
Apollinarius.

A second motive was conditioned by the ambiguity of ter-

It is also probable that some writings of Apollinarius 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 with this matter. Under
the name of Leontius of Byzantium (485-543), a contemporary of Justinian, there
is extant (Migne 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 Apollinarius — (1) The Kara /lipos Trhris Hahn^ p. 278,
an exposition of the faith, ascribed to Gregory Thaumatujgus ; (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 fiia ^v<ns tov dtov \6yov ffe<TapKw/j.&7i (one incarnate nature
of the Divine Word), but quoted from by writers against Monophysites as a composi-
tion of Apollinarius. In the judgement of the ^vl•iter of this study (who seems not to
have been Leontius, but perhaps John of Scythopolis, c. 500, who did investigate
genuine remains of Apollinarius) the fraud passed because the Church was ready to
welcome teaching as to the one nature of the incarnate Son. This example of early
literary criticism has recently been followed by a modem scholar, who argues tliat
wliole treatises have been so dealt with, and assigns to Apollinarius, as well as the
Creed above named and fragments of a work 07i the Incarnation, the correspondence
with Basil {E2)p. 361-364 in Basil's Works), the last two books of Basil's Treatise
o'jainst Eunomius (written c. 360, thoroughly orthodox, especially in regard to the
Ibjly Spirit), Dialogues on the Holy Trinity (assigned variously to Athanasius,
Theodoret, and others), and the irepl rpidSos under the name of Justin (which clearly
cannot be earlier than this time, while Gregory Naz. refers to a treatise of Apollinarius
on the Trinity). None of these writings, however, shew any of the peculiar theories
known as ApoUinarian. See further 'Apollinarius von Laodicaea' J. Draseke,
Ti'.rtc und Untcrsuchungen (Gebhardt und Haraack) 1892 ; and article in Church
i.huirterly October 1893. And on the date and authorship of the work advcrsus
fraudrx ApoUinistarutn see Loofs Texte u. Unt. iii 1, 2. On the corres)iondenco
with Basil see Texts and Studies vii 1 p. 38 ff,
i6

2-i'J CHRISTIAN DOC^TKINE

miiiology alrcjidy noted. To Apollinurius it seemed that a
complete ' nature ' was the same thing as a ' person '. A com-
plete divine nature and u complete human nature joined together
meant two persons joined together. If, tlierefore, Christ had all
the constituents of humanity, the two complete natures thus
supposed wouhl make two poisons, for there could not be a
composition of his person out (»f two. (The current teaching
of the union of full divinity and full hunuuiity 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
Apollinarius.

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 Imman nature,
necessarily instinct with capacities for evil — in virtue of which
developcment — good or e\n\ — was possible. Furthermore, it
was this that difiereutiated 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 Apollinarius 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,

1 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 sou],
the controlling and deterniinuig principle). Cf. 1 Thes.s. ^>'\ Gal. 5". But some of
his opponents (' Athanasius ' and Giogory of Nyssa) expressly disallowed this three-
fold division, maintaining that Scripture recognized only a ' dichotomy ' into body
and soul. (Tliey refer to the account of the Creation of man in Oenesis and to the
Gospel narrative of the death of the Lord — wliile liis body lay in the gi-ave, he went
with his soul into Hades.) See Adv. Apoll. i 14, and Antirrhet. 8, 35.

APOLLINARIANISM 24o

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
wliolly 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 flesh "^

Objections to his Theories and his Defence of fhem

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

1 See Note ' The Human Will in Christ ' infra p. 249.

- It will be noticed that iii 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 fiu'ther be observed that the formula tj.ia <pv<ns rod 6eov "Koyov aeaapKoi-
tiivri, "one incarnate nature of the God-Word", attributed to Apollinarius and
adopted by Cyril (see infra p. 274), is widely different from the fornmla, " one nature
of the Word incarnate " (fiia <pij(Tis toD deov \&yov cretrapKuii^vov). 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 3tjo (pinrncv). But to Apollinarius 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 on the Incarnalmi, which was, however, probably
written by Apollinarius, and ascribed to Athanasius by his followers {see Note
on p. 241 supra).

^ oihe AvOpuiros 6'Xos, oire deos, aXKa deov Kal auOpdiirov fil^is. This mode of
expression, ' mixture ' or ' blending ', had been used in all good faith in earlier
times, e.g. by Tertullian Apol. 21 hohio deo mkdus, Cyprian de idol, vanit. 11, and
Dcus cum liomine miscelur, Lactantius Inst, iv 13 Densest et hmno, ex utroque generc
pcrmixtus. Origen speaks of the union of the two natures as an interweaving
(ffvvvcf)aive(rdai) and a Kpaais or dm^-pacrts {Contra Cds. iii 41, cf dc Princip. ii 6.3).
So Ireuaeus adv. Eacr. iii 19.1, and others, down to the two Gregories, who both
use the terms (7vyKpa<ns and avaKpaais, and nearly approach the idea of a transmu-
tation of the human nature into the divine (as Origen I.e.), though they express
definitely the duality of the natures {({>{iireis /xkv di'o, Oebs Kal dvdpwiros). Even
Augustine says, "Man was linked and in some small way commingled with
{commixtus) the Word of God, to effect the unity of person" {de Trin. v 30).
None of the 0]>ponentH of Apollinarius express the manner of the union satis-
factorily ; thougli they do maintain the entirety both of the Godhead ami of the
manhood.

■* To this Gregory of Nazianzus replied Ef. ci that ' flesh ' was litre usud for
human nature, the part for the whole — ivuipKuuis really meant ivavBpdmrjcis.

244 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

making it umoal.* If his theory were true, the lii^hcst faith
and deej^st convictions of Christians were dolusious. God hail
not become man : lie had only, as it were, put on a garment of
tiesh.* And, further, the spirit or soul, which, as ho 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 sidvation.^

Yet A])olliuarius \mdoubtedly held the person so coni])osed
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
e-xternal 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, perliaps, have been expected. The
recognition of the natural affinity 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 deds ffapKo<f>6pos — God clad in flesh (just as later on, by con-
trast, Nestorianisni was said to teach an AvOpwiroi 6€0(f>6pos — a nian hearing with him
God — but on tliLs latter phrase see iii/ra p. 276). Ignatius had used the word
ffapKO(p6po$ of Christ {ad Smyrn 5).

* See e.g. 'Ath.' cmUra Apoll. i 19 ; and the retort of Gregory Naz. Ep. 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 is ' 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 spectra] person" Ep. cii.

* The question how entire manhood could be compatible with entire sinlessness
in Christ is dealt with at length in 'Atli.' crmtra Apoll. bk. ii — the answer being
that the human nature assumed was all that God had made, and this excluded sin,

APOLLINARIANISM 245

He Wcas indeed accused by Gregory of Naziiinzus 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 was said to have interpreted as if
he was the Sou of Man before he came down, and came down
brincjiny; with him his own flesh which he had had in heaven,
being, 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
fiesh.2

Rut in his own words to the Emperor Jovian, he
emphatically condemns as ' insane ' the teaching that the flesli
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 siu 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 what the Godhead is." See infra, pp. 246, 247.

^ A Creed, still in use among the Armenian Christians, is remarkable for the
clear and copious language in which it precludes ApoUinarianism : ' ' Came down
from heaven and was incarnate, was made man, was bom 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 (w all tliat 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
Hahu-^ p. 151 ff'., cf. p. 137, and is regarded by Hort {Two Disse7-ta/iam -p. llGff.)
as the ' Cappadocian ' Creed at the end of the fourth century, composed perhaps
about 366-369, at Tarsus (where Apollinarian teaching at Laodicea might well be
known earlier than elsewhere) by Silvanus (the teacher of Basil and of Diodorus),
and introduced by Basil into the churches of Ca[ipadocia, and thence into the
Church of Armenia (whose patriarclis were consecrated at Caesarea, the Cajipadocian
capital, till the end of the fourth century, the Church owing its origin at the
beginning of tlie century to Cappadocia). For other views of the origin of tliis
Creed see Hahn^ Appendix p. 154.

^ See Greg. Naz. £p. ci, ccii, and Bright SI Leu cm the Incarnation p. 518.

246 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

only.' This was intU-od ;in inference that niiglil he easily, if
carelessly, drawn from his own aeserlion, that the ilesii itf
Christ while really derived from the Virj^in — might he called
co-essential with the Word, hecause of its close union with
him ; from the close connexion, on whicli ho insisted, between
all human nature and the Logos who was the uioans by which it
was originally made ; and from his use of phrases such as ' God
is born *, ' Clod died ', ' our God is crucified '.^

It was the Apollinarian use of phrases such as these that
was ])eculiarly abhorrent to Diodorus of Tarsus and Theodore
of Mo})suestia, 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 contioversy on which the Church at last pro-
nounced at the Council of Chalcedf)u.

It has been stated ^ that the manner of the union of tlie
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 absor])tion
of the human into the divine, so that the special characteristics

' It should, however, be noted that Hilaiy of Poitiers, in his treatise de Trinitate
(written c. 356-3.'i9 in Asia Minor, to expound the teaching of the Church against
Arianism), does not hesitate to use the expression 'heavenly body' (corpus ((eleste)
of the body of Christ, and to say that his flesh was from heaven (caro ilia de coelis
est), c 15 ; x 73. The creation of the human soul of Christ was really a work of
the Logos (Hilary held ' creation ism ' 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 soul was really of his own creation, so that he was himael f the
fashioner (conditor) of his body (ipse corporis sui origo est, c 18), and therefore 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.C. Eng. tr. I ii p. 402 if.

- It was in view of such expressions that the theological principle known as
cammunicatio idiomcdum {dvrldoffis idicofidruv) was finally worked out (see infra
p. 293), though the conception was already full}' expressed by Athanasius Or. c. Ar.
iii 31, and by Tertullian before him. The opponents of Aj)ollinarius refused to
associate the sufferings of the Christ with his divine nature. The Apollinarians
therefore argued that their opponents held tliat he who 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 suffer. This inference was, of
course, repudiated at once, and the 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. A2)oll. and Greg.
Nyss. Antirrh£t. 27, f>2, 54.

» See p. 243 n. 3, p. 244 n. 4.

APOLLINARIANISM 247

of the human nature disappear. He says ^ " The firstfruits of
the human nature assumed by the ahnighty 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 pecuhar properties. For if it were so, then it would
follow that a duality of Sons might be conceived — if, that is, in
the iuetrable Godhead of the Son some nature of another kind
existing in its own special characteristics were reqognized — 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
which he uses here, as, for example, when he ridicules Apollinariiis
for attributing all the experiences of the Incarnate Person to the
Godhead ; - and ^ where he defines fii^i<; (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 his own cost
— the faith of the Church in the manhood as well as the
Godhead of the Saviour of men.

THE HUMAN SOUL IN CHEIST

If the doctrine of the Incarnation is not to be emptied of its true
significance, if the full humanity as well as the full divinity of Jesus is

1 JEp. adv. ApoJl. (Migiie xlv p. 1276).

2 AnlirrJut. 24. Antirrhet. 51.

248 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

to \ye inaintnini'd, it sppius to bo obvious tliat ho iiuist liave had a huninn
soul !us well as a human Ixxl y : if the tiTin soul l»o usud to inoan, ns
it is in this connexion, without uioro modern precision of delinition,
the higher element in human nature that controls and di-torminea
thought and action — the mind, the reason, the sj)irit, the will. A
human nature n)bbed 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
alKiut 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 jierson of (Jhrist 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 tlie theory of a human soul while still denying
the reality of the lunuan body. But the distinction between soul and
body seems not to have been thought of in this connexion. (Yet see
Tert. de Came Christi § 10.) "The Word became flesh" was the
simplest expression to hand, and this antithesis offered 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 supra 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 Irenreus {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 jNIartyr, anxious to maintain the truth of Christ's
humaiuty, like that of other men, made use of phrases which ex-
pressed his possession of body or flesh, and of the animal soul {\pv)(ri) ;
and it seems certain that he intended to assert his ftill 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 hody and thinking
soul, as animating principle (see Jc Aniiiia e.g. 27, 51). liuL 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
(cf. de Came Christi 11 ff.).

Origen, as wo have seen (sttpra p. 150), had a definite theory i>i
regard to the human soul with which the Logos was united.

The Arians were tlie first to frame an explanation of the person of
Christ which, while admitting as constituents a human body and an
animal soul {^vxv aXoyos), expressly excluded the rational soul (voCs,
irvevaa) and supposed its place to be taken by the Logos, thus and so
far anticipating Apollinarius. It was in accordance with this thetjry
that they preferred the description in the Creed 'made flesh' 'in-
carnate ' {o-apKwdevTo) to the term ' made man ' {ivavOpwTrr'jo-avTa) which
their opponents were constrained to introduce : the ' flesh ' they fully
admitted, but they knew that the latter term would })in 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 ApollLnarian 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 human nature, in
Christ. Such a recognition of a human will seemed to Apollinarians to
be an obstacle to the personal unity of the Logos (see supra 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 greater difficulties. 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 hfe
could neither be 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 (Ep. ci 9), who
admits some incompleteness of the human mind relatively to the divine

2r.O CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

luiml. Our ininti, ho says, is a complete wliole (reXeiov) and possessed
of sovereign }H)Wt'r (i;y€/jioi'iK()i') ; tliat is to say, it has sovereign i)ow< r
over the animal situl and lK«ly. Relatively to the rest of us, it is
sovert>ign ami complete. Hut absolutely it is not so ; it is God's slave
ami subject. In relatiiui 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 muslnrd 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) i.<
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. Theoh iv 2.)

But the question had also to l)e considered, not only in regard to the
unity of person, but also in reg;ird to the freedom of the person from
.sin. It was an ethical question as well as a metai)hysical problem.
Could the Ix)rd liave a human soul (and the human will which it
implied) and yet be sinless (X'^P'^ u/oiaprias) ?

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 will Christ be ' without sin ' 1 " 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
nature, 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 ovra absolute sinlessness emancipated man's nature henceforward
from sin.

APOLLINARIANISM 251

The April linarian?, 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 tliere was no human nature free from sin for Christ to assiime
(su<.'h seems to be tlie meaning of their objection J5 8). Its natural biai^
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 eflect 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
tlefeated : 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, which he knew 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, flesh 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 Monothehtes, but the context shews clearly that the
writer fidly recognized a human will in Christ, and only intended to
maintain that all the volitions of the human nature in him were in
haniiony with the will of the divine nature.)

Apollinarians have no right whatever to say ' it is impossible that
human nature which has once been made captive shoidd 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. It may, perhaps, be
said to fairly meet the ApoUinarian objection. But this •writer does not
seem to have faced the question " If the human nature which was
assumed was not a nature so far fallen as to be capable 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 1 What more did it do than exhibit an example of man as
he Avas before the Fall, as he might have been if there had been no Fall 1
How could a mere example of sinless humanity, preserved all through
from sin through union with the Godhead, avail to save men whose
nature was already sinful ? "

Gregory of Xyssa, however, does seem to regard the human nature
assumed by Christ as fallen (sinful) human nature. So he writes
(Antirrhet. 26 Migne xlv p. 1180) "For we say that God who is
essentially free from matter and invisible and incorporeal, when the time

252 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

of tlio oonsuiiimation of nil thiiij^ was drawing noar, by a special
(lisponsation of lovo iowani iiu'n ; when wickoiliicss had grown (o its
grpfttost ; then, witli a view to the dostruction of sin, was blended with
human nature, like a Sun as it wore making his dwelling in a murky
f^»ve ami by his presence dissijiating the ilarkness by means of his iiglil.
I'or though he took our filth uj)on himtself, yet he is not himself dehled
by tljc pollution : but in his own self he iMirifies the filth. l<'or, it
says, the light shone in the darkness, but the darkness did not over-
jxiwer it.* It is just what happens in the case of medicine. When
curative medicine is brought to bear upon the disease, tlie ailment yields
and vanishes, but it is not changed into the art of medicine."

And ho recognizes progress of the human nature (Jesus) under the
inlluence of the divine wisdom (Christ) witli which it was united {ilmL
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 wliich shrank
from pain as well as the divine will (though tlie latter always prevailed),
the human weaknes^s as well as the divine strength. The Ijord made
his own ' the lowly things of human fearfulness \ and gave proof of his
possession of our nature by sliaring in its affections {ihid. 32). (Cf.
' Ath.' de Incam. et c. Avian. 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.

'THE ATRANASIAN CEEED'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.

' This seems certainly to be the sense in which Gregory understood the passage
John l' — ou KariXa^ev contrasted with ivaKa^uv above.
^SeeHahn'p. 174.

APOLLINARIANISM 253

TL is fiuther recognized that the Creed is prior to Kutychianism,
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 ApoUinarianism that is opposed, and to cite the chief christulogical
))a.ssage from the Creed for examination, as bringing iiito focus the
different points in dispute throughout the controversy which has just
been reviewed. It is as follows : —

"... Dominus noster Jesus, Dei lilius, Deus pariter et homo est.
Deus est ex substantia Patris ante secula genitus, homo ex
substantia matris in seculo natus : perfectus Deus, perfectus
homo, ex anima rational! et humana carne subsistens, acqualis
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 in 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."
Let us see (1) what is opposed, (2) what is maintained.

(1) Opposed is conversion of divinity into flesh, and confusion of
ubstance (which means * confusion of God and man ' as passages h\

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 ami of tlie
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 Avay 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 that 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 ApoUinarianism (see e.y. Vincent Commonit. xii, and cf.
Xote on ' Substantia ' suj>ra p. 23.3) ; and the incidental phrases ex
xnhstaniia matris, in seculo iiatns, ex anitna rationali et huviaiia carne,
and the reference later on iu the Creed to the Descent into Hell (on

254 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

wliicli much stress is laid by Avriters against Aixjllinarius), favour the
conclusion tliat the comix)sition of the Creed may be assigned with
the greatest probability to the period during which Apolliuariauism was
rife, preceding the outbreak of Nest^irianism in 428 a.p.

(The l>ost collection of materials for the tstudy of the problems
connected with the Creed is to be found in G. T>. W. (.)nnnanney
A CrUical Disserfatum on the Athanasian Greed 1897, side by side
with which should be rend A. K Burn Tht' Athaiiaxian Creed Tcxt^s
and Studiej^ vol. iv no. 1, where a lucid statement of the history of
criticism of the Creed is given in the Introduction. \\'utr.Tland's
Critical Hutory is still valuable.)

CHAPTER XV

Nestorianism

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 explain the
separation — to confess the unity but emphasise 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 iu

265

256 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINK

(Jhrisl ii man who boiv the divine niilure, or the Logos joined
to human nature — two perBona and two natures.

Diodorus and Theodore,

Tliese traditions liad been formed and maintained by tlio
great teacher Diodorus of Tarsus (f 1:594) and his more
famous pupil Theodore, the teacher in turn of Nestorius, and
probably the i-eal ori<^inator of ' Nestorianism '. He seems to
reflect both in his life and teaching tlie best spirit of the
school of Antioci). For ten years after his ordination ^ to the
priesthood by Flavian, Bishop of Antioch, he devoted himself
to the pastoral work of the ollice, and to assiduous teaching and
writing, first at Autioch 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 afi'ection 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
was 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 tho 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 monasticisra, 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
(e. 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 Nestoriau — East Syrian — Chiu'ch the gi'eat
exponent and critic of the Scriptures, and his works were at once translated into
Syriac.) But besides these commentaries he ^v^ote a large number of dogmatic and
controversial treatises, and, in particular, one On the Incarnation, of which frag-
ments are extant ('Against the Inoaruation ' an opponent a century later styled it).
See Migne F.G. Ixvi and Kxxvi ; Leontius c. Nest, et Eiitych. iii 43 ; and H. B.
Swete Tluodorc of Mopsuestia on the Minor Epistles of St Paul Appendix A vol. ii
pp. 293 ff.

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 Nestorius — 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 C^hrist. 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. 26^^). 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 this way, we should have to concede to every-
thing a share in his indw^elling 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 Charisius, a presbyter of Philadelphia. It had, he said,
been sent by the Nestorians in Constantinople to some Quartodeciman lieretics in
Lydia, who wished to return to the Catholic Church, and had misled them into still
greater errors than those from which they were to be brought. See Hahn •* pp.
302-308. This creed was regarded by Cyril {Quod umcs est CJtrislus § 728) and
by Marius Mercator (Migne P.L. xlviii p. 877) a.s the recognized statement of the
Nestorian position.

* At the Fifth General Council, at Constantinople, 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 ! " (Cyril Al. Up. 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 Tncarnatimi, ([uoted by Leontius (485-543) c. Nest, et JJutych. iii 43
(Migne P. G. Ixxxvi 1 pp. 1267-1396).

258 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

{or life). So both alternatives are equally absuitl, and it is clear
that we must not speak of the indwelling as of the ' beint^ ' of
God. Others have described the indwelling as the indwelling of
the enei-gy (force, activity, operative power) of God. lUiL this
Hupposition brings us face to face with precisely the same dilli-
eulties — the same alternatives. The only way in which the
truth can be expressed is by the use of the term C()Ui])laceiicy
(or good pleasure or approval).' The indwelling of (Jod is the
indwelling of tiio 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 ; He is omnipresent :
'near' and 'far' are words that cannot be appbed 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 aflinity to the divine nature. A divine indwelling
is established in those who are by character, by moral disposition,
worthy of it. Of this ' indwelHng ' 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 tirst place, the fact of his son ship 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 oi/ala, ivipyeia, and evdoKia. Cf. the earlier use of the
terms OeXrifiaTi, /SouX^, and the like, in ''ounexion with the generation of the Son.
So evBoKiqi . . . -fivvridivTa 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-operution of the divuie 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 (evwcrt?), though he often uses a v/ord which means
' conjunction ' (avvd(f}eia) rather than ' union.' It was his use of
this term rather than the other to which exception was taken
by his opponents. An extract whichi 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 rather 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 infra 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 Na^rareth the invisible Word, the Only- Begotten of the Father,
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 bo asked, in what sense God dwelt in this Man, we must reply that it was by a
special disposition towards him, a disposition of entire complacency. God, in His
imcircumscribed nature and essence, fills the universe, nay, is all in all ; in Christ
He dwells in the person of the "Word by 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 his baptism the further indwelling of God the Holy Ghost, by whose
power he wrought miracles, attained to moral perfection, and accomplished all that
was necessary for the salvation of mankind" {Theodore of Mopsuestia on tlie Minor
Epistles of St Paul vol. i pp. IxxxifF.).

And, pointing out the source of Theodore's doctrinal errors, he says: "With
the true estimate of the evil of sin, the necessity for an actual Incarnation of the
Eternal Word disappears ; a man indissolubly united to God through the pei-manent
indwelling of the Word suffices for the work of vanquishing death " {ihid. p. Ixxxvii).

In connexion with Theodore's "defective estimate of sin", it is to be noted that
Marius Mercator charged him with being one of the originators of Pelagianism, and
that he received Julian of Eclanura and other Italian bishops, when they wen-
banished from their sees by Zosimus in 418 for refusing to accept the condemnation
of Pelagius and Coelestins (see infra p. 320 n. 2). Theodore, however, afterwards
concurred in the coudemnation of Julian.

260 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

wlmt the Tx)rd says in the case of husband and wife, " They
are no longer two, but one llesb ", wo too might roaaoniibly
say of the conception of union, " thoy are no more two persons
but one " — the natures of course being distinguished. For juat
as in the cjise of marriage, the fact that they are said to be
one flesh does not prevent their being numerically two (the
sense in whieh they are styled ' one ' is evident) ; so in the
case before us the unity of the person does not preclude the
difterence of the natures (the fact that the person is one
does not prevent the natures being dilferent). This is how the
matter stands — Wlien we consider the natures separately, wo suy
that the nature of the divine Word is complete, and the person is
complete, for we cannot speak of a distinct existence {inTO(xra(TL<;)
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 — Nestorius 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) : f<ir
he supposed the two natures (represented by him, at the same time, also as two
persons), as to their inmost essence, to continue separate and distinct . . . Strictly
speaking, the two persons were one only in outward appearance, as the image of
marriage shews ! " [Doct. of the Person of Christ Eng. tr. Div. ii vol. i p. 47).

NESTORIANISM 261

a member of the monastery of Euprcpius near Antiocli, he won
80 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 Antiocli, and an
adherent of Theodore's views. At Constantinople he at once
began an active campaign 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
tlie 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 H.E. vii 32 relates. The exact circumstances are not quite certain.

^ Geori/ios (Lat. deipara, dei genetrix) — 'Mother of God' is the commou English
translation, but the word means more precisely 'who gave birth to God' — God-
bearer. Of. German ' Gottesgebarerin '. It is not really equivalent to m-Vtvp ©foi'
which was used at a later time. As Dr. Robertson writes — "In the Greek word
QfordKOi the component 0e6s is logically a predicate, and as such is absolutely
justified and covered by the Catholic doctrine. On the other hand, in the English
jihrase Mother of God, ' God ' is practically a subject rather than a predicate, and
thei'efore includes logically the person of tlie Father." See also infra p. 262.

* It had been used by Origen, Alexander of Alexandria, Easebius (V.C. iii),
Athanasius {e.g. Or. c. Ar. iii 33), Cyril {Cat. x 19), and others.

* The sermons of Nestorius (five adv. dei gemtricem Mariam and foiu" adv.
hacresim Pclagianam) are extant iu a Latin translation in the works of Marius
Mercator, an African orthodox layman, who was in Constantinople at the time and
took great interest in the controversy. His other works weie diligently destroyed,
and only fragments arc extant as quotations in the writings of opponents, e.g. in
the Acts of the Coimial of Ephesus, and in Cyril Al., csih ■ i;illy his five bofks
agaiust the blasphemy of Nestorius. The twelve anathemas in answer to Cyril's
are only extant in the translation of Marius.

* e.g. the dirdrwp an-qrosp of Heb. 7''.

* The tenus that could be used were Bioooxos and xp'<'^''0'"0'«>».

'J62 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

niau, reHultin*^ m a luuiul aiitl syiiipaUiotif. union. " 1 sofurate
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 inconi])atible in their essence had been
brought together in an artilicial alliance rather than a living
union.

Tht Titlf eeoruKo^

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 wis much more than this. The English translation
' Mother of God ' brings into undue prominence the thought of
the glory of her motlierhood ; 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 lie who was born of her
was God "^ as well as man. The abruptness of the English
plirase 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 wlio was born of Mary must have
been man as well as God.

Cyril of Aleocandria — Denunciatimi of the Nestor ian 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 rejily of Noetiis supra p. 104.

- See on this point and for tlie whole question tlie admirable notes to Bright's
Sermons of Leo rni the Incarnatiov (note 3 pp. 127, 128), and liis IFaymarks in
Church History, pp. 180, 181.

' For the history and character of Cyril see the Church Histories and W.
Bright's article in D.O.B. He was certainly the best theologian of all who were
engaged in this controversy.

NESTORIANISM 263

Egyptian monks and clergy in Constantinople and the ladies
of the court, and engaged in a heated cuiTespondeuce with
Nestorius. Throughout the controversy, though Cyril had no
douht the better case, his methods of conducting it were most
unamiable ; and he Ciinnot 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 ApoUinarianism 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
Hishop of Eome, the formal condenniation 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 in
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 Nestorius

These two sets of anathemas reveal sufficiently clearly the
points at issue.

i. Cyril maintains that Emmanuel* (the Incarnate Son) is
truly God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is ' Theotokos ' —
for she has generated (in fieshly 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. 'KpiarorbKO^ or 0eo56xos.

-The letter is given in Pleuitley de Fide et Symholo as the 'third letter' to
Nestorius pp. 182 ff. It is also known as the Epistola Sifnodica. The anathemas arc
given in Hahn' pp. 312-316 with the Latin translation of Marina Mercator. (The
English in Hefele Councils iii p. 31 IF. who, however, follows a ditl'crent text.)

^ These are only extant in the Latin translation of Marius Mercator — Hahn '
pp. 316-318.

* ' God with us ' — i.e. the Incarnate Person, both God and man.

264 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

the Word', but 'of liiui wlio is Eninmuuel '. Nor is God the
Word himself to be said to be chaiijfed into iii-sli, which he
received for the pur[)ose of manifesting hia deity, so that he
might be found in bearing as a man.

ii. Cyril maintains that the Word of God the Father was
hyiK)sU\tically united with Hosh, and with His own licsh 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 liesh, 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 liesh ; 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 in the case of the
one Christ divide the hypostases (? persons or substances) after
the union, conjoining them only by a conjimction of dignity, or
by an arbitrary act of authority or power, aud 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 infiuitum incircumscriptam divinae naturae
coextenderit camem ad capiendum Deum ". Perhaps the Greek was direpiypa^ov rrjs
6ela$ ipvaewi.

- In the corresponding anathema of Cyril, Marius M. translates vvia-rcuns by
substantia, though in others he has subsisteniia. If Nestorius wrote iVoo-raertj (and
not ovffia), it was probably in the sense of ov<ria, according to tlie older usage ;
and so it was rightly rendered by substantia. (Marina M. has c^ieTUia once —
Anath. ii.)

NESTORIANISM 265

Christ. Cyril meant nearly what we mean l)y 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 methud 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 aflections
and passions.

V, vi, vii, viii. Cyril protests against calling Christ ' a God-bear-
ing man ' ^ (rather tlum 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 vnth the Divine Word, and together with
him be called God, as distinct from him (different from that in
which he is) ; but one worship and one doxology is to be offered
to * Emmanuel '. Nestorius, on the other hand, declares it
anathema to say that after the assumption of man the Son of
God is 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 God. 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 his 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 felluv/ship by which it is conjoined and linked together with
the blessed and naturally sovereign nature of the Only-begotten,
ix. Cyril repudiates the teaching that the one L()rd Jesus
Chrisfr received glory from the Spirit, and used the power which he

^ Cr. on this point Leo's Letter to Flavian § f>, Infra y. 290.
* See note on dtoipopos aydpwiros infro. \i. 276.

•J66 CHUISTIAN DOCTRINE

luul through him as other than his own (external), anil received
from him the power of action against unch^an spirits, and of
]>erforming his miraclea on men ; and declares that the spirit
through which he wrought these signs was ' his very own '.
(This is against tlie Autiochene teaching with regard to the Holy
Spirit, especially Theodore's — see mpra p. 2 1 n.) The anathema
of Nestorius, on the other hand, is directeil against those who say
that the Holy Spirit is consuhstantial with the ' form of a
servant,' antl 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 se])arately 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 Kmmauuel'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
Ix)rd'8 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 suffered in the flesh, and was
crucified in the flesh, and tasted death in the flesh, aiid 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
sufferings 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 difi'erent natures.

^ This means appai-ently 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 protested against the
idea that God could act as High Priest.

NESTORIANISM 267

The Sir/nificance of these Anathemas — the Reception given to them

It is clear that, in regard to nearly all the points involved,
each of the dis})utant8 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.

CyriVs Dogmatic Letter

Greater authority attaches 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 the natures which are brought together to form
the true unity are different, out of both is one Christ and Son.
Xot that the difference 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 supposed to be ' ApoUinarian ' (esp. the third
and the twelfth), and as such were opposed by the Aiitiochene school in general,
and particularly by John of Antioch and Theodoret of Cyrrhus (on whom see
i'lfra pp. 284, 28.'>).

' The letter is given in full in Heurtley de Fuh et Symbolo p. 182 IT., and the
greater part in Hahn ^ p. 310.

268 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

means of their inexpressible and mysterious concurrence to form
a union, have proiiueed for us the one Lord and Son Jesus
Christ" It is in this sense that, though existing before the ages
and liaving an eternal generation from the Father, he is said to
have had also a generation of the tlesli, since for our sakes and
on account of our salvation he united human nature with
himself as a hi/posfasis and came forth from a woman. This
does not mean " tiiat 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
effected in ihe 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
sutler, and it was not in regard to his own nature that the divine
Word sulVered blows, or piercings of nails, or the other wounds.
" But since it was the body which had become his own that
suffered 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 deatli."
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, lie 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 269

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
.iRSumption 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 Teaching in the Church on the Subject. Tertullian,

Origen, Athanasius

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 TertuUian ^ 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 again, " the Son of

' See Note on 'The Impersonality of the Human Nature of The Lord ' p. 294.
3 See Note on 'The K^vwcru' p. 294.

* Tertulliau (as we have already seen svjyra p. 144) had been the first to give
expression to the doctrine, Leo, at a later time, is simply restating his teaching
almost in his very words. See esp. e.g. adv. Prax. 27, " Deus autem neque desinit
es.se, neque aliud potest esse. Sermo autem deus, et sermo domiui manet in aevum,
perseverando scilicet in sua forma." Cf. also Greg. Naz. Theol, Or. iv. esp, 20 ft'.

* Origen dU Prindp. preface, § 4.

270 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

God, through whom all things weio created, is named Jesus
Christ and the Son of man. For the Son of God is said to have
died — in respect, namely, of that nature which coulil admit of
death ; and he who is announced to he about to come in the
glory of Ood the Father with the holy angels is called the
Son of man. And for this reason, all through the Scriptures,
not only are human predicate-s ajjplied to tlie divine nature,
hut the liuman nature is adorned by ajjpellations of divine
dii^nitv." '

And, with legard to the sufVerings and other experiences of
the human nature, Athanasius wrote: * "For this reason the special
properties of the tlesh, such as to hunger, to thirst, to be weary,
and the like of which the flesh is cajjable, 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 tlesh 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 Ephesiis, 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 dc Princip. ii 6 3. Hefele {Councils vol. iii p. 8) cites from the Com-
nnentary on the Epistle to the Romans the note, "Through the indissoluble unity
of the Word and the flesh, everything -which 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. c. 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 bod} was not another's but his very own."

^ Cf. also Epiphanius Ancorat. 3(i and 95 ; adv. Haer. Ixix 24, 42, Ixxii 23.

NESTORIANISM 271

sedition ; but by general consent a council was summoned to dciil
with the questions at issue, to meet at Ephesus at Pentecost in
tbe 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 Memnon 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
Apolliuarianism 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 Ephe-sus
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 monastery of Euprepius, whither he
had already been sent, and a new bishop was appointed in his
place.

Cyril had thus, partly by the inherent merits of his cause,

^ It is reported (see Hefele Caundls vol. iii p. 45) that two bishops of the
province of Antioch said that .John had bidden them tell CyrO not to wait for
him, and it has been inferred that John wished not to be present at the con-
demnation of his former priest and friend. But, as the same two bishops signed
the protest against the suUsequeut proceedings of Cyril, the account must be
received with suspicion.

.'72 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

but partly also by the aid of bribes or cuRtomary presents^ to
some of the great ollicials of the Court, secured his own j)osition
in the East, while he had been strong all through in the support
of the West, througli the Bishop of Kome.

Terms of Aqrecment between Cyril a /id (he Antioclienes.
TJie Union Creci

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.g. Hefele) prefer to style them. The abbot Eutyches first
comes before us as Cyril's agent in this matter. The monks of Constantinople, under
Dalmatius the Archimandrite, were also strong and even violent allies.

2 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 both 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
some 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 the 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 phrase " 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 they said " the one refer
only to the Godhead, the other to the manhood " — and in saying

^ The letter known as Laetentur Coeli (Heurtlcy de Fide et Symholo p.

199 fr.).

" To Acacius E]). 40, Eulogius Ep. 44, Valfiian Efi. 50, and Successus E^. 45
(Migne Ixxvii p. 181 ff.). See Hefele Councils vol. iii p. 140 tf.
i8

274 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

so they were right, ascribing both ;iHke to the one Son (who is
both Sou of God and Son of man).

Inasmuch as Cyril thus cleariy recognizes the distinction
between the natures, and insists that there is no kind of mixture
of one with the otlier (though holding the union to be so com-
plete that in the incarnate Christ the distinction is apprehended
ratlier in our own tliought than in his person), it seems to be
certiiin 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 Redeemer 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, Vv^hich was understood to be an
alliance of two distinct 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 live 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 pouit, but from two, and the lines of their thought ran
always parallel, side by side. There was Man, and there was
God. Both were persons, and the conjunction in which the
two were brought together was only one of relation {a-'x^eriKt]
(Tvvdipeia). And so 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 imion of manhood
and Godhead as actually effected in a single Person who Hved
the life of men. But as 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 distinction between the two spheres of existence
might be maintained without ali.mdoning or denying the unity of their subject '
(W. Bi-ight The Age of the Fatliers vol. ii p. 281).

•JT6 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Anil BO it won tind loLainud its hold over great numbers of
inon.

iSiippre.'ision of N't'storianism within the limits of the Empire

Aj^uinst those who wero not to he won over hy explanations
and negotiations, tiie Patriarch of Antioch at last ajipealcd foi 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
rtolemais, a kind of Siberia, to which the worst criminals were
sent.' 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 prompted 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 6(.o<^opo<; by Ignatius, as a second
name for himself (6 Kal 6eo(f>opo<;) Lightfoot writes (Apostolic Fathers,
Ignatius y(A. ii p. 21) "This word would be equally appropriate to the
true Christian, whether taken in its active sense (^co^opos hearing Ood,
rlad with God) or in its passive sense (6€6<fiopo? home along by God,
inspired by God) " ; citing in support of his comment the words of
Clement Al. {Strom, vii 13) ^eios apa h yvwcmKos Koi rjhr] ayios, Oiocftopwu

Koi 6€0(f>OpOVfl€VO?.

But he proceeds to shew that Ignatius certainly used the word in

' He was still alive in 439 when Socrates ^v^ote his history, and a Coptic MS. of
the life of Dioscorus says he 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.

2 See Additional Note— "The Nestorian Church"' jj. 279.

NESTORIANISM 277

tlie active sense (as other similar compounds such as vao^opo?, )^icrTo-
ff>6po<;, crapKo<^6po<i, i/expoc^opo?) ; ami that it was so intorpretod 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 CMark O^*^ 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 ^ tcearing 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 pbrtise avOpo^rro'; ^eo</)opos 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 ApoUinarians as a taunt which
they cast at the doctrine of their opponents, charging them with
worshipping an avOpo}Tro<; ^eo^opos, and maintaining that the true
object of worship was rather a 6e6<s trapfco^opos. (See Greg. Naz. Ep.
102 where the allusion is brought in incidentally to shew the absurdity
of the ApoUinarian position by an interchange ot crdp$ and av^pwTros in
one of their own expressions.) The 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. ApoUinarians 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^puTros, and this by
Cyril who was himself suspected — not without reason as far as his
language went — of ApoUinarian 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 the compound is active or passive, the general
sense ' inspired ' would hold. If active, the idea is that of a man who bears within
him God, and so has with him a divine guide. II pasaive, tlie idea is that ol" a
luan who is upheld and sustained by the divine light and strength.

278 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

other way than in that of u real niiion {<rvyuif>fia, not evaxrt^) ; so that
his Person was composod, as it wor(>, of a man and a God — the Son of
Man and the Son of God. So their oi)pnnt>.nts argued tlmt the sense in
which thoy applied the term 'God' to the individual luininn person
whom thoy 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 wa:i fairly described by the nickname uvOpw!ro<;
dio<f>6po^.

If the word be passive — $t6<f)opo<: — it would not convey this sense.

In the term 'a God-borne man' God is put first. There is God, and h(^

takes up and bears with him a man. The objection that the doctrine

mplied two persons might still hold good, but the point of view would

not be the same as that from which ojipononts of Ncstorianism sot out.

But, nevertheless, it seems to have been in the passive sense that
Cjiil 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) 8ia rov (popovvra tuv fjiopovjxtvov cr€^o), 8ta tov aoparov
TrpocTKVViti TUV opio/Mfvov, (2) 6 Xr](f)$€\<; Tw KafiovTi cn}y)(pr)jxaTit,ci. 6c6<;.
(That is, ' On account of him that bears 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 up, 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 (TV(TToi\ia 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. $€6<f)opo<: avOpoyrros — w5
a.v6pW7rov ivrjpyrja-Oai Trapa tov Oeov Xoyov tov 'Irjcrovv — tov dvaXrjtfiOevTa
ai'^pcoTTOV o-VfiTrpoaKWiLcrOaL Sciv t<3 Oeot Xoyto . . . kol (Tvy)(ji-qfJuaTit,uv
PCOV CUS €T€pOl' €V eTepu)).^

We must therefore recognize that Cyril meant ^€0(/>opos, in the

^ See su]}ra Theodore's exposition of the doctrine.

- Dr. Robertson also points out that in the instance from the Excerpta Theodoli
27 (to 0eo<popoy yivecrdai rbv ai/Opwirov trpoo'fxCjs tvepyou/ievov virb rod Kvpiov Kal
Kadaxep (Tw/xa aOrov yivbixevov) which Lightfoot quotes in support of the active
sense, he has overlooked the drift of tlic passage, and that the word is there
passive {deb<popov), being explained by fvepyovfuevov virb rod Kvpiov.

NESTORIANISM 279

passive sense. As applied to Nestorian teacliing the phrase 6e64)Of)o<;
au9pwiro<; is probably his own coinage. It is not probable that Nestorius
or his followers Avould have chnt;(m 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, 6^o4>6po<i av^pojTros, 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 snyra
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
occasional 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 Chiu-ch, 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 eleventh and twelfth centuries the
largest Christian body in the world — the Christian Church of the far
East. The Patriarch (or Catholicos) resided at Seleucia-Ctesiphon, and
later at Bagdad, and was acknowledged by twenty-five metropolitans (or
archbishops) as their spiritual 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 sovereigns succeeded, bitter perso-

280 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINF

cutiuii broke out, ami at last tlie invasion uf Taiiu'ilane in tlio foiiriecnili
century sprt'ad universal dt»v)ustation, and almost blotted out ilm Ohunli.
Only a fraj^'uient — a nation as well as a Church — survived; and, in spite
of almost incrcdiblo jier^eeution and sulFerin^, still survives in the raoun-
tnins and plains of Kurdistan (partly in Turkey and partly in I'orsia).
The Kuphratos valley expedition of 183') tirst brought their existences to
iho 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,
wimething of their ancient state. [See " Archbishoji's Mission to the
Assyrian Christians" Annual Rejjort, 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 Nestorianisni
in men who were reputed orthodox, and so 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
Apollinarian 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 — Hefelo Councils vol. iii 323 ff.). He
brought all kinds of charges against Cyiil, and confiscated his money and property
on the giound that he had impoverislied the Church.

•281

}

282 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Ne8torianisin--tlml he confounded the nfttures, and scandalized
many of the faitliful by his teaching. Kutychos was invited u>
attend before the synod and oiler ex^jlauations. Again and
again he refused to ai)i>ear, and sent evasive answers to the
messengers who were despatched to sunnuon 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 (ofioovaiov) with ua 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 thei
tlesh, and of two natures), he answered that though he would
accept the manner of speech required, he found it neither in
Holy Scriptures uor in the Fathers, and that therefore he could
not pronomice 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 {dvudev). This he denied that he held.

* Some of the \vritings on which he depended wen- really Apollinarian, fraudu-
lently ascribed to otliors. See sujrra p. 241 Twte.

EUTYCHIANISM 28

wrote to Leo, the Bishop of Kome, in ingratiating terms, and
tried to secure his support. Leo, however, waited till he had
lieard the other side, and then wrote briefly 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
Ciireful 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 EpJiesus

Against the wish of Leo and of Flavian, Theodosius ii
summoned a Council to meet at Ephesus, and, with the hope 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 xVugust, with Dioscorus as
president. Dioscorus was attended by a strong body of
Egyptian bishops and monks, who all behaved with scandalous
violence. They cried out against Eusebius for dividing Christ
— ' Burn him alive ; as he divides Christ, let him be divided
himself ! ' 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. The letter containing it was sent to the emperor in the spring
of 449.

2 Hahn' p. 321 fif. An English translation in Bright St. Leo on the Iiicaniati&n,
and in the English translation of Hefele {Councils vol. iii 225 ff.). See infra p. 288.

284 CHRISTIAN' DOCTRIXn:

at^serted that after the iiioirimtiDij the disliiiotion l)«»twion the
two natures no lonpir oxistA^d. Entydies was declared orthodox
ajid restored, and nil his opponents were deposed. Flavian
appealed a^'ainst the decision, supjwrted by the Konian lef,'ates.
who protested and retired in haste. 'J'he signatures of many ol
the bisljops were extorted by threats and physiciil force. It.
seems certain from the evidence, even when aHowance in mnxU)
for some exaggeration, that the result was only reached by
insolent intimidation which jjroceeded 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 through the Emperor's Suppoi-t

Theodosius, however, supported Dioscorus and his party, and
applauded the decision of the Council. He denounced I'lavian,
Eusebius, and the others as Nestorians, and deposed and exiled
them.2 Theodoret, who liad 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 I*alestine,
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 Comicil. 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 Couiicil of Chalcedon

Pulcheria and her husband, Marcian, favoured the cause
which Leo represented, and the exiled bishops were recalled.

1 • Latrocinium ' Ep. 95 (to Pulcheria), dated July 20, 451 :— hence the name by
which the Council is known to history, ' the Robber Synod ' {(Tivobo% XrjCTTpiK-q).

- 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 Barsumas
was denounced as his murderer. Other accounts say he was exiled and died at
Epipa, a city of Lydia, perhaps by a violent death.

EUTYCHIANISM 286

A synod was held at Constantinople, at which the bishop,
Auatolius, 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 difficulty
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 their 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
Fla\'ian 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. " I
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 w-ished to dispense with a Council, and .siinply by his legates, iu con-
junction with Anatolius, receive into communion all suspected bishops who would
make profession of the orthodox faith. Even earlier he had apparently wished to
adopt this course, and only to hold a Council if it failed.

2 Yet the West was represented only by the Roman legates and two African
bishops.

* Theodoret had written a dialogue (satirizing the monks, Cyril's supporters,
and accusing the whole party of being mere Apollinarians) between 'E/javKm;? (a

rap-collector — one who picks up scraps of heresies, like Eutyches) and 'Opdd-
oo|os.

286 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

was williiif; to accept the cxprcsaion ' of two natures ' (ic
funned out of the two), l)Ut not to Bay ' two natures ' still {i.e.
existing in two natures), since after the union there were no
longer two.

By the close of the first session a large inujorily 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 NestoriuH
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 ^dth the preaching of the truth and to pervert the
mystery of the incarnation of the Lord, and denied the term
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 ou its merits, was not (^uite what Leo
would have wished.

- Dioscorus, deposed and exiled, died in Paphlagonia in Se[tte.mber 454. Eu-
tyches was also exiled, but jjrubably died before the sentence was carried out.

' The statement is given iu Heurtley de Fide et Symbolo p. 23 fl'., a translation
and part of the Greek in Hefele Councils vol. iii p. 346 £F., and the decisive clausc^j
of the definition in Hahu " p. 166.

EUTVCHIANISM 287

become passible by the confusion or mixture. Therefore, the
synod " opposes those who seek to rend the mystery of the
incarnHtion into a duality of Sons, and excludes from participa-
tion in the holy rites (o?' from the sacred congregation) those
who dure to say that the Godhead of the Only-be;^otten 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 tlie 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 the Fathers has handed down to us."

In this definition the Church at length pronounced a final
verdict on both extremes of Christologicul opinion, clearly
repudiating Apollinarian, Xestorian, 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 the statements of Cyril and Leo, to which, by
recognition on this occasion, conciliar authority was given.

288 CliKlbllAN DOCTRINE

The Letter of T^o to Flavian

The letter of Leo well Hupplenienls the ourlier stiitenient of
Cyril, and a suiuniury ot' it iniiy elucidate some points in the
controversy which it helped to close.'

It ie written all through in the tone of calm judicial decision
and direction, and treats Eutyches as imprudent and lacking in
sound judgement and miderstauding 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 Spii'it 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-equal and co-essential with the Father. The
temporal nativity in no way detracted from the divine ami
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 Loo — the term rdfios, meaning a section
or a concise statement, being commouly apjilied to synodical letters — cf. Athanasins,
Tamils ad Aniiochenos. It is given in Heurtley de FUU el Symbolo, and in Hahn" pp.
321-330 (Translation in Ilefele Coxmcih vol. iii p. 225 ff. and Bright SI Leo on the In-
carnation p. 109(1.). 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", but
at all events he was able to give very clear expression to the doctrine which he
received.

^ The Latin text has d. Hcfele suggests ("x, 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 Kicene phrase 'de Deo Deus', which was not in the Constantinopolit<an
Creed, but was eventually inserted in the West, e.g. at Toledo in 589.

* The actual biith as well as the conception took place without loss of virginity.
The title ael irdpdivos is found as early as Clement of Alexandria {Strom, vii 16)
who reports that some in his day said the fact was kno^vn by examination ;
anyhow he deems it true. On the other hand, TertuUian 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 del pronuntiavit,
agnovit adapertae vulvae nuptial em passiouem " ; aud so he says, " etsi virgo concejiit,
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, aud Augustine declares she
was 'virgo concipiens, virgo pariens, virgo moriens' Cat. rud. 40. The best account
of the different theories will be found in J. B. Mayor's edition of the Epistle of Si
James. See also Bright Si Leo on the Incarnation p. 137.

EUTVCHIANISM 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, the/e 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 compassion 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 not
impair the form of God " (§ iii).

' See Nole ' Comnmnicatio Idiomatum' p. 293.
2 See Note 'The K^uuffn' p. 294.

290 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

The Son of God in this way comes down to this lower world
from his heavenly throne without retirinf^ from his Father's
glory — born by a new order and form of birtli, " con tinning to be
eternally while beginning to be in time." But the new order, the
new nativity, in no way inii)li('S a nature unlike ours. He is
true God, but also true man, with tlesh derived from his human
mother ; and " in the unity which results there is no deception,
while the lowliness of nuin and tlie 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
airrying 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 suff'ered thus not
in the divinity itself (in which the Only-begotten is co-eternal

^ ' Invicera sunt ' —this probably means ' are by turns ', as explained in the follow-
ing attribution of different operations to the different natures : now one and now the
other is active. But a possible meaning would perhap.s b« "are Ttiutually or reeij^ro-
cally", which would give the sense "have penetrated each other" (as Hefele Ir.).

* See Note ' Comniunicatio Idiomatum ' p. 293.

EUTYCHIANISM 291

and co-esseiitial with the Fatlier) 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 further 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

1 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 filius hominis propter formain servi and the Filiv.s
Dei propter Dei formam 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' = 5 Xvet rbv 'li)(xovv. No extant Greek MS. has
this reading, but Socrates {H.E. vii 32) says it was so written in the ancient copies,
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 fathers Irenaeus and Origen alone
attest the reading (in both cases we have only the Latin translation) ; Irenaeus quot-
ing the passage against those who imagine a plurality of gods and fathers, and diviile
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 Iren.
adv. Hcver. iii 16, 8 and Grig, ad loc). The reading is also found in Augustine {Horn,
in 1 John 6", but elsewhere he treats the reading aa qui non confitetur or qui iKgat),
Fulgentius, Lucifer, Tertullian {adv. Marc, v 16 and cf. de Came Christi 24, as
Irenaeus stipra), and in the Vulgate. Westcott and Hort and the Revisers place it in
the margin.

The Texlxis Beceptus 8 ni) 6fj.o\<yyeT (Lat. qui non confitetur) besides having the
support of all Greek MSS. and the versions other than the Vulgate, seems to be
implied by Polycarp, Cyril, Theodoret, Theophylact, Cyprian, Didymus (lat.).
(Unless the text is exactly quoted it might be that the writer was only drawing the
negative conclusion to which the first clause points.)

292 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

shanielesB fancies to make void the mystery through which alone
we have been saved. " For the Catholic Cliurch 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 T
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 Licaruation (when of course he was
God only and not man) as to assert one only nature in him
after the Word was made Jlesh (§ vi).

The Later History of Evtychianism — the Monophysites

Thus was the Creed of the Church defined ; and " writing,
composing, devising, or teactiing 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 Monophysites. 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 fl'. Nearly
a hundred years after the Council of Chalcedon (in 541) Monophysitism was
strenuously revived and oiganized by a Syrian monk, named Jacob Baradai, and
Monophysite bishops were aiipointed wherever it was possible. In particular he
revived the Monophysite patriarchate of Antioch, which is still the centre of all the
Monophysite churches of Syria and other Eastern provinces. From him the name
'Jacobite' Christians, adopted by all Monophysites, was derived. Monophysites
Lave maintained their position down to the present time — (1) in parts of Syria,
Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Cyprus, and Palestine — subject to the Patriarch of
Antioch (who now resides near Bagdad) ; but some of these were united with Rome
in 1646 and a patriarchate of 'Catholic' Syrians ('Uniates') was established at

EUTYCHIANISM 293

COMMUNICATIO IDIOMATUM

To three passages in Leo's letter (pp. 289 n. 1, 290 n. 2) objection was
taken at the Council by the Bishops of Illyricum and Palestine, on the
■-,'round that they seemed to express a certain separation of the divine and
I he human in Christ. But the objection was dropped when almost iden-
tical statements were cited from Cyi'il'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 idiomafum (avTiSoa-Ls twv ISiwfjidToiv, or tojv 6vofx.d-
viov). But this technical term is used in somewhat different senses. The
leaching 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, The.-^e 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 sphere.«5. The experiences which are strictly divine, and the experi-
ences which are strictly human, are alike his experiences. But they are
hLs 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. La 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 idioraatum
be applied to their (the Chalcedonian) 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 uuion of the two natures being thought of as so

Alpppo ; (2) in Armema, under the Patriarchate of Etshmiadsin (in 1439 some of
these were united with Rome and these Uniates have their patriarch at Constantin-
ople) ; (3) in Egypt, where out of hatred to the Byzantines they gave up Greek and
adopted the vernacular (so called Copts or Coptic Christians), and in 640 helped the
Saracens and were reinstated l>y them : they number now more than 100,000 ; (4) in
Abyssiuia, which was under the Patriarchate of Aleiundria and so was involved in
the Monophysite heresy.

294 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

close, tlipy were held to iutorponetrato each other in ko intiiimto a union
(the fellowship of each with the other to be so complete) that the properties
of one might be predicated of the otlier. It is diflicult to discriminate
this conception from the mixture of natures which has been repudiated,
but in any Onise it (uumot claim sujiport from Cyril, Leo, or Chnlcedon.
Dorner notes that tlu^ doctrine of a real cnminvniraiio idiomatnm, as
taught by the Lutherau Chureh, is nut in harmony with Leo'w letter ;
but the fact is sometimes ignored.

CHRIST'S HUMAN NATURE IMPERSONAL

The solution of the Nestorian difficulties, bo far as it was a
solution, was reached, as we have seen, in the teaching that it wan
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 Iiogos, and entered upon and
made his own.

This teaching is fully expressed in the passages quoted sitpro,
especially perhaps in Cyril's letter j). 268. Later expressions of it and
the introduction of more abstract terms have not tended to elucidate
the doctrine further {e.g. the term awiroa-Taa-ia to express this ' imper-
sonal existence ' of the human nature of Christ, and iwrrooTacria to
exjiress its existence in the Person of the God-Word).

The centre of personality of Him 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,
could 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 KevoiCTL^

The doctrine of the Kevtucris 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 back of the discussion as to the human soul and
will in Christ and the relation between the two natures.^

The general idea of a ksVojo-is no doubt is implied in all the ' orthodox '
attempts at interpretatioii 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 iy fJ.op(firj Oeov wrdpxwv
. . . kavTov €K€va)(rev . . . Kai . . . cTaTrctVojo'cv eavTOv yevoyacvos vtt^/coos, and
2 Cor. 8^ €7rT{o_)(€vo-€v ttAovo-ios u>v — 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 fj-opcfii] Oeov) on an equality
with God; but that he was willing to forgo (oi'x dp-n-ayp-ov yjyrja-aTo) this
life on an equality with God. So he 'omptied' himself and took the
life of service with its conditions (the p-cp<f)r] BovXov), and came to exist
in the likeness of men. That is the first great act of the KeVwo-is. It is
followed, so to speak, by a second stage. Having entered upon the
external conditions of human life (crxry/iart evpeOeU ws av^pwTro?), he
' lowered ' himself and became subject even unto death, and that death
on the cross.

Whatever the precise meaning of p-opclyrj may be, there is clearly
implied here that the p-opt^r] Oeov is for the time renounced, in order
that the fiop(j)r] BovXov may be assumed and the life may be lived as
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 be noted that the chief subject of enquiry is not the particular aspect of
the matter wliich has most enpjaged attention in recent times, namely, the limita-
tion of our Lord's kno\vled<,'e as man. But see Ireuaeus adv. Ha^r. 11 28. 6-8,
Athanasius Or. c. Ar. ill 42 ff., Basil Ep. 236, Greg. Naz. Or. Theol. iv 15.

* Arian or Arianizing thinkers had seized upon N.T. passac;es bearing on the
question as proof that Christ was not really God, without attempting to understand
them as expressive of the limitation of the Godhead under conditions of human
existence.

296 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

tloatli whioh is $hiimof\il in the eyes of men. It is all to be followed,
as St Paul .uo<\'^ on to say, by a corrosponding oxnllution. lint this only
serves to mark more plainly the reality of the previous renunciation
and emptying and humbling.

As to wliat was the exact natiiro and extent of the self-limitation of
the divine majesty, St Paul says notliing. Only it is clear that the
Ktktixrt? is regarded by him as a moral ae.t of Got! and ('hri.st, a free aet
of will, a voluntary humiliation and self-surrcndia- culminating in the
death on the cros.'<. It is to this passage that all later expressions go
back.

Only a few can Iw cited here.

One of the earliest references to tlie question is made by Ircnaeus
(Ofiv. Tlrur. iii 19. 3). " For just as be was man in order that he might
be temptetl, so too he was Logos in order that he might be glorilied.
When he was being tempted and crucified and dying, the I/igos
remained quiescent (rja-vxa^oiro^ rov koyov) ; when he was overcoming
and enduring and performing deeds of kindness and rising again and
being taken up, the Logos aided the human nature (truyyivo/AcVou tu

aj'^ptoTTw)."

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 L-enaeus expresses, perhaps, as much of
explanation of the problem as is attainable.^ Hilary's later and more
elaborate statement of the theory is on tlie same lines.

But another point of view is represented by Origen.

As Origen describes it (see contra Celsum iv L5), though the Kivo)cn<i
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 CJiristian 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 fiopcf>rj Oeov vTnjpxf) ; and because of his love
toward men he emptied himself (eavrov eKtvwa-ev), in order that he might
be able to be comprehended by men (Iva y^biprjdrjvai vir uvSpwrroiv SwriOfj);
. \ . and he humbled himself (iavrbv cTaTrciVwcrcv). . . . 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 attributiug all these to the Son who represented God to men always,
Tertnllian 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 man.

EUTYCHIANISM 297

Godhead, lie becomes as it were flesh, being spoken of in corporeal
fashion, iintil he that received him in this guise, being lifted up httle by
little by the Word, becomes able to contemplate also what I may call his
inherent Godhead (rriv Trporjyov/j.ivrjv fxopcfirjv, referring to ev iiop(f)fj 6tov
vTnjpx^ which precedes)."

In these two sentences the kcvwo-is 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
irddos, and in meeting tliat objection Origen lays stress on the perman-
ence of the divine state along with the kcVcocti?. When the immortal
God- Word took upon him a mortal body and a human soul, he did not
imdergo any change or transformation (dXXaTTecr^ai koI ix^TaTrXama-Oai),
or any passage, from good to evil, or from blessedness to the reverse ;
but "remaining essentially (rij ova-ia) the Word, he is not affected by
any of the things by which the body or the soul are aifected ". 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, he, while healing the wounds of our souls, is himself proof
against all disease.

The theory of the Kevwcns 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
(if CJirist Eng. tr. div. i ii p. 405 ff.). 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 he who remained in the form of God could take the form of
a servant only by a process of self-renunciation {per evacuationem suain).
(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 (for
only one who already subsists can take).

Therefore the renunciation {evacuatio) of the form does not involve
the abolition of the Jiature, for he who renounces liiniself does nut lose
hifl own existence {non caret sese), and he who takes is still there

298 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

(inanet). In rpnonncing and in taking he it; himself. In this there is a
mystery (i^arfntncjituDi), hut there is nothing to prevent him remaining
in existence while renouncing, nnd 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; for it
was none other than Christ who took the form of a servant. The
change of ' fashion ' {habifus, i.e. outward visible guise) which the
Ixnly denotes, and the assumj)tion of human nature, did not destroy
the nature of the divinity which still continued. The renunciation
of self was such that remaining Sjnritus Christus he became Christiis
homo.

T^j Jornia Hilary seems to mean mode of existence; by «a/'?/ra the
sum toUd of attributes. He does not use the word suhstaniia in this
context ; but the thought seems to be that subHtanfialbj he cannot be
other than God — such he remains all through, and as such he must
always have the attributes of God (the divine naiura). 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 serri). 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 fa.shion. He is
always forgoing the ftyrrna Dei, while all the time the divine naiura,
which is absolutely hi:r, 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 iindolentid), and of his soul as
not obnoxious to human atiections of fear, grief, and the like. His
language is not quite satisfactory ; he seems to denote the sufi'er-
ings as ours rather than his, while the triumph through and over
them is Ms. He draws a distinction between suffering and feeling
pain {paii 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 quidquid 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 sufferings of the Incarnate God in his human
nature ; and he styles it all a sacramentum or a sacramentum, dispensa-

EUTYCHIANISM 299

Honis} and a voluntary act. Hilary's whole pre.^entation 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
supra pp. 247, 249).

The opponents of Nestorianism were chiefly concerned to assert the
single personality, and the KeVwo-is 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
{Kadels iavTov cts K€vwa-Lv)." 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 oirep rjv dTrofiefiXrjKdys), but although he came into
being sharing flesh and blood, even in that state remaining what he was
(koI ovToi aefjievrjKm oirep ^v), 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. (See the passage supra p. 289 Lat. humana
augens, divina non minuens . . . exinanitio ilia . . . inclinatio fuit
miserationis, non defedio potestatis : . . . qui maiiens in forma Dei
fecit hx)minem, idem in forma servi facfus est homo : . . . tenet sine de-
fectu proprietatem suam utraque natura.) 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 considerations should correct Harnack's depreciating ciiticisra (DG,
Eng. tr. vol. iv p. 140) "When dealing with the idea of selt-humiHation, Hilaiy
always takes back in the second statement what he has asserted in the first, so that
the unchangeableness of God may not suffer."

^ Cf. John 10^8.

r.OO CHRISTIAN DOCTRINK

or character of the limitnti(ni which the 'emptying' involves. He is
content with an edifyinp statement, and tliere ia no such attempt at
accurate scholarly «liscriniinatioij of terms as Hilary marie. (Leo
apj>are!itly repirds the forma Dn and the forma nerm 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 wa:
made during this period to understand and explain the nature of the

(Augustine deals with the matter in part iIp Trin. v 17 and vii 5.
See further on the whole subject Ottley Doctrine of the Incarnation
vol. ii p. 285 ff., and Gore Dissertations 'The Consciousness of our
I/Drd '.)

CHAPTER XVII

Pelagianirm

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 the
Philippians, " 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 Xew Testament : on the one hand, the
gracious purpose of God, and, on the other, man's power to fulfil
or to defeat God's purpose. Sometimes Church teachers laid
more stress on the corruption of man's nature, on the opposition
between grace and nature, and on the all-essential need of the
divine grace. Sometimes, against what seemed an extravagantly
supernatural tendency, they gave special prominence to human

301

.{02 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

freeilom and power of self -recovery. But tho relation between
free will and grace, and the exact nature and origin of sin in
individuals, were not reasoned out. The ([uestiun 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 ellects 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, Creationism, 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 Recollection) ; 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 2; but it makes the soul the real man, and

^E.g., particularly, .John 9^ "Master, who did sin, this man or his parents,
that he was born blind ? ", and the allegorical account in Genesis of the fall of the
finite jire-existent spirit from the higher to the lower sphere, and the hope of
restoration (Rom. 8'*) ; and he explained the choice of Jacob in preference to Esau
as the result of merit acquired in a preceding stage of existence (cf. 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 tlian of his own theory of 'pre-existence'. See
Bigg Christian Platonists pp. 202, 203.

PELAGIANISM 303

the body merely a temporary prison — no constituent element
of humanity. Purther, 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.^

{h) ' Creatiouism * 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
tradux 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 which necessarily
affects the ofilspring, so that all are born with its stain upon
them. But against this theory objections are urged, that it

^ This theory was condemned by the Council of Constantinople in 540.

* So Jerome ad Pammachium " God is daily fashioning souls " — supported by
John 51", Psalm 33", Zech. 12S and Hilary Trad on Ps. 91 § 3.

' And infants before committing any actual offence would be sinless ; see Augus-
tine on the theory, infra p. 304.

* The biblical basis of this theory was St Paul's teaching on the connexion of
the race with Adam and the origin of sin, Rom. 5'^'^* ; cf. 1 Cor. 15^, Eph. 2*,
Heb. 71", ?s. 51^ Gen. 5'.

:?04 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

makes man the product of previous circumstanceB, allows no
room for indi\ iduul free will, and seonis to materialize the soul.

Augustine, who probably contributed most to its currency,
nowhere definitely teaches it. But the view which he l)eld of
Bin and its origin and transmission seems to imply the trans-
mission of the soul that sins, lie argues {de Anima bk. i,
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 llesh ;
(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 dilferent 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 thiid, 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, 325.

PELAGIANISM 305

— derived from the parents. The whole man is dovivcd 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 terras 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 ConcepfAons of the Fall and its Effects

Similarly, different cunceptious 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 repetition 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

^ iSin, tliough in some sense a fact of universal experience, cannot be said to
have oeen fully realized till it was felt (as by Jews and Christians) as an ofleDce
against an Eternal Holiness. The true idea of sin was first grasped side by side
with the idea of redemption. The idea of redemption implies a sense of being
rescued from some alien power, and, at the same time, a sense of possessing capacity
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 is capable of reaching holiness, so that
in its present state it needs some stimulus to its innate capacity, to enable it to
regain aud realize the condition which it has lost.

- Cf. Iren. adv. Haer. iii 23 ; v 15, 17, 23. ^ Origen on Rom, lib. vi § 6.

;506 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

liuman soul, was the munifostjition of the image of God in man
To this frci'dom of man to ohuoso good or evil the early apolo-
gists and Fatlu'rs. and oven Tertullian, unanimously testify. Thus
Justin says,^ "If it has been fixed by fate that one man shall bo
good and another bad, the one is not acceptiible, the other not
blame^ible. And, again, if the human race has not power by a
free moral choice to llee 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 oflers health to
those that work with him with a view to health, so too God
odere eternal salvation to those that work with him with a view
to knowledge and right conduct." ^ This moral power of choice
iu 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-
fxaTiKoi), and that the schism in man was something necessary
in the evolution of existence.* Tertullian, approaching the
l)robleni from the Traducian theory, was the first to use the
expression viiium 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 ; Atlienag. Leg. 31 (God did not create ns as
sheep or brute beasts, so it is not natural that we should will to do evil {^de\o-
KaKely)) ; Theophilus ad Autol. ii 27.

2 C. Ccls. iv 3. 8 Clem. Al. Strom, vii 7.

*The Gnostics were the first to frame the dilemna — "If the first man was
created perfect, how could he sin 1 If he 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 {StromaUis vi 12). And others drew a distinction between the eUtav
(the image, the original (yipacities which were indestnictible), and the o/xoiuaii rod
Oeov (the likene.ss 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 the source of sin was found, the actual develop-
ment of the innate capacity falling short of the ideal, ilost 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-oijeration man could not attain to his destiny.

PELAGIANISM 307

for ' innocent ' cliildren 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
elTect 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 oiigin of human souls,
according to vfhich 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 imder our own control, of which each of us alone is master.
This is the will {7rpoaipeai<;), a thing that cannot be enslaved,
but is of self-determining power, since it is seated in the liberty
of thought and mind (Buivoia) ". 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 (aKLVT)aca, 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 ba2)ti<iino 18.

- See e.g. de anima 40, 41, and the treatise on the testimonium animac nat.
Christian, ae.

^ See de Princ. iii 5. 4 ; >iut see also nvpra p. -302 n. 2.

* See de Pri'iic. iii 2. 2, iii 4 ; of. Basil Hexhaem. ii 5, vi 7.

* Greg. Nyss. Or. Cat. xxx, x.\xi ; cf. Atiiirrhet. xxix (Migne xlv p. 1188).

' As, e.g., by Athanasius. JIan had admitted corruption into his nature and being
and had passed into a state of moral death — it was therefore necessary that iueoiTup-
tion and life should be united with that nature before it could recover. See the dc
lacarnatioae.

'' According to Augustine himself, the Clmrch of Christ had always held the
doctrines he taught, and any sayings of the fathers that seemed to favour Pelagian
conceptions were but obiter dido, the Pelagian inferences from which would have
been repudiated at once (Pelagianis nondum litigantibus securius loquebautur).

308 CllKISTJAN DOCTRINE

Thf Trnching of Aug'usiim

Aiig\istinc Wflii, iL IS irue. the first j^reat teaclier who (l(\tlt witli
rtiitluopology -the tlevelojK'iiuMitof which was ix'culiarly WcHterii,
218 the result of ]»raetical experience and needs. The conception
of redemption ini]>lies 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 ap))ropriates
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 ennobling the
entire nature, or, as a higher power, calling out all that is best
in human nature and freeing it from impediments to itp 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 Presseuse, Art. ' Augustine ' D.C.B. — an excellent appreciation of Augustine,
in which full weight is also given to other elements in his nature, especially his
"love for Christ and for the souls of his brother men ".

PELAGIANISM 309

As to human 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,
so that it really sinned when he sinned. It is only by a very
resurrection — a second creation in effect — 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 Ls given either by God or by Nature.
Nature being tainted, the strongest motive must always be 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<p' (?. See contra duos epj>. Pel. iv 7 c. 4. But
the conception of a 'race' life and a 'race' guilt (in which every individual is
involved) does not depend only on a mistaken interpretation of this passage.
Augustine conceived of Adam as originally perfect (the ' original righteousness ' of
the race), porisrs.sing free will (libcrum arhitriuni,), but capable of using his fi-eedoni
to the injury of his highest interests. He might have persevered had he wished ;
his will was free, so as to be able to wish well or ill {de Corrept. et Gratia 11) ; but
since, through free will, he deserted God, he experienced the just judgement of God —
was condemned with his whole stock, which was then contained in him and sinned
with him (shared in his sin) (ib. 10), and so lost the gift of original righteousness
which could only be restored by a second gift of supernatural grace.

•* Augustine found the support of tradition for the doctrine of original sin in the
rite of exorcism, which he believed to be of apostolic origin (c. Julian, vi f> 11).

* At an earlier time Augustine had held that the first step by which man was
qualified to receive the gift of grace was his own act, the act of faith on his own
part {de Praedrat. iii 7). Of. what he says, wlien reviewing the history of his tlionght,
Retract, nil "to solve this question we laboured in the cause of freedom of the
human will, but the grace of God won the day".

310 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

his hcroditary depravity. In the pioci'ss man is complotoly
paissive — as jmssive as the hifaiit child in buptiam. Tn a sense
it is true to say, that the Imnian will plays no part in it at all ;
it has no jwwer of iuitiativo, and wlien the new gift is given it
has no power of reaisUiiico. Hut, 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 rlux-se the good and to follow it unswervingly.
And the grace tiius given is irresistible, in the sense that the
will, wliich has thus had true freedom restored to it, has no
desire to resist the good.

Of all Augustine's most characteristic conceptions, none
perha].is 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 will 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 tlie uncliangeable delight of not
sinning. For the fiirst free vdll 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

' De Civilak Dei xxii 30. To some extent it is true that there is here a
paradox, or a confusion of sens< . There is never really freedom of will. Prior to
grace, man can only do evil ; alter grace given, he cannot do evil. This confusion
of sense is plainly seen in another passage I>e gratia el libera arbitrio 15. "The
will {voluntas) in us is always free, but it is not always good. It is either free from
righteousness {justMia) 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 coraes about that a man is of good will who beforr 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, vvliicli 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 happmess. I
suppose it will not be said that God Himself has not free will,
becjause He cannot sin."

This conce^jtion of freedom, the hcata necefisitas non peccandi —
well summed up in the motto of Jansenism, Dei servitus vera
libcrtas, 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 difference 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
miseHcordiae to redemption ( praedestinatio), and others are left
as vasa irae to condemnation (reprohatio). The latter are simply
left.^ The former are kept faithful by the further gift of
' perseverance ' by which fresh supplies of grace are bestowed —
this again being beyond man's comprehension. " Why to one

^ So Augustine put the matter. In tliis respect, at all events, he woiild not go
beyond the words of St. Paul, who speaks of the "vessels of mercy" as "afore pre-
pared unto glory" by Ood, but of the "vessels of wratli " as "fitted to destruction"
without attributing the fitness dii'ectly to God (Rom. 9--"^). But naturally some
of his followers (notably the monks of Adrujuetum in North Africa) applied to the
vojici irae the positive principle, and taught the twofold predestination {praedestinatio
duplex) to sin and evil, as well as to life.

312 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

of two pious men poraovorance to the end is given, and ia not
given to the other, is only known to God's mysterious counsels.
Yet this much ought to be regarded as certain by bohevera —
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 Koiuan
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.

2 Written in 417 or 418. Ep. 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 eh. vi, where he insists that
the doctrine of grace in no way destroys the freedom of the will, inasmuch as 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

different from x\.ugu8tine'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
publisb.ed, the famous prayer, Da quod jubes et juhe quod vu
(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 slielter of the cloister walls. He had
probably passed through a quiet course of dovelopement, 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 different effects on
different 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 effected 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 Aiifnistine says about it de dono persev. 20, 53
(Migne P.L. xlv p. 1026), He defends the jirayer on the ground that God's chief
command to man is to believe in Him, and that faitli in Him is His own gift, and
that by grace He turns the wills of men, even when actively hostile, to the faitli
which He requires.

814 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

Tht' Chvf Pr{iu'ij»lis maintained hy Pdaqina

If rda^ius rose above the worse consoquoiices of the monastic
ideals, yet the life he had Iwl no doubt exerted an inlluence on
his views. One far-goinp principle, wliich resulted from the life
of obedience to detnili'd rules,' was the distinction he drew
between what was enjoined ( prawcpta — obligatory) and what was
only recommended as an object of higher perfection (runsilia —
optional). By abstaining from what was permitted you could
become entitled to a higher reward, there being diirerent grades
of merit and of Christian perfection.

On the study of Scriptm-e Tebigius 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 (!4od designed was to present them
" holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight " (Col. 1^2),
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
spii'itual 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

1 But see infra p. 353, Note ' The Doctrine of Merit '.

- Id the letter to Demetrias (§§ 7, 8 Migne P.L. x\x p. 22) he insists that the
Scriptures never excuse those who sin, on the ground that they cannot help tliem-
selves, but put the burden on their lack of \vill (peecantes vhique crimine voluntatis
gravant, non excusant necessitate naturae) : all through they write alike of good and
of evil as voluntary. And he explains that his anxiety to defend 'the good' of
nature is due to his de-sire 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 own will— we are always free to do one of two things. (This is his
conception of the freedom of the will — the power of clioosing at any moment one
course or another, good or evil.) He says that the ar^mment involved in the i)lea

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 fiillilment 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 {ijeccatum ex tradtice), and believed the
soul to be a new creation from God, contemporaneous with the
body and therefore untainted and pure (Creationisra). 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 difficult . . .
§ 16) really implies that God orders us what is impossible for us to do, aud then
condemns us for not doing it ; as though he sought our i)unishmeut rather than our
.salvation. He is jushts and 2>ius — it is impossible that a theory which has such
consequences can be true.

* Pelagius aiiparently recognized no criterion of sin but acts which are the
products of the individual's own volition. For these only is he responsible.
' Hereditary ' sin would therefore be impossible. Augustine, on the contrary, with
a strong sense of the solidarity of the race, regarded .«in 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 all by Adam, and every man had
inherited ever since an evil disposition, the acts of which must necessarily be evil.

:UG CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

These two nej^iations of IVlaj^iua — (1) the denial of the
necessity of enpornutural and directly a.ssisting }^rac,o 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
]iiiysical death, to the descendants of the lirst man in consequence
of his transgression — found expression in the commentaries he com
posed on the Kj)ist.les of St Paul,* and attracted attention during a
visit which he paid to Komo in the early years of the fifth century

Tlie Pelagian Controversy — Goelestius

Pelacjius was little inclined for controversy, but while at
Rome lie converted to the monastic life an advocate, Goelestius,
who eagerly ado])ted his ideas and wished to defend and propa-
gate them against all otliers. It was Goelestius, rather tluin
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 Kome with Goelestius in the year 409, and after a stay
in Sicily went to Carthage in the year 411. When he left,
Goelestius stayed behind 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 (b) that children come into

The origin of sin 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 64f>-902. On the curious 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 ci-eated 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, born into tlie world, are in the condition in which 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 Christ that the whole race of men
rises again. f>. 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 accormt, 5 is combined with 6, and in its place is given — Infants, although
they be not baptized, have eternal life.)

PHLAGIANISM 317

life in the same conditiou in which Adam was before the Fall.
Against the accusation, he insisted that the orthodox were not
acrreed 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
' hurch. 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 Stacje in Palestine. — 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 that 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 Nalura was given to Augustine, and he
replied to it in his tract rfe Nalura et ft-oiia (which contains all that is extant of the
work which it answers). He had previously written the tract de Spiritu et Litera.

- Jerome was in agreement with Augustine, and referred Pelagianism to the
influence of Origen and Rufinus, and wrote against it. See ad Ctedphontem {Ep. 133,
MigneP.Z. xxiip. 1147) and Dialogue contra Pelagianos {M.\gne P. L. xxiii 495-590).

^ They resented as a rudeness the curt reply Pelagius made (What have I to do
with Augustine ?), when asked if he had really propounded the doctrine which
Augustine opposed ; but they were not ready to consider even the support of his
great name decisive. The Bishop of Jerusalem had been 'suspect' for ' Origenistic '
leanings, and therefore was not likely to be a persona grata to Jerome or Augustine.
See his defence — Hahu'' p. 294.

318 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

in the need of divine assistunce, and were ready to admit
Telu^ius as orthodox when he assented to the need.' DrosiuH,
however, demanded that, as the (juestiou had originated in the
West,' it should be left to the Latins to dcterniino ; and deputies
and letters were sent to linioceut, Bishop of llome, requesting
liim to hear and decide the case.

Nevertheless, a few niontlis later in the same year, Pelagius
appcjirod before a second synod in Palestine, at Diospolis or
Lydda, to answer to a paper of complaints })ut in against him
by two Gallican bi3hoi)s, who had beon 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, althougli
Ooelestius might maintain them. For these he had not tf»
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 — Ajjpeal 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 Augu.stine is tolerably nlear. Pelagius
regarded the grace of God as an essential aid, a reinforcement from without, to
second the efforts wliich 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 couceive'l it as an inner
spiritual illumination, but rather as some external stimulus ai)plied 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 (jrafia Christi 11).

- 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
.•ind freedom from doctrinal disputes. The practical moral aspect of the question was
what he really cared for.

' The tieatise of Augustine dc yestis Felagii deals with the proceedings at this
synod.

PELAGIANISM 319

(416),^ and renewed the previous condemnation of Coele^tius,
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
imuiediately 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 Rorac. — 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 Afiica (a local synod — at which, therefore,
Augustine was not present, his see belonging to the ecclesiastical province of
Numidia), and one at Mileve (Mileum), for the Numidians, at which Augustine was
present. See the synodal letters in Aug. Epp. 175, 176 (Migne xxxiii pp. 758 ff.).

- For fragnients of his creed see Hahn^ p. 292. He argues that "infants ought to
be baptized unto remission of sins ", but repudiates Traducianism as alien from the
Catholic conception, on the ground that " the sin which is afterwards practised by
man is not born with hiui, for it is proved to be a fault, not of nature, but of will ".
And he denies that he claims the authority of a dogma for his inferences from the
teaching of prophets and apostles. On the contrary, he submits them to the correc-
tion of the apostolic see.

* See Hahn^ p. 288. It had been addressed by Pelagius to Innocent, and went
at length into most articles of the faith, concluding with an appeal to him to amend
anything in it that might have been less skilfully or somewhat incautiously ex-
pressed. On the spjccial questions at issue he wrote as follows : "We confess that
we liave free will, in the sense that we always are in need of the help of God, and
that they err who say . . . that man cannot avoid -sin, no less than they who . . .
assert that man cannot sin ; for both alike destroy the freedom of the will. We,
however, say that man can sin and can not sin (is able to siu and able not to sin), in
audi wise as always to confess that we possess free wiU."

;J20 CHRISTIAN DUCTRINK

atjrecnieut. A council of two huudrod hishopa was sj)oodily
held tit Cartliaj^o (in April 418), at which niuo canonH were
drftwn ui', with anti-P(>lagian definitions of the points in ques-
tion.' What weio regarded as l*elagian compromises are
definitely faced and detailed, and declared anathema. The
absolute necessity «)f baptism to effect regeneration, and to counter-
bjilance the corru))tion of nature and stain of sin that is innate —
Mie powerlessness of the liunian will unaided, and the vital neeil
of grace to enal)lo us to fullil tlie commandR 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 TheodosiuR (banishing Pelagius and Coelestius and their
followers); and the IJishop of Rome was obliged to reoyjen the
case. He summoned Pelagius and Coelestius, and, when they
did not appear, condemned them in their absence and issued a
circular letter (epistola tractoria) accepting the African view of
the matter. This he ordered should be subscribed by all bishojjs
under his jurisdiction. Eighteen refused, and were deposed and
banished from their sees, while many probably signed unwillingly.

The intimate Issue of the Controversy. — In this way
Pelagiauism was stifled, by force rather than by argument ; and
at the next General Council of the 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 w-ere 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.^

1 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 Zosimus. He is said to have died in Palestine when seventy years of age
(? c. 440). Of Coelestius, too, nothing more is known.

' Cf. Loofs Leitfade/n p. 260. In the Greek Church Augustinianism never took
Oct. Many were ready to sympathize with the eighteen bishops, of whom Julian

PELAGIANISM 321

" Semi-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 Hhegium, as representa-
tives of a considerable number of Gallican 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 Rome, 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-
fluence on Western monasticism was long-lived ; ^ and the Semi-

of Eclaiium in Campania became the chief mouthpiece — a man of high character
and generous benevolence and ample learning and ability, who was tinnly convinced
that the cause of the Christian faith and of morality itself was endangered by the
Augustinian doctrine. He did not shrink from charging that doctrine with Man-
icheism, 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 (Theodosius ii) on his side — not altogether un-
successfully at first. Both Theodore of Mopsuestia (see supra p. 256) and Nestorius
endeavoured to shield him ; but in 429 he was driven from Constantinople (which
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
Marius Mercator, who opposed Pelagianism as well as Nestorianism. And later
on he was again condemned by a Council at Rome under Celestino and by suc-
cessive bishops. He died in -1.54 in Sicily. His writings are known to us only
from Augustine's replies. See especially the four books Contra duos epislnlas
Pelagiaiwi-um (420), and the six books Contra Julicmum Pclagiaiium. [See
the Art. 'Julianus of Eclanum ' D.C.B.]

Julian was a thoroughgoing supporter of Pelagianism. A more conciliatory
position was taken liy .John Cassian.

* The familiar ti.rm may be retained, but Semi-Augustinianism would be at least
as accurate a designation, and would beg uo question.

- His works on the.se subjects were "highly prized all through the Middle Ages
as handbooks of the cloister-life",

322 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

IVlagirtiiiam ^ whicli ho ttiught. has always numbered many
adherouts.

Above uU else he was inspired by a moral interest and
a profound sense of the love of God. As, in his counsels
to his monks, lie insisted that no outward obedience to
rule availed without purity of intention and consecration of
the inner life ; so he believed that tlie 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 determhie 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 cliief Pelagian propositions. It is only
when Augustine's teaching is taken as normal that the name is valid.

2 Collationes xiii 7 : Quomodo sine ingenti sacrilegio putandus est [Deus] non
iiniversaliter omnes sed quosdam salvos fieri velle pro omnibus ? Other significant
passages on thesulijectare — § 8 "When He (sc. God) sees in us any beginning of good
^vill, straigiitway 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 our 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 bo7ium) whicli 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 insjiired 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 sfiecial monitions of the call." The
Collationes (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.

(b) Faustus of Rhegium

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
Proveuqe), 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 not die
for all men, or does not will that all should be saved, or says
that anyone who has perished (being baptized, 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 are on Grace and Free Will and were impugned
by Augustine, and by Prosper De gratia Dei et libera arhitrio contra CoUatorem
(Migne P.L. li p. 213).

^ Cf. his de Praedestinatione Sanctorum and de Dono Persevtrantiae,
^ He was bom in Brittany (or perhaps Britain) early in the fifth century, and
lived nearly to the end of it. His local reputation was so great that the title of
Saint was given him, and his festival was observed, in spite of the weight of
Augustine's authority. In more modern times Jansenist historians and editors
naturally impugn liis right to canonization, while learned Jesuits defend him.

324 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINK

hath, to him shall be given ' — he has the power and must use it.
The dtx'tiine of predestination, in particular, cjilled forth his
energetic protests, and he strongly denied the assumption of any
such ' special and personal ' grace ((/ratia specialis and jursoyutlia)
as Augustino'3 theory of preilcstiuation involved ; th<tugli at the
same time he speaks of a precedent grace {ijratm jrroccrdens) of 11
general character.'

A presbyter of Gaul named Lucidus had roused uneasiness
by his advocacy of these and other Augustiniau conceptions,
and Kaustus was requested by Leoutius, the Archbishop of
Aries, to write upon the subject ;- and at a Council licld 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
of 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 Doctrine

Teaching to this effect prevailed in Gaul for some time. Rut
synods at Orange ( Arausio) * and Valence ^ in 5 2 9 decided for the

* See the Letter to Lucidus (Migne P.L. liii p. 683). It appears that he did not
mean to express the need for a definite ' prevenient ' grace (as positively requisite
before any step towards salvation was possible) in the Augustinian sense, as some-
thing altogether extern&l 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 eflFect a more
formal treatise entitled De graiia Dei et humanae nventvs libera arhitrio (Migne
P.L. Iviiip. 783 fl).

^Hahn^p. 217.

* Under the presidency of Caesarius of Aries, sometime abbot of Lerinum.

•' The priority of these (youncils is disputed (see Hefele). Araold Caesarius von
Ardate p. 348 n. 1129 puts that of Valence first.

PELAGIAN ISM 325

Angustinian doctrine, with the limitation that predestination to
evil was not to be taught (Augustine liimself 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 Rome, Boniface Ji, 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
iTi 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 proffered 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 the doctrine of Augustine that
was stated at the Council of Trent. That man's free will alone
is insufficient, and that without prevcnient 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 inspiration and illumination of the Holy
Spirit, and he does so according to his own proper disposition
and co-operation.^ The fall of man caused the loss of the gift
of divine grace originally bestowed upon him, and its consequence

' See the canons of the Council of Orange — Hahn '' pp. 220-227, esp. canon 25
p. 227. They insist with emphasis that human nature is unable to make any kind
of beginning of faith and goodness, or to invoke the divine aid, without the grace of
Go<l. The giving and reception of grace depends solely on God's initiative.

^ Sess. vi cap. 3, * Sess. vi cap. 4, 5, 7.

326 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

was wcakncRS and imjKM'fectiun. Ilia freedom of will was
weakened and turned anidc, but not lost and extinguished.
Ktnnan orthodoxy thus recognizes (jratin prafivenicns, and grntm
co-opcrans, and the human power of self-determination. Simil-
arly, as op|30sed to the theory of predestination, the Council of
Trent declared the universality of grace ; and, when the Jan^onists
attempted to revive the doctrines of Augustine, predestination
was still more decisively rejected.

Augustine's Chikf Anti-Pelagian Writinos (see Robertson
Art. 'Augustiuus' D.C.B. new volume)

A.D.

412 De jwcc. mtritiK et remiss, lib. iii, and Dp spiritu ef litrra (lo

Marcellinus).
415 De natura et gratia, and De perfectione iustitiae Iwminis (agains

the teaching of Coelestius).

417 De gestis Pelagii (on the proceedmgs in Palestine), and Epp. 176,

177, and iierm. 131.

418 Dp gratia Chnsti et de peccato originali lib. ii.

419 De nuptiis et concupiscent ia lib. ii, and De anima eiusque oi'igiiie

lib. iv (on the transmission of original sm and on the origin of
the soul).

420 Contra duos 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 libero arbitrio and De^.

correptione et gratia | (against the arguments of

428-9 De praedest. 8a7ictoruTn 3ind De do7io i the Semi- Pelagians),

perseverantiae J

CHAPTER XVTII

The Doctrine 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 New 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-
sideration. 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 Irenaeus
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 spii'it of
speculation carry them 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 they
came to be regarded as erroneous, and have for us now a merely
historical interest. But apart from these particular theories,
which we must notice in their place, we have no attempt at
formal statement of a doctrine, and can onlv record incidental
references and more or less chance phrases which indicate, rather

' See supra Chaiitev II \y\^. 20, 21.
327

:?28 (MIRISTIAN DOCTRINE

tliim express, tho (.'oiicrpliDHs of tlio earlier exponents of Cbrislian
teaching.' They tire in ull eases only ])ersonul atLenipla to set
forth ami illustrate experiences and emotions that were still
pereoiial, however widely they were shared among those who
were fellows in faith. How far they were generally received,
iir what — if any- measure of ofticial sanction was given them,
it is impossihle to siiy. 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 emjttied his wlmle 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 Irenacus 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 Tlir CafJi'jlic Dodritve of the Atoncriumt. For special points of view see also
R. C. Moberly Atonement and Personality ; R. W. Dale The AtoncTnent ; B. F.
"Westcott Tlte Victory of the Cross, and the notes to his edition of the Epistles of
St John; M'Leod Campbell The Nature of the Atone'tnent, and J. M. Wilson The
Gospel of the Atonement.

- See supra Chapter II p. 19.

* The only ' satisfaction ' which was thought of was the satisfaction which the
penitent himself makes. There is no suggestion of any satisfaction of tlie divine
justice through the .suflerings of Christ.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT 329

{dydiTT})} 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 ottered 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 Amalekites, 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 unmistakeable revelation visible
to the naked eye. " For had he not come in flesh, how coidd
we men see him apd be saved ? "

In The Shepherd of Hennas ^ there is only one clear reference
to the doctrine, but it has special interest as connecting the
value of the work of the Saviour with his obedience to the
Father's will and laws. The thought is expressed in the form
of a parable of a vineyard, which represents God's people, in

' 1 Eji. 49. - Sec esp. chs, 5, 7, 12. ' Similitude v 6.

330 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

which the Ron is biildon to work as a servant, and in wliich he.
klionre much and suH'oi-a much to do away their sins, and then
l^HDiuts out to them the way of life by Rivinj; tlicni the law which
he received from liis Father. The perfect fuHilment of the
Father's will, at the cost of toil and sull'erin^', on the 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 Ejnstles of Iffiiafius the reality of the euffevings of
Christ is em]>hasized again and again against docetic teaciiing,
and it is clear that the writer attached unique importance to
the passion, altliough 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 eftected, and precisely what value is to be attributed to the
suflerings of the Kedeemer, is naturally not expressed. It was
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 ' sauctification '
more than the ' justification ' of mankind.*

Justin

No systematic treatment of the subject is to be found either
in Justin's Ajyologies 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 S/uyrn. 6.

• The idea of 'justification ' is hardly present, though the verb occurs twice
Phila/1. 8 and Bom. 5 (with reference to 1 Cor. 4''). He speaks also of 'peace'
tlirough the passion {Eph. inscr.) and of deliverance from demons through Christ
(Eph. 19).

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT 331

iiian, it is declared on the one hand, was that he might share our
sufleriugs 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 things deserving
a curse." ^ Bather/ the words of Scripture indicate God's fore-
knowledge of what was destined to be done by the Jews and
others like them. It was by the Jews, and not by God, that he

* Apol. ii 13, and esp. (tlic chief passage) Dial. c. Trypli. 40-43 and 95.
2 Ajiol. i 63. ' IMd. i 23.

* DiaZ. c. Tryph. 83. » lUd. 30.

® See Ajiol. i 63 "he endured to sufFev all that the devils disposed the Jews to do
to him ".

' Indeed, he styles it only au ' apparent ' ourse {Dial, c. Tryph. 90).
8 Ibid. 94.

332 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINK

was accnrsed. For nil who have fait.li in him there hiinge froui
the crucitied Christ the hope of salvation.*

Thr Writer to Drnpuiun

Some tine pasRafjPB in the Epv<tle to Dioqiretiui Rhew tht
writer's conco])tion of the Atonement aa esRoiitially an act ol
comjmssion whicli is ]>roni]ited hy the unalterable love of Goti
and insist on the perfect union of will between the Father and
the Sou. " (rod, the Master and Maker of all things, who
(•recited all thing's and set them in order, was not only a
lover of man but also long-sufl'ering. 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 hin
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 made
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 wickedness 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. .Tvdaeos 10).

' Ch. 8. » Oh. 9. * Oh. 8.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT 333

TerUdlian

From Tertullian, if from any one, we should have expected
a theory of atonement based on legal conceptions and forensic
metaphors.^ But ho 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^^) — * 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 him 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 spoken by the mouth of the prophets.^

IreTiaeus

When we pass to consider the conceptions of Irenaeus we
must note at the outset that no one has ever more clearly

* So Oxenham points out op. cit. p. 124.

* See Note on the ' Doctrine of Merit ' p. 353.

* This is evident from the references in de Foen. 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 ; de Pat. 13 ; de
Pud. 9 ; de Cult. Fern, i 1 ; adv. Jud. 10.

* See adv. Judtwos 10.

'' That the highest value attached to the sufiFerings of Christ in Tertullian's
judgement is shewn by his argument against doeetic teaching {adv. Marc iii 8).
If his death be denied, he says (and a phantasm could not really suffer), the
whole work of God would be overthrown and the whole meaning and benefit of
< "hristianity rejected.

" It was only ilimly tliat the mystery (sacrameHtwm) of his passion could be

334 CHRISTIAN DOCTUINK

grasped the fiindrtinental truth of the ' solidarity * of humanity.
No principle is more ehunicteristic of ChviHtiuu theology than
this, that the race of men is a corporate whole — all mcinbcrB ol
it being so closely bound tog(>ther in a union bo intimate thai
they form togetlier one living organism. To tliis conception
Irenaeus gives tlie clearest expression, and following up tli(^
meauiug of the title ' Son of Man ' which St Paul had beeu th(^
first to expand,^ he points to Christ as the great representative
of the race, in whom are summed up all its ripe experiences as
they were contained in germ in Adam. Wiiat Christ achieves
the whole race achieves. Just as mankind in Adam lost its
birthright, so in Christ mankind recovers its original condition.
The effect of Adam's acts extended to the whole company of his
descendants, and the eilect of Christ's acts is equally coextenHive
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 Jesus
what we had lost in Adam, namely, the being in the image and
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 the victory
of man we might mount up to life," * And again, " I'or in the
first Adam we stumbled, not doing his command ; but in the
second Adam we were reconciled, shewing ourselves obedient
unto death." * These 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 the gi-ace of God), in types such as Isaac and Joseph, and in figures like
the bull's horns and the serpent lifted up. See also adv. Marc, v 5.

^ See sucli passages as Rom. 5^^"^^, 1 Cor. W^'^-"'^, Eph. 1'".

^ Adv. Haer. m 19. 1. The thought expressed by the words recapitulare, recapit-
7tla(io, applied in this way to Christ, is the chief clue to the full concejition of the
writer, both as to the Incarnation and as to the Atonement. The doctrines arc
one and the same : the Incarnation effects the Atonement. It brings to completion
the original creation, and is its perfecting 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 33. 2) in which Irenaeus

-PHE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT 335

thought was as distinct as possible. The whole race is soUdaire :
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 us, and Christ regains for us ;
hut 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 Eom. 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 should 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
rebellion, 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
justice of his own, acted justly even in dealing with the
apostasy itself, ransoming (buying back) from it what is his
own, not by 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 persuasion, in the way in which it was fitting
for God to receive what he wished, by persuasion and not by
the use of force, so that there might be no infringement of the
principle of justice, and yet God's ancient creation might be

describes the passing of Christ through the different stages of human growth and
developement in order that he might redeem and sanctify each age.
^ Adv. Haer. v 1. 1.

336 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

preserved from perishing." To achieve the end in view man
must render perfect obedience us u first condition, and that is
one chief re;ison 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 compiered." ^

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 cancelletl {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 Redeemer'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
God 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. Haer. iii. 19. 6. Cf. v 1, v 16. 2.

' It is to God, of course, that the obedience is due. Cf. ihid. v 16. 2, 17. 1-3.

* The temptations of Jesus are the counterpart of the temptation of Adam, as
the oliedience 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 praeccptum legis quod servavit filius hominis " is not quite clear,
but the translation given above seems to convey the full meaning of the words.
The technical legal sense of pracva/ricari (of an advocate who so conducts hLs 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 jiayment of a price (cf. parallel expressions ' dis-
solvens {or sanans) . . . hominis inobedientiam ' v 16. 2, 'nostram inobedien tiara
per suam obedientiam consolatus' v 17. 1).

* Ibid, v 1. 2 (the conclusion of the passage quoted supra), but the idea of the
bloofl of Christ as ran.som do&s not seem to occupy a very prominent i)lace in the
whole work of atonement and redemption.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT 337

any detail the nature of the transaction wliich is implied. These
are certainly not the aspects of the matter which appeal to him
most, or which he cares to emphasize. Any uuscriptural 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 ?

Ori^en

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
still 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 Hainack ^Tites : "Irenaeus is quite as free fi-om the thought that the devU
has real rights over man as he is free from tlie iruraoral idea that God accomplished
his work of redemption by an act of deceit " {D6. Eng. tr. vol. ii p. 290).

2 The kingdom had been established in the first instance by injustice and
usurpation, — how could this inveterate wrong become a right ?

* This theory is expressed or alluded to in various writings of Origen. E. g.
Gomm. in Jonnn. torn, ii 21, in Matt, xvi 8, in Rom. ii 13. But the notion of
intentional deception on the part of God (expressed in JlcUf. torn, xiii 9) is not
prominent in Origen. His idea was rather that the devil deceived himself, imagin-

:\:\8 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINK

llDwever, this particular point is only (juite a subordinate
I'lenirnt in the doctrine wliicli Crimen held on the whole mutter.
He dwells at greater length on other more important aspecta of
the Atonement.

Thus he 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 receivi' life which
•lesus tiiught." ' Redemplion is tliuH effected by joining in one
the divine and the human nature.

The death, too, was his own act. St. Paul had written
(Rom. 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 : — " The Son too gave himself unto death ou
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 wo 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 llesh, that cleansed from sin

iug that he could retain possession of the Sou of God. (Contrast with Origen's
words on the subject, Gregory of Nyssa's dirdT-ri rli iari. rpowov nvd 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 28.

- In Matt. torn, xiii 8.

' In Joann. torn, xxviii 14 (Oj/?;. iv p. 392, Migue). Thus he explains Isaiah's
prophecy of the di!><-iiiline of our i)eaf;e 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 \a) 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 — paying back a debt to God, maii having deprived him of honour by
disobedience. For the stress laid on obedience by Irenaeus see suj^ra p. 336.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT 339

during this ])resent life our spirit may find its vviiy clean and
pure to Christ." ^ Tliis 'moral interpretation' of the death of
Christ 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 atoning
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 does 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. Comment, series 113, voL iii p. 912 (Moberly o}). cit.). Serin, in Mail.
912.

^ See in Num. Horn, xxiv 1 ; cf. toni. in Joann. xxviii 393 ; c. Cels. i 1, ii 17
(Socrates).

* In Lev. Horn, ix 10.

' Similar expressions elsewhere {e.g. Ireu. adv. Haer. v 17. 1 propitians quidcm
pro nobis Patran, and Atli. Or. c. Ar. ii 7) seem to shew that such language was
not regarded as umiatural ; wliile at the same time it was kept subordinate tu the
idea of the love of God in sending His Son, and no theory of propitiation was framed.

" But a second attempt to mediate between the two notions was made by Athau-

;U0 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

power of evil and the penalty of sin is dominant. It is in that
ii«»ed that llio lator Fathers tiiul the reason for Christ's death as
the only sufficient ransom that could be paid. And the j^ower
of evil is no abstract idea, but a personal power — Satan, who is
regarded as having acijuired an actual right over men. This
conception controlled the thought of the ages till the time of
Auselra, 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 Rutinus, and repudiated at the
same time by Gregory of Nazianzus.*

Gi'egorji of Nyssa

The theory that Gregory of Nyssa framed is in some respects
so characteristic and won such long acceptance that it nmst be
stated at some length.^ He begins by shewing the reasonable-
ness of the Incarnation. Man had Ijeeu created in the image of
God, because the overflowing love of God desired that there
should e.xist a being to share in His perfections. He was bound,
therefore, to be endowed with the power of self-determination,
and in \'irtue of this freedom was able to be misled and to
choose evil rather than good (or, more accurately, to turn aside
from good), inasmucli 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 etfects the Giver of life himself became man —
the divine natui'S was united to the human. How, we cannot

aoius when he emphasized tlie necessity of God's fulfilment of the sentence pronounced
on Adam's sin. (It is deliverance from Death rather than from Satan that Athan-
asius conceives as effected, see 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 secreta, w rought in the silence of God, wliich
•were to be proclaimed alood, namely, the ^^rginity of Mary, her child-bearing, and
the death of the Lord. These, it is said, " deceived the prince of this world ". [Some
would regard the idea as impUed 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. 160 ff.

' See thn OraHo Catechetica, esp. chs. xxi-xxvi — ed. J. H. Srawley (Eng. tr. in
'Gregory of Nyssa' N. andP.-N.F.).

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONExMENT 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 ail 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
flesh 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 proffered
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 this 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 the 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 inveu-

^ This strange simile is found again in regard to Death, John Dainasc. de
Fid, iii 27. Leo (Serm. xxii 4) expresses himself to much the same effect as
Gregory.

342 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

tion by which it wa« on'odi^d was a manifoHtation of bu])ioiiu>
wisdom.*

A very similar account is i^iven by liuHnua. He exproRses
his concoptiou in his exjiosition of the Creed,* on the article
' He was crucilied ..." He speaks of the Cross as a signal
trophy, and token of victory over the enemy. By his death ho
brouiflit three kinjjjdoms at once into subjection under his sway
— ' things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the
earth '. And the reason why tlie special form of death — the
Cross — was chosen was that it might correspond to the mystery :
in the tirst 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 Itnig he stretched out his hands ' to the people on the earth,
making protestations to unbelievers and invitiug 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
Grod 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 somnwhat modified by his comparison of
God's act of deception with the procedure of the |jhy.siciau who deceives his patient
for a beneficent purpose. Satan himself shall profit by the deception and be healed.
See Or. Cat. xxvi.

^ Ruilnus Comm. in Symb. Apost. § 14fl.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT 34P,

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 tiesh (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,
ottering 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 which the others were.

Gregory of Nazianzus

The idea of a ransom paid to Satan was indignantly repudi-
ated by Gregory of Ntizianzus, the intimate friend of Gregory of
Nyssa. Head and heart alike reject it, though logic seems to
require it. " We were," he says,^ " under the dominion of the

' Oral, xlv 22. For an excellent criticism of the theory see Oxeuham op. cit.
p. 150 fF. It involves great difJiculties, intellectual and moral. The notion of deception
cannot be harmonized with the notion of a bargain struck and a price paid to satisfy
a just claim. If the devil was tricked into forfeiting his just rights by grasping at
rights where he liad none, how wms compensation made to him ? And how could the
blood, or the soul, or the death, of the Redeemer be an equivalent to him at all for the
empire which he lost, when it gave him no real power over him who only died to rise
again at once from the dead. And again, the theory makes tlie God of truth choose

344 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

wicked one, and ransom is always paid to liim who is in posses-
sion of the thing for which it is (hie. Was the ransom then paid
to the evil one? It is a monstronf? thou-^'ht. If to the evil
one — what au outrage ! Then the rohber receives a ransom, not
only from (Jod, 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."
Tiial, 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,
80 that, having subdued the tyrant, he might deliver and recon-
cile us to himself by the intercession of bis 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
liim). 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 indfipendent powers set over against one another, a kingdom
of light and a kingdom of darkne>s, with juiisdictions naturally limited by conflicting
claims : instead of treating evil as a temj)orary interruption of the divine order.

^ One striking passage, however, as Mr. C. F. Andrews has reminded me, must
not be overlooked, vi:. Or. xxx 5, 6 (The Thological 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 dpafiarovpyflrai Kai irXfKerai OavyxKriw^ iiirkp i}/j.uif 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 creffuff/jL^poi.

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 four
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 thac 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 Harnack DG, Eng. tr. vol. iii p. 290 ff., and Moberly Atonement and
Personality p. 349 ff. (a full and sympathetic and discriminating appreciation of
the teaching of Athanasius). I cannot think that the tradition which ascribes
this work to Athanasius has been in any way shaken by the elaboiate arguments of
Dr. Draseke (Theol. Stitd. u. Krit. 1893, and Zeitschrift f. v/iss. Thcol. 1895).

^ And in frequent references to the doctrine elsewhere, particularly in the
Orations against the Arians, esp. ii 67-70.

* It is said that a personification of Death takes the place of the devil in the
thought of Athanasius, and that his conception has thus much kinship with the idea of
a ransom to the devil : but it will be seen that he has really very little in common with
such an idea. It is nearer perhaps to the thought of Athanasius to describe the penalty
as paid to the justice of God in close connexion with the demands of His veracity.
But it is difficult to grasp exactly what Athanasius means by Death in this con-
nexion, if he had an exact idea himself.

■• Athanasius speaks of it as unthinkable (dToirov riv) that mere penitence should
compensate for sin and restore the tainted nature.

:U6 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

the Logos had ori^,firmlIy made all thinp^ out, of nothing; so it
was fitting unti ni'cossjuy tliat he should take human nature
to himself, and recreate it by assuming a Inmian body, and
once and for all overpowering in it the ])rinciple of death and
corruption. This, therefore, is the first and chief ellect of the
Incarnation : * the principle of corruption is anniiiilated. And
it is ill virtue of the inherent relation of the Logos to the human
race that he cHects 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 the death of all mankind that is owed, and it
is the death of all mankind that is elVected 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 Losos
is said to have " oflered 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 suHers 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 when a groat king has entered
some great city and takes uji 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 overpowei-s 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 ceased, and the corruption of
death which of old prevailed against them has vanished away."

2 See chs. iii and viiL * Ch. xx ; of. 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 shows that representation is meant. E.g. ch. ix
7\ TTpoiTtpoph, Tov KaraWi^Xov, rb 6(peik6fievoi>, avr/^uxoi'— but they are i/Tr^p vAvtuv.
The phrase ivrl vivroiv is, I think, used once only (ch. xxi), and then in the mouth
of an obje^.-txir 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 have 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 jiat 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 incorruption." ^ 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 Son
of the Father and incapable of death, " when He saw that there
could be no escape for men from destruction without actually
dying, . . . took to Himself a body which could die ; in order
that 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. c. Ar. ii 68 (Dr. Moberly's translation). ^ Ibid, ii 69.

^ Cf. Gregory of Nyssa's idea that the ailing part must be ' touched in order to
be healed — Or. Cat. xxviL

348 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

averted from all by the grace of tho resurrection. . . . Thus hf
iibolished deuth at a stroke froui his feUow-incu by the olVeiing o\'
that which 8t<x)d for all. . . . For tho dcistruction which belongs lii
to death has uow no more place against men, becauee of the'"
Ixjgos who through the one body indwells in them." ^ 'J'lii
special immanence of the Logos in humanity since tho Incaruit
tion is known and recognized by the presence of his Spirit in hi.-
followers. It is we ourselves who receive the grace. " li\
reason of our kinshij) of nature with his body we ourselves also an
become a temple of God, and iiave been made from henceforth soii.'-
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 trutl
in tliem '." ^ " The descent of the Spirit, which came upon him
in Jordan, came really u])on us, because it was our body that hi>
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 S})irit, it was we who were being made by him
capable of receiving it." '

Such are the thoughts which specially characterize the teach-
ing of Athauasius 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 domai)i
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 Father."^. 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 tnie sense ours, and that hi"?
immanence in huuianity is of widest consequence, i.s further argued Or. c. Ar. i 41,
iii 33, iv 67.

- Or. c. Ar. i 43. ^ IMd. i 47 ; and again ibia. ii 48, 49.

* De Tncam. ch. xiv. ^ Ibid. ch. xv.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT 349

giiiu a true knowledgp of God, which they could not have gained
in any other way. The invisible thus became visible, aud made
himself known as he really was.

So, at the end of his book, Athanasins 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
;i 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 of the Fathers to definitely
face the question Cur Deus 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 His gifts.
We were sinners and enemies of God. But through the means

' De Incam. ch. Kv. ^ Dc Trinitaie xiii § 13 ff.

' It is in this sense that the Fathers of this time speak of the ncca^sily of the
particular mode of atonement which was adopted, not as absohite but as conditioned
by God's imriioses. That God might have chosen other methods is recognized by
all. (See Oxenham op. cit. p. 149.)

3r>0 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINR

(Icviscil wo are savod : wo are justilioil by Hk- blood, and rccnn
ciled by Iho doath, of tl»e Sou of God ; wo aio savod from wrain
through him, saved by his lifo.

Augustino thon faces the dillieulty — How are we jimtiliod
ill his blood — what power is there in the blood ? and bow are
we reconciled by the death of the Son ? It couUl iiot be as
ihou^^h CJod the Father was wroth, raid was appeased by the
doatii of His Son ; for on that supposition the Son must have been
alroady ajipoasotl, and there w<mld be implied a conflict betwoen
the Father and the Son. And St Paul (Rom. 8^^' '^'^) represents
the Father as delivi'ring up His Son, not sparing him — so shew-
ing that the Father was already appeased. And indeed there
could bo no doubt that God had always loved us. And the
Fatlier and the Son work all things together harmoniously and
equally (there could be no kind of contiict or dillerence 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 deljt 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

^ The word used is oHyinalUer. It is explained immediately as meaning ' Ijy
nature', i.e. as it has been depraved by sin, not as created upright {recta) at the
beguining.

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT 361

had to be God in order to prove that the choice of righteousness
was spontaneous (i.e. to shew that the Saviour could have cJiosen
the way of might rather than the way of justice) ; and this volun-
tary humility 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 llesh 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 this review of the teaching of the Church it will be
seen that there is only the most slender support to be found in

' Harnack {DG. Eug. tr. vol. iii p. 313) describes the propitiation of an angry
God by a sacrificial death as the characteristic Latin conception of the work of Christ.
It is clearly not the conception of Augustine. As to the conceptions of TertuUian and
Cyprian see supra p. 333. AYith the passage cited above may be compared the treat-
ment of the passage John 1721-20 [Tract, in Joli. ex 6) : "For it was not from the time
that we were reconciled nnto Him by the blood of His Son that He began to love us ; but
He loved us before the foundation of the world. . . . Let not the fact, then, of our
haWng been reconciled to God through the death of His Son be so listened to, or
imderstood, as if the Son reconciled as unto Him in such wise that He now began to
love those whom He formerly hated, as enemy is reconciled to enemy, so that on
that accoiint they become friends and mutual love takes the place of nmtual hatred ;
but we were reconciled unto Him who already loved us, but with whom we were at
emnity because of our sins. "

352 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

the earliest centuries for some of llie views that became current
at a later time. It is at least clear that the sulferings of Christ
were not regarded as an exchange or substitution of penalty, or
{18 punisinnent inflicted on him by the Father for our sins.
There is, that is to say, no idea of vicarious satisfaction, eitlier 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 inflicted on him punishment due to us. Wherever language
that seems to convey such notions is used, it is safeguurdcd by
the idea of our union with (Jhrist, 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
appro])riate the redemption which he won for us. Also, in spite
of a phrase or two suggesting another conception, it is clear tliat
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 effected.

Furthermore in the light of the teaching which has been
reviewed, it is diflicult 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.

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' COKCEPTIONS 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 Gnostics, who denied the reality of tho, human nature, the suffer-
ings which were only apparent could have no value or effect of any 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 imable 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 »n,pra pp. 247, 274).

THE DOCTRINE OF MERIT
Tertullian and Cyprian

TertuUian'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 inrlulrfenfia 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 them
have a claim for reward from God ; because to take advantage of God's
indulgentia (or permissio or licentia) is in no way sin. It may at times
be even good, relatively to actual sin ; though there is a better, 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 the voluntas Dei is, however,
passive in character. In contrast with it is the active presentation of
the matter, viz. the doctrine of merit resting on the idea of satisfactio.

354 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

This idea depnds on other considorations. God is the lawgiver before
whose authority man must bow in unconditional obedience. His will
is set l>efore men in the Old and in the New Testamont (l)oth of which
Tertnllian styles lex), and in the order of Nature, as also in the ecclesi-
astical discipline and in the tradition. Herein, from these sources of
knowleilge, can be found what is pleasing to God and what is not
pleasing but forbidden. To 'satisfy' or contont God is to do what is
plejising to Hin>, and not to do what is forbidden. Otherwise a sin is
incurred. No recourse to the indulgence of God is admitted here. But
men ai-e always falling into sin, and each sin incurs guilt, and God ii:
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 ' God — or he ceases to be a Chri;?tian.)
The piniishment, 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 satiffadio 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 Gliristo). It is an expiatory sacrifice, and the
amount of the sacrifice required is in exact correspondence with the
utlence. 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 {liabent 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 the 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.

TertulUan was the first to ' formulate ' the conception, while Cyprian
was the first to * naturalize ' it fully in th'e system of church doctrine.

Two presuppositions of the doctrine must, of course, be borne in
muid : (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 those who have undergone the supernatural
change of moral personality which they believed the sacrament of
baptism effected) ; (2) the; e is no suggestion that the baptized Christian

THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT 355

\\'ho does good works has any claim for reward apart from God's own
jn-omise.

An important developement of the conception is to be noted in the
teaching of Cyprian, for whom, it will be remembered, the question how
to deal with Christians under penance, or even excommunicate, to whom
martyrs or confessors had given lihelli 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 benelit 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 martjTs
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 (praeceptum) and his own
judgement or advice {consilium) — all must obey praecepta, but in matters
with regard to which there were no praecepta special merit might be
acquired by doing more than was obligatory ; and in passages such as
Kom. 125, 1 Cor. 1226, Col. 124 ^hi^h seem to imply that the faith and
piety and good works and sufi"erLngs, done and borne in Christ, of some
of the members of his Body — the Church — may in some sense pass over
to and affect 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 Tertullian
and Cyprian which shew their conceptions will be found in Der
'Verdiemt'-Begriffhj Dr. Wirth (Leipzig 1892 and 1901), on whose
exposition this note is based. For some considerations which would
modify his presentation of the matter as a whole, see a notice of his
work contributed to the Church Quarterly Revieio 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 Now 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 infra p. 386.

3 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 ; Barn. Ejj. 3, 6. All were brethren ' according to the spirit and
in God' (Aiistides A]}ol. 15). Mutual love was, to outsiders, the most striking
feature of the society. They were a new people, a tertium genus.

356

THE CHURCH 357

between the two, to recognize an invisil>le 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 authoiity 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
new 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 view of opinions or actions that threatened disunion
and disruption.

Ignatius

Thus Ignatius insists above all else on the unity of the
Church, the security for which he finds in the bishop, who is
the representative of Christ, or God, and the head of the

' 'Set apart', 'devoted to sacred purposes' is the primary meaning of S.yiot.
The problem how to reconcile the holiness of the society as a whole with the
unholiness of its individual members was bound to arise ; but the relation
between ' the true body ' and ' the mixed body ' {corpus verum and corpus per-
mixtum) was thoroughly considered for the first time by Augustine in the con-
troversy with the Donatists. See infra p. 369 n. 1.

- See infra and Note on the Bishops as centre of the Church p. 373.

^ Of. e.g. the African Creeds, ' remissionem pec<;atoruin . . . et vitam aeternam
per Haiidam ccdesiam ' (Hahn'' pp. 59 ff.).

:">58 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

orgnnization, iidininiHtnition, discipline, iiiul woi^shi]) of earli
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 ])erformed. 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 the 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
' Churcli ' of which he is chief) be merely a towu and its vicinity, as in the time
of Ignatius, or a larger area like the diocese of a later age ; and whether 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 ; Smym. 8 ; Trail. 2, 3 ; Magn. 3, 6 ; Philad. 7. This
(ad Smym. 8) is the first instance of tlie 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. "AVherever Jesus Christ is, there is the universal Church" — so
Ignatius writes, and therefore (though he expresses himself in the form of exhor-
tation\ wherever the bishop is seen, there is the body of Christian people 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 appeal is made to the consensus jidelium, 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 Frag^nent of the Canmi.,
which declares of heretical writings that they cannot be received into the 'Catholic'
Church. Cf. also 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 i^ifra p. 366.

^ Eph. 17, "the Lord received the ointment upon his head, in order that he
might breathe the odour of incorruptibility upon hLs (the) Church." See Von der
Goltz Texte u. Unters. xii 3, and J. H. Srawley Epistles of St Ignatius S.P.C.K.
ad loc.

THE CHURCH 359

their relation to the Head.^ They must be seen as true branches
of his Cross, bearing incorruptible fruit.

Again and again Ignatius 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 Gud 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 union 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 interdeuendence 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 wi-itings of
Irenaeus.

The needs of his argument against heresies of various kinds
led Irenaeus to speak of the Church, 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 generaUions by the Apostles the
traditional teaching preserved in the Church would have sufficed.*

> See esp. Trail. 11. ^ Ejjh. 10, Magn. 13, Smym. 12.

' Heretics, who fail to realize this, prove themselves thereby oppoaed to the
mind or purpose of God — Smiji-n. 6. Cf. ^>A. 14.

* Adv. Haer. iii 4. 1 ; cf. iv. 48. 2, wliere he sees in Lot's wife, become a pillar
of aalt, a type of the Church which is the salt of the earth, and Ls left behind on
the confines of the world, enduring all that falls to human lot. And, often as
nicrabers are taken from her, she yet r>^mains whole — a pillar of salt, the strength
of the faith, strengthening and sending on her sons to their Father.

;iGO CHRISTIAN DOCTRINK

This U^uchinjT of tlie faith (always and everywhere constant anrl
jx^rsistent, always younj^ and strong, endowed with perennial
youth, and making the vessel in which it is young) is a trust
committed to the Cliurcli by God, to give life to all that share
it' It is only in the Church that communion with ChrisI , i.e.
the Holy Spirit, am be obtained — the Holy Spirit wliich is
the guarantee of immortality, the security of our faitli, and the
ladder by which we mount to God. Whoie the Clnucli is,
there too is tlie 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 motlier's milk and the pure
waters that How 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
eaith, 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.®

Tertvllians Conception of the Clmrch

Tertullian has much in common with Irenaeus, though he
deals with fresh aspects of the matter. His conceptions under-
went a change after his conversion to Moutanism. 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. Efaer. i 3, 4 ; iii 12. 9 ; v 20. So the Tnagisterium and the charisma
veritatvi, a ' succession ' of truth, belong to the bishops.

' Adv. Haer. iii 38. ] . » Ihid. iii 38. 2. * lUd. i 2, etc.

* Ihid. ii 48. 3, 4 ; 49. 3. « Ibid, iv 64,

THE CHURCH 361

pretntion 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 di\dne origin and a
divine authority. No mention is made of the bishops ; but it
is essentially a visible external Church that Tertullian 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,
Tertullian 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 Montanist,* Tertullian 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, he 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
Spirit. . . . Accordingly the whole number of those who agree
together in this faith in the Trinity are counted as the Church

Depraesffr. hacrel. 21, 32, 37. " Dr Bapt. '5. • De Urat. 2.

See especially de Pudicilia 21, and the whole argument.

362 CHRISTIAN DOCTKINF.

by its founder and Nuutilier. To this Church belongs the power
of forgiveness of sius — but it is n CJliurch which is Spirit and
iict« through a Hpiritual 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 beh^ngs to God Himself, and not to His priest.

Here, then, we have Tertullian utterly repudiating the
theory that any but tlje 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 th'at 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 assemblage
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 Lord's sayings to
Peter were to him personally, and that the bishops or Ghiirfh of Rome (of whom
he is WTiting) have no right to take them 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 tJiee I will build my Church ' and ' I will
the keys to thee', not to the Church {de Pudicitia 21). With this interpretation
of. the view of Cyprian {infra p. 364) that the commission and the authority was
given equally and fully to all the Apostles and their 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 Platonists of Alexandria p. 100 f.

' Strom, vii 17 (Migne ix p. 548). Other references given by Bigg (p. 99) we
Strom, vii 26, vii 5, iii 6, 11 ; Paed. 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 flesh 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
;uid become one spirit with Him — the Suns 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.

Origen certainly insists that outside the Church no one is
saved ; ^ but the terms in which he 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 disciples 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."^ Some of Origen's other references to the Church
have been already noticed.*

Cyprian's ConceiJtion of the Church

Turning from Egypt towards the West again, we find a further
developement of the doctrine of the Church worked out by Cyprian.

The first treatise which expressly deals with the subject in
view of practical difficulties which had arisen is Cyprian's On
the Unity of the Church.

■ His conception of the Church is expressed, for the most part,
in his attempt to find the true solution of the new problem by
which his generation was perplexed — the problem of secession

' Faed. i 4. 6 ; cf. Strow. i 18, vii 6.

- Horn, iii in Jos. * Hon. i in Oen.

* See, e.g., his refeienn' to its authority as the vehicle of tradition and so thii
laiidard of truth supra ch. iv p. 58.

364 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

upon qupstions not oritrinally doctrinal, whon " with teiichin}^
identical, amid imdoubtcd hnlinoss of liff\ there was seen Altar
aj^iiinst Altar, Chair ai^ainst Chair ".^ Whon^ was the seat ol
authority, the guarantee of unity, to be found ? This is the
question which Cyprian deals with in his tract On the. Uniti/
of thf Church ; and his answer to it shews clearly, not only
what he held to be the basis of authority in the Chureh and ^hc
nature and safej^uard of its external constitution, but alsi^ inci
denUilly his conception of the inner character and functions ol
the Church itself.

On the first point he says the answer is quickly given
(§ 4V 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
aKke, 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. cil.

' Episcopatus units est, cuius a singulis in solidum pars tenetvr ('like that of a
shareholder in some joint ];roperty ' — Benson). This concejjtion of the full and
independent authority of each bishop, so that no one could force his will ujion
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. 66. 8.

THE CHURCH 365

Separate any oue 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
the 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 does 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 ,2 and apostolic precepts and injunctions insist on it.

It only remains to note some practical consequences which
Cyprian deduces. Good men cannot withdraw themselves from

' At the end of the treatise (§ 23) he tersely sums ujj his teaching in the
words : "There is one God, and one Christ, and one Church of Christ, and one faith
and people linked together by the glue of concord so as to be a unity compact and
corporate." Cf. ^p. 66. 8.

2 He cites the seamless vest (§ 7), the one flock (§ 8), the oue house of
Kahab undestroyed, the one house in which the paschal Lanih must be eaten, the
iiiLii of oue mind in a house, the Spirit iu the form of a dove (shelving the chaiactei-
which the Church must have).

:J66 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

the Church. It is the chaff only that is blown away and
separates from the whoat.^ No Bupport for separation can be
derived from the Lord's promise to be witli two or threo 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 piinciple 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 ]»urge 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 Church is spread throughout the whole 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 part heresies play is the part of testing and distinguishing the faithful
firom the unfaithful {§ 10). Those who thus withdraw stand, as it were, self-
convicted as aliens.

Cf. E2>. 55. 24. 8 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 (true
religion), rulers and those they rule, learned and ignorant alike.
It heals and cures every kind of sin of soul and body, and pos-
sesses every description of virtue in word and deed, and 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 Church 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 which
alone the name ' One Holy Catholic ' belongs. It is to the Catholic
Church he must always betake himself — the Holy Church,
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 ministries
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 in the
season of peace it has won from kings and rulers and all man-
kind the honour that is its due, inasmuch as while their authority
is limited, it alone has power illimitable extending over the whole
inhabited world. For all who are taught in this 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 is an
eminently spiritual and ethical conception of the Church that

^ It ia for these reasons that it is called ' Catholic ' or uniyersal.

^ Therefore it is aptly named Ecdesia or ' Convocation '. Cyril all through refers
to the Jewish ecclesia as the first, and the Christian as the second, made necessary
because the first proved to be an " ecclesia of wicked men ".

' Cyril mentions Marcionites and Mauichaeans, and calls them ' abominable '
assemblies of wicked men.

* It is notable that Cyril does not name bishops or priests, but only apostles,
prophets, teachers and the rest, as stated by St Paul.

888 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

is set forth. Extonml ' notes ', such as constitution and ministry,
are scurcely hinted at ; but n«ally it is clear that Cyril identified
the spiritual society which lie describes with the external society
of whicli he was a presbyter, and whicii alone he thou^dit of as
endowed with such ^\h» of grace in this world and with the
promise of life eternal hereafter.

Aicfjustine

The most careful and complete consideration of the whole
question of the Churcli 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 drew 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 ; and so far it is clear that the Church of which he
speaks is the outward and visible society, with its ordered system
and organic life, and its practical endeavour to realize the
Christian ideal — the society which had made its irresistible
appeal to him and convinced him of the truth of the Gospel.*

' Cf. Harnack DG. Eug. tr. voL vi p. 133: "Augustine combined the old
Catholic notion of salvation as the visio et fruitio Dei with the doctrine of pre-
destination on the one hand and the doctrine of the regnum Christi and the process
of justification on the other."

2 A. Eobertson Art. ' Augustinus' D.C.B.

* See the interesting distinction he drew between habere and utiliUr habere in
this connexion — Note on " Heretical Baptism " infra p. 388.

^ " I should not believe the Gospel, did not the authority of the Catholic Church
induce me " c. ep. Man. v 6. Faith rests, for Augustine, on authority ; and
authority is embodied iu the visible Church, with its accumulated experience of
the ijower of the Gospel over the lives of men.

THE CHURCH 369

But, on the other hand, he maintained that no one could
belong to the unity of the Church who had not love ; and he dis-
tinguished between the external society, the visible Church — the
general body of Christians, good and bad ^ — {externa communio),
and the spiritual society {communio sanctorum), which was com-
posed of those who were predestined to salvation, the elect, the
members of the Church who were worthy of their calling. The
latter were known to God alone and might not be distinguishable
from the former, and indeed they might be found outside the
visible society ; but, whether within or without the externa com-
ymcnio, they were 'the Church' in the true and real sense.^

^ Controversy with tlie Donatists gave occasion for the expression of Augustine's
theory of the Catholic Church as including good and bad alike, and as alone pos-
sessing efficacious means of grace.

As regards the unity of the Church, Optatus, Bishop