__________________________________________________________________

         Title: Early Christian Doctrine
    Creator(s): Pullan, Leighton (1865-1940)
   Print Basis: New York: Edwin S. Gorham, 1905
        Rights: Public Domain
    LC Call no: 96846780
     __________________________________________________________________

   Oxford Church Text Books

                            Early Christian Doctrine

   BY

   THE REV. LEIGHTON PULLAN, M.A.

   FELLOW AND LECTURER OF ST. JOHN BAPTIST COLLEGE, OXFORD LECTURER IN
   THEOLOGY AT ORIEL COLLEGE

   THIRD EDITION

   NEW YORK

   EDWIN S. GORHAM

   CHURCH MISSIONS HOUSE, FOURTH AVENUE, AND 22ND STREET

   1905
     __________________________________________________________________

PREFACE

   This book contains a sketch of Christian doctrine from the earliest
   times until the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451. By that date the
   faith of the Church in Jesus Christ was expressed with such clearness
   that any serious misunderstanding on the subject of His Incarnation was
   rendered difficult. Some account is also given of the doctrines of the
   Trinity, the Atonement, and the Sacraments, which are so intimately
   connected with the doctrine of the Incarnation.

   Brevity has made it necessary to omit many important references and
   quotations which the writer hopes to incorporate in a larger book on
   dogmatic theology.
     __________________________________________________________________

CONTENTS

   CHAP.                                                           PAGE
   I. Christian Doctrine in its simplest form, . . . 1
   II. The Theology of St. Paul and St. John, . . . 15
   III. Christian Doctrine from A.D. 90 to A.D. 180, . . . 31
   IV. The Apologists--Montanism--Irenaeus and Tertullian, . . . 48
   V. Early Alexandrine Theology--Controversy with Monarchians, . . . 59
   VI. Doctrine of the Sacraments before A.D. 325, . . . 72
   VII. Arianism and the Divine Nature of Christ, . . . 87
   VIII. The Union of the Divine and the Human Natures in Christ, . . . 99
   IX. St. Augustine and the Athanasian Creed, . . . 113
   CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE, . . . 118
   INDEX, . . . 120
     __________________________________________________________________

   EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE

CHAPTER I

  CHRISTIAN DOCTINE IN ITS SIMPLEST FORM

   Introductory.-- It is the distinctive feature of early Christian
   theology that it fastened upon the person of Christ as the centre of
   Christianity. We can conceive that a different line of thought might
   have been adopted. The Church might conceivably have made the moral
   precepts contained in the Sermon on the Mount or a belief that God is
   the Father of all mankind, or the experience of conversion, the
   dominating principle of Christianity. But while these and other great
   religious truths were not forgotten, they were believed to depend upon
   the doctrine of the person of Christ. From the very nature of the case
   it followed that this doctrine had an enormous influence. Every other
   doctrine radiated from it, and it seems to have been assumed that any
   one who intelligently grasped the truth about Christ would be able to
   anticipate or approve the rest of the teaching of the Church.

   Now this distinctive feature of ancient theology can be traced in the
   teaching of Christ himself. It is derived from an impression of a truth
   which was felt by the companions of Jesus. His words and His actions
   gradually convinced them that there was an unutterable difference
   between themselves and Him. At least two of our first three Gospels
   were probably written before A. D. 70, and not one of them can possibly
   be more than a very few years later than that date. St. John's Gospel
   can be shown by countless proofs to be the work of the beloved disciple
   of our Lord, and the opponents of Christianity, instead of maintaining
   their old theory that it was written about A.D. 160, now admit that it
   may have been written some years before A.D. 100, and that it contains
   large elements of the genuine teaching of Christ. All the four Gospels
   are united in recording that Christ appeared before men with a unique
   claim and a unique method.

   The Claim of Christ.--There is a certain amount of reserve in our
   Lord's teaching about himself. It was not until His ministry was
   drawing to a close that He openly declared that He was the Christ the
   Messiah expected by the Jews as their deliverer and king. But He had
   steadily prepared His disciples to believe this. He makes repeated
   claims upon the allegiance of mankind, which suggest that He has a
   supernatural authority. Even in the Sermon on the Mount He revises and
   abrogates not merely the traditional doctrines of the Jewish scribes,
   but even the law of Moses itself. He not only draws a contrast between
   the true literal meaning of the fifth commandment and the glosses which
   had obscured that meaning, but He also replaces a literal adherence to
   the commandments against murder and adultery by an obedience to laws of
   a far more stringent character. His commands run thus: 'It was said to
   them of old time, . . . But I say unto you '(Matt. v. 21, 28). He here
   preaches the highest moral truth without appealing to any higher
   sanction than himself.

   Similarly, He teaches that He has a right over each individual soul. An
   ancient legend tells us that the founder of Buddhism said to his
   followers, 'Be yourselves your lamp, yourselves your refuge.' The
   Buddha assumed that it was quite possible for men to value his precepts
   without paying any particular veneration to his person. Our Lord speaks
   quite otherwise. He preaches himself as being 'a greater than Solomon'
   (Matt. xii. 42). He offers himself as the greatest comfort of the human
   soul--'Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will
   give you rest' (Matt. xi. 28). He requires that unlimited devotion
   which a man may not lawfully require of his fellow-man--'Whosoever
   shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's shall save it' (Mark
   viii. 35). 'Every one that hath left houses, or brethren, or sisters,
   or father, or mother, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall
   receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit eternal life' (Matt. xix.
   29). It was inevitable, therefore, that our Lord's person should have
   been a problem to His hearers, and so He asks, ''Who do men say that I
   am?' and then tests His disciples by asking, 'Who say ye that I am?'
   (Mark viii. 27, 29).

   Christ as Judge.--Before He asked the above decisive question of His
   disciples, Jesus had expressly asserted that He would judge men after
   their death, and reward them according to the works which they had done
   in this life. He gave a vivid picture of the manner in which He would
   make a separation between those who had served Him and those who had
   rejected Him--'Many will say to me in that day. Lord, Lord, did we not
   prophesy by thy name, and by thy name cast out devils, and by thy name
   do many mighty works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew
   you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity' (Matt. vii. 22, 23). And
   again He said, 'Every one therefore who shall confess me before men,
   him will I also confess before my Father which is in heaven. But
   whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my
   Father which is in heaven' (Matt x. 32, 33). This stupendous assertion
   on the part of Christ corresponds with the forgiveness which He grants
   here and now to the repentant. To the woman who anointed His feet He
   says, 'Thy sins are forgiven,' and He rouses the indignation of the
   scribes by saying to the man sick of the palsy, 'Son, be of good cheer;
   thy sins are forgiven' (Matt. ix. 2).

   Christ as Son of Man.--Christ very frequently calls himself 'the Son of
   Man.' This phrase is a Hebraism which denotes the possession of a truly
   human nature, true experience of human life and sorrow, and true
   dependence upon God. It is used in Ps. viii. 4 as a poetical name for
   mankind in general, and it is also employed by the prophet Ezekiel to
   describe himself. In Dan. vii. 13 Israel is symbolically personified
   under the name of 'Son of Man,' and from signifying Israel as a whole
   the phrase came to signify the Messiah who was to be the perfect
   Israelite. In part of the Jewish Book of Enoch, written in the century
   before our Lord's coming, this use of the title is common, and it has
   therefore been supposed that our Lord took the title from that book in
   consequence of the Messianic character which He had previously assumed.
   But our Lord expands the meaning of the title in such a way as to make
   it doubtful whether He had any intention of recalling to the minds of
   His hearers the somewhat fanciful descriptions of the Book of Enoch.

   It is true that in that book the Son of Man is represented as sharing
   with God in the judgment of the worlds and that Christ speaks of
   himself under this title when He prophesies His glorious return and His
   judgment of all mankind (Mark viii. 38). But there are other passages
   in which our Lord uses the title without introducing any of the
   apocalyptic scenes of judgment and splendour with which it had become
   associated. The title still implies sovereignty, but it is a
   sovereignty of an entirely new order, it is the rule of the ideal Man
   who represents all that is best in human character and is in perfect
   sympathy with every rank and every nation. The Book of Enoch contains
   no suggestion that the Son of Man was expected to live a life of
   service and die to redeem the world. But this is the peculiar function
   of the Son of Man described by Jesus Christ himself (Mark x. 42-45).

   Christ as Son of God.--Near Caesarea Philippi our Lord asked of His
   disciples, 'Who say ye that I am?' It is plain from the context (Mark
   viii. 27-30) that He was not satisfied to be numbered simply among the
   great prophets, and that He accepted the answer given by St. Peter,
   'Thou art the Christ.' Immediately afterwards it is added that 'He
   charged them that they should tell no man of him.' He did not desire
   that His Messiahship should be taught hastily. To have done this would
   have been to raise the hopes of His hearers not towards a moral
   renovation but towards material prosperity. Jesus would not permit men
   to believe that He was such a Messiah as the Jews ordinarily expected.
   At the same time He knew that He was the true Messiah, and declared it
   in the most solemn manner at the supreme moment when the high priest
   asked Him, 'Art thou the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?' (Mark xiv.
   61)

   He taught that He was not only as great as the Messiah whom the Jews
   expected but greater. He is himself the King of that divine kingdom,
   which He came to found, and through all His Messianic claims there is
   the suggestion that He is in a unique sense the Son of God. When He was
   discovered by His mother in the Temple at the age of twelve, He showed
   that He was conscious of being the real Son of God; the same truth was
   repeated in the voice heard from heaven at His baptism, and, although
   He taught His disciples to call God 'Our Father,' He called God His own
   Father in a special sense (Matt. xvi. 17). The Jews interpreted Ps, ii.
   7 and Ps. lxxxix. 27 as Messianic, but it was only in a titular and
   honorific fashion that they applied the phrase 'Son of God' to the
   Messiah. They were willing to believe that the Messiah, as the head of
   a theocratic state, sufficiently resembled God to be called His Son.
   They were not willing to allow that any teacher could literally share
   in the Divinity of God.

   But our Lord claimed to be literally divine. In the synoptic Gospels He
   asserts that He stands in a relation to God which no man could possibly
   occupy, He alone adequately reveals and knows God (Matt. xi. 27). He
   accepts the title of 'the Son of the living God' (Matt., xvi. 16) from
   St. Peter's lips, and will not save His life by disowning it when
   addressed by the high priest He had previously suggested it in an
   unmistakable manner when He uttered the parable about the one son, the
   'beloved,' who was killed by the wicked husbandmen (Mark xii. 6). If we
   carefully consider the statements recorded by the Synoptists, we shall
   welcome the light which is thrown upon them by the statements recorded
   in St. John's Gospel. For in the synoptic Gospels Christ claims to be
   the perfect Saint, the supreme Lawgiver, and the final Judge. He
   declares himself to be the sole Master of His disciples (Matt. xxiii.
   10), He inserts His own name between that of the Father and that of the
   Spirit (Matt. xxviii. 19) and promises to be wherever two or three are
   gathered together in His name (Matt. xviii. 20).

   St. John represents Jesus as saying that He had the life of God within
   himself (John v. 26) and that 'the Father hath given all judgment unto
   the Son; that all may honour the Son, even as they honour the Father'
   (John v. 23). He co-ordinates His work with the work of God when He
   commands an impotent man to carry his bed on the Sabbath day. He
   teaches that there is a unity, not only of co-operation, but also of
   omnipotence, in the passage where he declares, 'I and the Father are
   one thing' (John x. 30). He asserts that He existed before Abraham was
   born, and in such a manner as to show that His existence had no
   beginning and could have no end (John viii. 58). The Jews understood
   Him and attempted to kill Him. They detected blasphemy in His
   assertions, for they perceived that He regarded himself as God (John x.
   33). St. Mark shows that the high priest assumed that the Sanhedrim
   would condemn Him the moment that Jesus stated that He was the Son of
   God. St. John does nothing more than logically continue the synoptic
   narrative when he says that the Sanhedrim declared to Pilate, 'We have
   a law, and by that law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son
   of God' (John xix. 7). All the Gospels agree in proving that the
   history of Christ's death is unintelligible unless He called himself
   the Son of God, not merely in an ethical sense, nor merely in the
   official sense of 'Messiah,' but also in the deeper sense that He
   claimed to be a divine Person who had clothed himself with human nature
   (cf. Luke i. 35).

   The Fatherhood of God.--The teaching of our Lord revealed to men the
   true nature of the Fatherhood of God. The more devout Jews had some
   conception of God acting as a Father to His chosen people, pitying His
   children 'like as a father' (Ps. ciii. 13). But in the teaching of
   Christ this idea is central and dominant. It carries with it the
   thought of a love which creates and teaches, which plans and gives, and
   is bestowed upon all God's children freely. But it must be remembered
   that Christ does not teach that His disciples are or can be sons of God
   in the same unique sense as himself. He speaks to them of 'your
   heavenly Father' (Matt. vi. 14) in a manner which marks a distinction
   between His own Sonship and theirs. Nor does Christ teach that we are
   the children of God if we reject His Son (John viii. 42). It is only
   through submission to Christ that we become God's children (John xiv. 6
   ff.; Rom. viii. 15).

   Christ's Teaching about Salvation.--When Christ began His ministry He
   said, 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me because he anointed me to
   preach good tidings to the poor' (Luke iv. 18). He makes salvation
   depend upon the acceptance of His message from God. He is the Sower who
   scatters the word of God; the word contains the power of fruitfulness
   in itself, though its actual fruitfulness depends upon the soil which
   receives it. The great subject of this message is the Kingdom of God.
   The Jews expected that the theocracy or Kingdom of God which had
   nourished among them in the times of David and Solomon would return in
   a more glorious form. This expectation nerved them to maintain their
   nationality and their religion. At the same time the interpretation of
   the Kingdom of God which was current among them was so secular that it
   was necessary for Christ to transform it.

   (1) The Jews expected that it would be a kingdom of material prosperity
   and success. Christ opposes this by specially promising a share in it
   to the 'poor in spirit' (Matt. v. 3). He describes it as the highest
   good which men can seek and as a spiritual sphere of life.

   (2) The Jews thought that it had not yet come. Christ teaches that the
   final stage has not yet come (Luke xxii. 18), but He says that it is
   already here and suffering violence (Matt. xi. 12). Christ himself has
   brought it (Luke xi. 20).

   (3) The Jews believed that it was a national Jewish kingdom, to which
   the Jews had a hereditary right. Christ assured them that it would be
   taken from them (Matt. xxi. 43). He opened it to all who would
   recognise Him as their King, and by a sincere repentance or 'change of
   mind' (Luke xxiv. 47) forsake sin and fulfil His commands in the spirit
   of little children (Mark x. 15).

   Our Lord never ceased to preach the Kingdom of God, which is also His
   own Kingdom (Matt. xiii. 41). But when He had sufficiently trained His
   followers to believe absolutely in His message, and declared that it
   was necessary not only to trust His message but to receive Him as God
   himself. He showed that the Kingdom of God was henceforth to be
   identical with the Christian Church.

   When Peter confesses that He is 'the Son of the living God,' Christ
   rewards him by sayings 'Upon this rock I will build my Church . . . I
   will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven' (Matt. xvi. 18,
   19). The word 'Church' had been used by the Jews as a name of God's
   chosen people. Christ now founds what He calls 'my Church.' It is His
   own institution, and He describes it in terms which show it to be
   visible and imperishable, and opened by an appointed human guardian. In
   Matt. xviii 15-20, He further describes His Church as the home of
   brothers whose brotherhood depends upon submission to Christ. The
   brother who persists in sin and refuses to hear the Church is to be
   excluded, and this exclusion will be ratified in heaven. After this
   solemn statement our Lord declares that He is personally present with
   the members of the Church who gather together in His name. His language
   on this occasion implies His true Divinity as much as any language used
   by Him in the Gospel of St. John.

   It finally became necessary for Jesus to tell His disciples that He
   must die. He could not reveal this to them until they were firmly
   rooted in their faith. The Jews did not imagine that their Messiah
   would die or even suffer. But when His disciples had learnt that He was
   indeed the Son of God, He was able to suggest to them the full truth.
   He says, 'I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straitened
   till it be a accomplished' (Luke xii. 50). With greater clearness He
   tells them that He must 'give his life a ransom for many.' By this He
   means that man is a prisoner who cannot purchase freedom from sin for
   his soul, and that the Son of God pays the precious ransom which sets
   man free. A year before His death, in the great discourse recorded in
   John vi., He declared that He would give to men a living bread which is
   the flesh which He would give for the life of the world.

   The night before He died. He made plain what He meant by His former
   language about this life surrendered to God and imparted to men. While
   celebrating the Passover with His disciples, He consecrated a portion
   of the unleavened bread and a cup of wine mingled with water, saying,
   'This is my Body'--'This is my Blood.' He apparently wished to recall
   to His disciples the blood of the Paschal lamb which was sprinkled on
   the doorposts of the Israelites in Egypt, and saved them from the
   visitation of the destroying angel.

   He also claimed to found that new Covenant between God and His servants
   which Jeremiah had foretold. The shedding of His blood secures
   deliverance from evil, and makes a new and closer relation between God
   and man. The Lord's Supper was therefore meant to be a sacrificial
   feast of reconciliation with God, a reconciliation made possible by the
   death of Jesus. It was also meant to be a means of receiving from Jesus
   that life of which He is the Source, and which He derives from the
   eternal Father (John vi. 57).

   After He was risen from the dead, Christ ordered Christian Baptism,
   directing that the converts made by His disciples should be baptized
   'into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.'
   When the Jews made proselytes, these proselytes were not admitted to
   the full privileges of sons of Israel until they were baptized. If they
   had children at the time, these children appear to have been baptized
   also. John the Baptist baptized his disciples to prepare them for the
   new Covenant of Christ. But our Lord himself instituted another
   cleansing to be an actual means of entrance into His own kingdom. Some
   modem critics have asserted that our Lord could never have used such a
   formula as 'the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
   Ghost.' But although the early Christians perhaps baptized sometimes
   only 'into the name of the Lord Jesus' (Acts viii. 16), there is no
   real reason to doubt that Christ used the above formula. St. Paul uses
   the same formula in 2 Cor. xiii. 14, and the synoptic Gospels and St.
   John's Gospel agree in mentioning a Trinity of divine persons (John
   xiv. 26; cf. Eph. v. 18-20; Hebr. x. 29).

   That the cleansing which Christ meant to be bestowed by His apostles in
   Baptism is a cleansing from sin by the Holy Spirit is evident, and it
   is further illustrated by His words to Nicodemus (John iii. 5). Our
   Lord could not have used the language in which He commanded this rite,
   unless He had been conscious that He was divine and able to say, 'Lo, I
   am with you alway, even unto the end of the world' (Matt. xxviii. 20).
   And this once more reminds us that the centre of all Christian doctrine
   is 'Jesus only,' and that no Christian can be indifferent to anything
   which implies a true view of Jesus Christ.

   Doctrine in the Acts of the Apostles.--Our Lord died and rose again in
   A.D. 29, and according to an ancient tradition, the apostles remained
   together in Jerusalem for twelve years afterwards. The earliest form of
   their teaching has been faithfully preserved for us in Acts i.-xii.,
   where St. Luke, who wrote Acts about A.D. 75, has made use of a very
   early Jewish Christian document. The Christians have no wish to break
   with Judaism, but regard themselves as the true Israel. They worship in
   the Temple and in the synagogues, although they meet in private houses
   for the celebration of the Lord's Supper. They still observe the
   precepts of the Jewish Law. They are under the authority of the
   apostles, who appoint a successor to Judas, and then appoint seven
   ministers to attend to the temporal needs of the poorer brethren. It is
   uncertain how soon the ministry was completed by the appointment of
   presbyters, but these officials are mentioned in the later chapters of
   the book.

   The doctrine of Christ's person is very simple, but very deep. The
   apostles are convinced that Jesus is the Messiah, and the Resurrection
   of Jesus has removed any doubts which they may once have entertained.
   In discoursing to the Jews the utmost stress is laid upon the
   Resurrection, and St. Peter declares that the suffering, Resurrection,
   and Ascension of the Messiah were foretold in the Old Testament (Acts
   ii. 27, 34; iii. 18). Jesus is declared to be the Messiah, anointed by
   God, the Holy One. He is also in a special sense the Holy Servant or
   Child of God. He is not a merely human Messiah; He is Lord, Prince of
   life, and Saviour. He is not at first called God (as in Acts xx. 28),
   or even Son of God (as in Acts ix. 20). At the same time He is declared
   to fulfil divine functions. It is He who has poured out the Holy Spirit
   (ii. 33), and His name or revealed personality is declared to have just
   restored a lame man to soundness (iii. 16), signs and wonders are
   expected to be done through Him (iv. 30). There is 'salvation' in none
   other (iv. 12), and He is to be 'the Judge of quick and dead' (x. 42).
   St. Stephen in his dying moments addresses the Lord Jesus in prayer. We
   have here the simplest kind of theology. There is nothing metaphysical
   on its surface. Jesus is the Messiah who takes part in the work of God
   and is worshipped and is expected to return in the near future. The
   Holy Spirit is divine and personal.

   St. James acted as bishop of Jerusalem until his martyrdom in A.D. 62.
   His Epistle shows us the simple doctrines of the first Jewish
   Christians. The book contains no mention of the observance of Jewish
   ordinances. And yet Christianity is represented under the aspect of a
   law, a law of liberty, the observance of which, with the love and mercy
   which it involves, will be rewarded by a merciful judgment from God.
   Great stress is laid upon the necessity of good works, and this has led
   many modern writers to suppose that the Epistle is opposed to the
   Pauline doctrine of justification by faith. But St. James when he urges
   his readers to regard works as essential has the same object in view as
   St. Paul when he urges his readers to regard faith as essential. Both
   have the character of men at heart; St. Paul opposes works which are
   done in the spirit of a business contract with God, St. James opposes a
   faith which is only a lifeless orthodoxy. St. James keeps very closely
   to the principle of our Lord, which was not to destroy the law but to
   emphasise its inner meaning.

   The main difference between St. Paul and St. James is that St. Paul
   regards the religious life as the working out of the life of Christ in
   the Christian, while St. James defines it as consisting in acts of
   charity and self-control (i. 27). The two doctrines are quite
   compatible, and although St. James says nothing explicitly about the
   union of the believer with Christ, he does regard Christians as sharers
   in the life of God through Christ (i. 18). St. James also generally
   uses the word 'faith' of that kind of faith which may be common to both
   Jew and Christian while St. Paul generally uses it of faith in Jesus
   Christ a complete devotion and adhesion to Christ.

   St. James says little about our Lord's person, but speaks of Him as
   'Lord of glory' (ii. 1), as able to raise the sick, and about to come
   to judgment. By describing himself as the 'bond-servant of God and of
   the Lord Jesus Christ' (i. 1), the writer shows that he believes
   himself to stand in the same relation to Jesus Christ as to God.

   The Epistle of St. Jude, who, like St. James, was called a brother of
   our Lord, is directed against a lascivious sect whose principles bore
   some resemblance to the teaching which St. Paul rebuked in his letter
   to Colosssæ. This sect apparently denied the reality of the incarnation
   and the unique Lordship of Christ (Jude 4). The writer, like St. James,
   calls himself the bond-servant of Christ. The Holy Spirit, God, and the
   Lord Jesus Christ are mentioned together (Jude 20, 21) in a manner
   which suggests to us that the writer was familiar with the Trinitarian
   formula. This Epistle, in spite of its simple character, was probably
   written late in the apostolic age, as the word 'faith' is used in the
   sense of a system of belief, the faith for which the readers are asked
   to contend being a full and definite confession of Christ.

   The two Epistles of St. Peter are of rather uncertain date, but were
   probably written late in the apostle's lifetime, and therefore after
   A.D. 60. While the tone of the first Epistle is distinctly practical,
   it contains a rich theology. The rebuke which St. Paul administered to
   St. Peter at Antioch for pretending that he agreed with the
   narrow-minded Jewish Christians who would not eat with the Gentiles,
   shows us that St. Peter in his heart agreed with St. Paul. He really
   believed in a universal Gospel, meant for all mankind and not for Jews
   only. This Epistle shows us a thorough comprehension of this great
   principle. The privileges of God's ancient people belong to the whole
   body of those who believe in Christ. They are called the royal
   priesthood and the holy nation. St. Peter lays great stress upon the
   reality of Christ's manhood and the value of His example. As in the
   early chapters of Acts, the Resurrection and Exaltation of Christ and
   His return to judge the world (v. 4) are made prominent.

   It is taught that Christ existed in heaven before He was born on earth,
   for He was not only 'foreknown indeed before the foundation of the
   world' (i. 20), but His Spirit was in the prophets before His
   incarnation (i. 11). The thought of reconciliation with God through the
   precious blood of Christ is much cherished by St. Peter. Christ the
   righteous Judge, 'his own self bore our sins in his body upon the tree,
   that we, having died unto sins, might live unto righteousness' (1 Pet.
   ii. 24). He suffered in order to 'bring us to God.' He removes the
   barrier between man and God which sin has created. To Christ, as unto a
   divine Being, glory and dominion are ascribed (1 Pet. iv. 11). In
   consequence of His Resurrection He is able to renew our souls in
   baptism (1 Pet. iii. 21; cf. i. 3).

   The authenticity of the Second Epistle of St. Peter has been more
   questioned than that of any other Epistle in the New Testament. The
   external evidence for it is meagre, and the Epistle has frequently been
   assigned to the second century. The allusion to St. Paul's Epistles
   points to a date which is not likely to be earlier than A.D. 60, but
   the absence of any allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem makes it
   improbable that the Epistle is later than A.D. 70. The doctrine agrees
   with that of the apostolic age. In the polemical part of the Epistle
   there is a reference to heretics who will deny the Master who bought
   them, but there is nothing to show that the author lived among the
   heresies of the second century. The Divinity of Jesus Christ is
   repeatedly implied. The writer describes himself as the 'bond-servant
   and apostle of Jesus Christ' (i. 1), and the practical knowledge of
   Jesus, like the knowledge of God, is described as the source of
   spiritual peace and the crowning point of Christian perfection. This
   knowledge secures an escape from the defilements of the world (ii. 20)
   and an entrance into the eternal Kingdom of Christ (i. 11).

   It has been thought that a late date is implied in the statement in 2
   Pet. i. 4, that through the promises of God granted to us in Christ we
   'become partakers of the divine nature.' But if we reject the
   authenticity of the Epistle on this ground we shall logically be
   compelled to deny an apostolic origin to almost every book in the New
   Testament. For it is repeatedly taught in the New Testament that the
   Christian receives the infusion of a new and divine life. We have
   already noticed it in James i. 18, and the undisputed Epistles of St.
   Paul are steeped in this doctrine of communion between God and man
   through Christ. It follows quite naturally from the doctrine that
   Christ is himself divine. Throughout this Epistle Jesus Christ is
   frequently named where we should expect to see the name of God. He is
   called 'our Lord,' 'the Lord and Saviour,' and even 'our God and
   Saviour Jesus Christ' (i. 1).
     __________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER II

  THE THEOLOGY OF ST. PAUL AND ST. JOHN

   St. Paul's teaching about the Flesh and Sin.-- To understand the whole
   system of St. Paul's doctrine it is necessary to study his spiritual
   experiences. He had been the determined enemy of Christ and by an
   abrupt transformation became an enthusiastic disciple. He was convinced
   that at a particular moment of his life the risen Christ appeared to
   him, and his conversion was caused by this appearance. He had been less
   prepared for this conversion by the teaching of the Christians whom he
   persecuted than by the cruel struggle which he has recorded in Rom.
   vii. Externally blameless, his life was internally unpurified. He was
   conscious of strong passions and desires, of a tendency to do wrong and
   a weakness in performing what his own conscience approved. He
   attributed these faults not to his own true self, for his true self
   opposed them, but to Sin. Now Sin is only a natural inherited
   corruption until a person is able to distinguish right from wrong. It
   becomes actual Sin or conscious 'transgression' only when we rebel
   against the Law and choose to do what we believe to be wrong. A medium
   of sensual impulses and desires is afforded by the Flesh. The Flesh is
   not regarded as inherently sinful, or as the cause of Sin. But when
   controlled by Sin it becomes, like Sin, a principle openly at war with
   the Spirit (Gal. v. 19; Rom. viii. 4). Therefore the man who desires
   deliverance from Sin also desires deliverance from the evil activities
   of the Flesh.

   The vision of Christ which appeared to St. Paul was the vision of a
   'life-giving Spirit,' a divine person who had taken human flesh but had
   overcome deaths and was now beyond the reach of any temptation to sin.
   Corresponding with the outward appearance, although not to be
   confounded with it, there came a revelation in the heart of the future
   apostle which made him in after times say 'it pleased God to reveal his
   Son in me.' He felt a new conception of the office of the Messiah. The
   Messiah had not come, as the Jews expected, to reward righteous Jews,
   but to free all men from Sin. He had suffered for the sins of others,
   'He was wounded for our transgressions,' He had offered to God the
   service of a sinless life, even though it brought Him to the death of
   the cross. God allowed His Son to die like a sinner that man might no
   longer misinterpret God's forbearance towards Sin as indifference. God
   had accepted this perfect surrender as a propitiation for man's
   self-indulgence. He had shown His approval by raising Jesus from the
   dead. Therefore to avail oneself of what Jesus has done is to gain the
   pardon of God.

   St. Paul determined to seek salvation through Christ, and he was
   baptized. He was conscious that God had sent forth 'the Spirit of his
   Son' into his heart, that he had 'put on Christ.' He had come under a
   new and penetrating control. Before his conversion he had felt 'sin
   revive' and hope die within him, because the words 'thou shalt not
   covet' had not only forbidden actual sin but also an inward liking for
   Sin. He now was conscious that the liking for Sin was gone. He had
   begun to be dead to Sin, not by virtue of an external discipline but by
   virtue of a new force and life infused into him. His spiritual being
   was now life because of its new state of righteousness (Rom. viii. 10).
   Discipline was still necessary, he still had to buffet his body (1 Cor.
   ix. 27). For the spiritual man may be tempted; he may lose his hold
   upon Christ; having begun in the Spirit he may end in the flesh; he may
   be lost. But victory had already begun through union with Christ
   Already he had crucified the flesh so far as it was the medium of wrong
   impulses and desires. This is not an asceticism which tramples upon
   human nature; it exalts it. It is the life of the true athlete who runs
   'not as uncertainly.'

   St. Paul's teaching about Faith, Righteousness, and the law.--The
   enthusiastic surrender to Christ which results in moral victory and
   progress, St. Paul calls Faith. This is the act by which a man desires
   to identify himself with Christ, to die with Christ, and rise with Him
   in newness of life. It is an act of a man's whole nature, including the
   intellect, the affections, and the resolution to obey Christ. In
   popular language Faith is sometimes represented as the conviction that
   Christ was punished by God instead of sinners. This conception of Faith
   is part of the truth. For sinless as Christ was, He drank the cup which
   our sins had mingled. He felt forsaken by the Father. The love of God
   the Son accepted the suffering which the love of God the Father
   permitted. But when St. Paul speaks of Faith in its truly Christian
   sense, he means the attitude of a man who devotes himself to Christ and
   allows his whole character to be rooted in Christ, and thus finds in
   Christ not only a Saviour from punishment but also a Saviour from Sin.
   A one-sided view of Faith always tends to be antinomian and immoral.
   But the Pauline doctrine of Faith teaches us that Faith is trust in One
   who lifts us into communion with the supreme Moral Being. A Faith which
   does not stimulate the highest moral tone is not Faith at all.

   The same truth is enforced by St. Paul's teaching about Righteousness.
   To have believed that there was only an arbitrary connection between
   the righteousness of Christ and the righteousness of the Christian
   would have been to oppose all his religious experience. He teaches that
   there is an organic union between the spiritual man and Christ quite as
   real as the connection between our own fleshly nature and the fleshly
   nature of Adam. A man is justified, or acquitted as non-guilty and
   righteous by God, when that man receives 'the righteousness of God.'
   This phrase means the righteousness inherent in God himself and
   bestowed by God upon man. The method of attaining this righteousness is
   through that faith by which a man sees that Jesus is Messiah and Lord,
   is made a member of Christ by baptism, and receives His Spirit. Christ
   then lives in him, his deeds are Christ's. The Christian is therefore
   literally and truly righteous, although 'ungodly' up to the moment of
   his acquittal. When he submits to the control of the Flesh, he ceases
   to be righteous, he falls under the condemnation of God, and will be
   'broken off' like the withered branches of Judaism.

   Experience of 'the righteousness of God by faith' gave St. Paul a key
   to the meaning of the Jewish Law and all Law. He holds that Law, all
   external enactment saying 'thou shalt' or 'thou shalt not'' was given
   in consequence of sin. It would have been unnecessary if there had been
   no sin. St. Paul is convinced that the Law is good and that it is
   spiritual. In Rom. vii. he shows that it discharges functions which are
   incompatible with the view that the Law is sinful. For it teaches man
   what sin is, and it cannot itself be sin if it irritates sin into
   activity. But it is in fundamental contrast with the Gospel; it cannot
   make men righteous, and if it could do so, Christ's death was useless.
   The Law is, to use a modern illustration, like a bracket in the page of
   God's dealings with mankind. It does not limit the promise which God
   gave to Abraham, it comes between that promise and its fulfilment in
   order that men may realise their need of 'the righteousness of God by
   faith.' It is a stage in the development of our moral education, a
   stage which we are bound to outgrow.

   The relation of the Christian to the Law is twofold. (1) By identifying
   himself with Christ crucified and becoming infused with His Spirit, the
   Christian becomes discharged from the Law and sin at the same moment.
   Christ until He died was under the Law (Gal. iv. 4). But His risen life
   is a life of complete freedom from the Law. In the same way the man who
   identifies himself with Christ and dies to sin is free from the
   jurisdiction of the Law. (2) Release from the Law does not mean license
   to sin. On the contrary, the Christian is now able to perform what the
   Law declares to be righteous (Rom. viii. 4). He does it spontaneously
   because he now possesses the righteousness of God. He is moved by that
   love which is the fulfilling of the Law. Therefore St. Paul asserts,
   'We establish the Law.' Shining through the narrow and many-coloured
   windows of the Jewish Law there is an eternal and universal Law which
   will be cherished by all the sons of God. The whole matter is summed up
   in three sentences, each of which conveys an aspect of the same truth.
   'Neither is circumcision anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new
   creature' (Gal.vi. 15). 'In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth
   anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love' (Gal.v.
   6). 'Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing; but the
   keeping of the commandments of God' (1 Cor. vii. 19).

   St. Paul's Doctrine of Christ's Person.--St. Paul's doctrine of
   Christ's person is fundamentally the same through all his Epistles.
   Christ is throughout both divine and human, the Son of God in a unique
   sense, and the sinless Mediator between God and man. But St. Paul
   developed his statements and explanations of this doctrine in
   accordance with the lessons which he desired to enforce, and in
   opposition to the errors against which he was obliged to contend. In
   the two earlier groups of his Epistles the teaching about Christ is
   mainly implicit. His Divinity is implied in the position assigned to
   Him. In the third group of Epistles the teaching is explicit. His
   Divinity is explained for one or other particular purpose.

   The Epistles to the Thessalonians form the first group of St. Paul's
   Epistles. Here the unique character of Christ's Sonship is suggested by
   the phrase, 'Wait for his Son from heaven . . . even Jesus, which
   delivereth us from the wrath to come' (1 Thess, i. 10). Jesus is in
   both Epistles called 'The Lord Jesus,' and each letter closes with the
   prayer that His grace, or unmerited kindness, may be with the readers.
   The stress of persecution seems to have raised in the Thessalonians an
   eager desire for the return of Christ which alone could bring them
   release. St. Paul makes no full statement about the person of Christ,
   nor does he explain the atonement (touched upon in v. 10). He simply
   assumes that Jesus is the exalted Lord who dispenses salvation and will
   return to judge the world. The connection between this Epistle and the
   sayings of our Lord in Matt. xxiv. is obvious. In 2 Thess. the apostle
   speaks of a 'man of sin' who will be annihilated by the true Messiah at
   His second coming. This 'man of sin' will assume equality with God and
   sit in the temple of God. The apostle seems to regard unbelieving
   Judaism as personified in an Antichrist who will pretend to be a
   consubstantial representative of God like the One who is foretold in
   Mal. iii. 1. This picture of the false Messiah suggests the supreme
   position which St. Paul attributes to the true Messiah, to whom he
   ascribes divine functions.

   The Epistles to the Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans form the second
   group of St. Paul's Epistles. They contain a large amount of teaching
   about the person of Christ. In writing to the Corinthians St. Paul had
   to warn his readers against the dangers connected with tlie presence of
   idolatry. And in 1 Cor. viii., in view of pagan polytheism, he points
   out the dignity of Christ. 'As there are gods many, and lords many; yet
   to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto
   him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ through whom are all things, and we
   through him.' Here the true God is contrasted with the so-called gods
   and the true Lord with the many lords. It cannot be questioned that the
   apostle means that Christ belongs to the sphere of divine life. The
   same doctrine is implied in those passages which speak of our relation
   to Christ. On the one hand we see that Christ is 'the first-born among
   many brethren' (Rom. viii. 29), and that we are destined to be
   conformed to His image. He is therefore in a true sense our brother.
   But on the other hand He is God's 'own Son' (Rom. viii. 3) in a supreme
   sense, and to Him alone belongs the privilege of being 'image of God'
   (2 Cor. iv. 4). We may reflect His likeness, but He alone has eternally
   been related to the Father in such a way that He is fitted to reveal
   Him completely. St. Paul does not hesitate to draw the conclusion which
   logically follows from his belief in this communion of life between the
   Father and the Son. He applies to Christ passages which in the Old
   Testament refer to Jehovah, and in Rom. ix. 5 says that He is 'over
   all, God blessed for ever.'

   Not much is said about the historical human life of our Lord. He was
   'born of a woman ' (Gal.iv. 4) and sent into the world in the likeness
   of sinful flesh, but nevertheless knew no sin (2 Cor. v. 21). His life
   was one of self-denial, and His sufferings and resurrection are
   mentioned. This human Christ who suffered and rose again is none other
   than the Son of God by virtue of the divine nature or 'Spirit of
   holiness' which He possesses (Rom. i. 4).

   We should notice in conclusion that the Epistle to the Romans does not
   seem to have been written as an argument against Judaising tendencies
   in the Roman Church, but as a mature statement of God's dealings with
   mankind through Christ a statement which would end any controversy
   which might arise between Jewish and Gentile Christians. The divine
   Lordship of Christ is assumed rather than stated, as the readers of the
   Epistle are in no uncertainty as to the foundations of Christian
   teaching.

   The Epistles to the Philippians, Colossians, and Ephesians.--In Phil.
   ii. 5-11 we have an important passage which is introduced with a
   definite purpose--to illustrate the spirit of self-sacrifice. Our Lord
   is held up as the pattern of those who do not insist upon their rights.
   We are told that Christ 'being in the form of God, counted it not a
   prize to be on an equality with God, but emptied himself taking the
   form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men.' The Arians of
   the fourth century interpreted this to mean that He was a lesser God
   who did not grasp equality with the great God. But it is plain that all
   such interpretations are absurd. For the force of Christ's example
   would have been worthless if He had been a created spirit who only
   abstained from grasping at divine prerogatives which it would be
   impious to desire. There is no self-sacrifice in abstaining from such
   impiety. St. Paul means that Christ had the form or attributes of God,
   but that He humbled himself by taking the attributes of a servant. This
   involved a 'self-emptying,' an entrance into human limitations, and was
   followed by a life of humble dependence upon God. This was
   self-sacrifice indeed, and it is to be the model of Christian conduct.
   The reward of the human obedience of Jesus Christ was His exaltation
   into heaven. The Name which He bore during His humiliation, and is the
   symbol of His human nature, now calls forth the adoration of angels and
   of men and of the souls of the departed.

   In Colossians St. Paul gives a full statement of the significance of
   Christ's person in order to correct some errors prevalent at Colossæ. A
   heresy had become prevalent which was a kind of Christian theosophy. It
   taught that for the perfection of the Christian life something more
   than ordinary Christian doctrine and morality was required.
   Christianity was therefore combined with various Jewish and Oriental
   superstitions and with rigidly ascetic rules of life. The doctrine and
   the conduct of the false teachers were based upon one principle,
   namely, that material and physical existence is degrading. Therefore it
   was taught (i) that man must approach God by repressing all bodily
   instincts, and (ii) that God approaches man through a chain of
   intermediate beings among whom His attributes are divided. The lowest
   of these beings would be sufficiently material to condescend to come
   into contact with mankind.

   St. Paul saw how much this teaching would destroy a true conception of
   the dignity of Christ. He therefore declares that the Son is the image
   of God, the adequate counterpart of the Father. He is also the
   'firstborn of all creation,' i.e. not created, but, as the context
   shows, 'born before all creation,' and Lord of creation. All things
   were created in Him, since in His mind the plan of creation was
   eternally present; by Him, since it was through His power that all
   things came into being; unto Him, since every creature finds the
   explanation of its being by living for His glory. All things cohere in
   Him. The sum total of the attributes of God dwells in Him bodily (Col.
   ii. 9). Material and physical life are therefore hallowed both by the
   creation and by the incarnation. The Son is Saviour as well as Creator.
   He is the one divine link between the Father and the world both in
   redemption and in creation. The Church is the new creation, and Christ
   is the Head with whom all the members of the Church are in
   communication. He directs their functions so that the whole body works
   together (Col. ii. 19).

   In Ephesians this conception of the universal Creator and Saviour leads
   to a fuller idea of the universal Church. It is the eternal purpose of
   God to sum up all things in Christ as their point of unity. By His
   Passion, Jews and Gentiles are attracted and combined; by the power of
   His ascended life, He unifies and organises the Church (Eph. iv. 15).
   To the Church He grants the fulness of the attributes of His incarnate
   life, as He himself embodies the attributes of God (Eph. i. 23). The
   Church is an organism without which Christ deigns to regard himself as
   incomplete, because without the Church His incarnate life would not be
   manifested in the world in a way corresponding with the way in which
   His non-incarnate life was manifested. The Church is also the bride of
   Christ (Eph. v. 25 ff.), willingly devoting herself to Him, and not
   merely passively depending upon Him. This Church is a visible body
   guided by ministers, whose authority is expressed in different outward
   forms. These ministers are organs of the body, and as such are
   indispensable to the Church (Eph. iv. 11 ; cf. 1 Cor. xii. 28).

   The teaching of this group of Epistles shows a development which is
   natural in every religious mind. The man who is justified by faith will
   naturally go onward to study more deeply the character of Him through
   whom he is justified and the society which exists for the
   sanctification of all human life.

   The Epistle to the Hebrews was probably written by a disciple of St.
   Paul about 67 A.D. The writer is anxious to confirm the faith of some
   Hebrew Christians who are in danger of yielding to the attractions of
   their former religion and deserting Christ. He endeavours therefore to
   establish the supremacy of Christ and of the Christian dispensation. He
   differs from St. Paul in that he always regards the Law as typical of
   the Gospel--'a shadow of the good things to come'; the priests and
   sacrifices and ritual of Judaism were emblems of spiritual realities
   which came with Christ. St. Paul hardly ever treats the Jewish system
   in this way (see, however, 1 Cor. v. 7 and Col. ii. 17). His own
   religious history disposed him to regard the Law as a bondage.

   The doctrine of Christ's person closely resembles the doctrine in
   Ephesians and Colossians. The author shows that Christ is the perfect
   Mediator in creation, revelation, and redemption; He is superior to the
   angels, to Moses, and to Joshua. In ch. i. He is declared to be the
   'out-shining' of the Father's glory, and the living 'impression' of the
   Father's substance. The Son is the Agent of God in creation, and this
   implies no inferiority of nature to the Father, as it is the Son who
   maintains the universe continually (i. 3). The author applies to Christ
   passages of the Old Testament which apply to God. The elevation of
   Christ above the angels is not diminished by the fact that for a little
   while He was made lower than they, for this was only temporary and was
   done for a special purpose--the purpose of saving men. Again, Moses is
   only a stone, as it were, in the house of God, in which house he was
   permitted to act as God's servant The Son built the house, and rules
   over it as Son of God (iii. 3 ff.). Christ is also superior to Joshua,
   for He provides an eternal Sabbath for the people of God, whereas
   Joshua only brought Israel into the disturbed tranquility of Canaan.

   But the main efforts of the author are directed to showing the
   superiority of the Christian sacerdotal system to the sacerdotal system
   of Aaron and his successors. In the first part of the Epistle strong
   emphasis is laid upon the true humanity of Jesus. Christ is shown to
   have been prepared to act as our representative High Priest by His true
   human probation and suffering. In v.-vii. the nature of this priesthood
   of Christ is shown. Christ belongs to a higher order of priesthood,
   represented not by Aaron but by Melchizedek. His priesthood is
   unlimited by time, just as the story of Melchizedek shows him appearing
   on the scene of history without any record of his genealogy or birth or
   death. The Jewish priests were made priests according to the law of a
   carnal commandment, He according to the power of an indissoluble life;
   they were mortal and succeeded one another in rapid succession, He is
   immortal and a priest for ever. Their office rested upon a transitory
   arrangement. His upon a divine oath. They were sinners, He is separate
   from sinners.

   But although the priesthood of Christ is different from and 'more
   excellent' than the legal priesthood, it nevertheless fulfils the types
   of the Law. He has somewhat to offer. The oblation which He brings is
   himself, and this is a spiritual oblation in contrast with the external
   oblation of the blood of bulls and goats. The sacrifice of Christ was
   external and material, but it was in the truest sense spiritual,
   because the sacrifice of His body and His blood was the expression of
   His willing inward obedience to God. He is both Priest and Victim,
   offering and offered. Lastly, the sacrifice of Christ is one, and not
   repeated. He now only offers himself in the sense that He presents
   himself on the throne of God in heaven, as the Jewish high priest
   sprinkled the blood of the victim on God's mercy-seat within the veil.
   Thus the new Covenant is fully inaugurated, and the whole method of our
   access to God is changed and consecrated. 'We have an altar' upon earth
   at which we join in Christ's heavenly offering of himself. Those who
   adhere to Judaism are excluded from our altar.

   The Epistle to the Hebrews is intensely theological and intensely
   practical. The whole exposition of the work and character of Christ is
   intended to form an appeal to continued faithfulness and a warning
   against a relapse into Judaism.

   The Theology of St. John.--The theology of St. John demands some
   special consideration apart from the general record which the apostle
   has given of the teaching of our Lord. His writings belong to a later
   date than the synoptic Gospels, and in many respects show the result of
   mature reflection. The conviction that God, 'whom no man hath seen at
   any time,' had indeed been declared to the world by Jesus has entered
   into the soul of the evangelist. Like the golden vessel in the holy of
   holies his heart preserves the memorial of the Manna which had been his
   food. He finds a phrase which explains both to Jew and Greek the fact
   that to enter into communion with Jesus is to enter into communion with
   God himself, and he brings into prominence those passages in our Lord's
   teaching in which the thought of communion between Christ and the
   believer is present. He writes his Gospel according to a settled plan;
   it is that his readers may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of
   God, and that in believing they may 'have life in his name' (John xx.
   31). To promote a saving fellowship between men and Jesus is the aim of
   the book.

   While the style of St. John is totally unlike the style of St. Paul,
   there is much in the spirit of their writings which they manifest in
   common. We may especially observe the strong insistence upon the fact
   that the Son of God existed with the Father before He became incarnate,
   the personal life and work of the Holy Spirit, the mysterious union
   between the Christian and Christ, the element of triumph which both
   apostles discern in the death of Christ (John xvii. 5; Col. ii. 15),
   the use of the word 'Spirit' to describe the divine nature of Christ
   (John vi. 63; 2 Cor. iii. 17), the wrath of God abiding upon the
   unconverted (John iii. 36; Eph. ii. 3), the second birth (John iii. 3;
   2 Cor. v. 17 ; Tit. iii. 5), the enjoyment of a new life even in this
   present world (John v. 24; Col. iii. 1).

   Though there is no trace of imitation in St. John's Gospel, it is plain
   that both St. John and St. Paul were influenced by the same conception
   of Christ and Christianity. St. John teaches the doctrine of
   justification by faith when he records the saying of Christ that the
   work which God requires is to 'believe on him whom he hath sent' (vi.
   29). And though St. John rarely uses the word faith, and says little
   about the Law, he assumes that 'life' cannot be derived from the Law,
   and he compensates for his rare use of the word faith by his frequent
   use of the word believe. Nevertheless, there is a distinction in their
   theology which corresponds with the temperament and the history of the
   two apostles. The belief of St. John is deeply contemplative, while the
   belief of St. Paul is intensely enthusiastic. With St. John, 'to
   believe' is to receive Christ as the complete manifestation of God. It
   immediately results in an illumination of the mind and the attainment
   of that knowledge of God which is the highest good. With St. Paul,
   'faith' is a personal adhesion to Christ as the Saviour from sin.
   Whereas they both insist upon the necessity of our oneness with Christ,
   St. Paul lays most stress on our believing in Christ's work for the
   sinner, and St. John on our believing in Christ's relation to the
   Father. Then also the way in which they represent Christ depends upon
   their personal history. St. Paul only knew the risen Christ. Hence it
   was natural that his thoughts should be controlled by the resurrection
   of Christ, and the crucifixion which led to it. The importance of these
   two facts in the work of our redemption is therefore emphasised. But
   St. John, though he represents Christ as 'the Lamb of God which taketh
   away the sin of the world,' and says that His blood 'cleanseth us from
   all sin,' seems to regard the death of Christ chiefly as a
   manifestation of the love of the Father and the Son for man. The
   resurrection of Christ is chiefly regarded as a means of confirming the
   disciples' faith, and as a step towards the ascension which made it
   possible for the Son to send down the Spirit. Therefore, although the
   doctrine of the Atonement is implied in St. John, and the union between
   Christ and the Christian is emphasised, and also the spiritual
   resurrection of the believer in this world, the thought of our dying
   with Christ and rising with Christ, in the Pauline sense, can hardly be
   discovered. This is all the more remarkable, inasmuch as St. John
   represents Christ as commanding before His death that habit of abiding
   'in' Him, which St. Paul immediately realised as the essence of
   Christianity.

   In the prologue to his Gospel, St. John gives to our Lord two names
   which are intended to supplement each other, and to suggest an adequate
   idea of His person. They are 'Logos' or Word, and 'only-begotten' or
   unique Son.

   St. John's Doctrine of the Word.---The word Logos means both Reason and
   Word. It was employed in Platonic and Stoic philosophy to describe that
   orderly and harmonious life which pervades and upholds nature, so that
   our own reason traces the presence of a kindred Reason in the universe.
   The Stoics said that this Logos was the Deity, or part of the Deity
   which had gone forth from Him to form the world. Some held that it
   divided itself into a number of germ-words which are the life of the
   various parts of the universe. The doctrine was taken up and modified
   by Philo, the celebrated Jewish philosopher of Alexandria, about A.D.
   40. His system is equally accommodated to the theories of Greeks who
   had Oriental tastes, and the theories of Jews who were attracted by
   Greek culture. Between God (who is too spiritual to be really known by
   man) and the world (which is too gross to be touched by God himself)
   Philo places the Logos. This Logos is a being which radiates from out
   of God and is diffused through the world. It is called the 'Wisdom' of
   God, and contains within itself God's conceptions and purposes. It is,
   in fact,
   God's idea of the world. Philo never loses his Jewish power of
   picturesque imagination, and so we find that he calls the Logos the
   first-begotten Son of God, and also the High Priest who represents the
   world before God, and even the image of God and 'second God.' It is,
   however, doubtful whether Philo thought that the Logos had a personal
   and conscious existence; he denies that it is truly God, and he would
   have utterly scouted the notion that the Logos could take a material
   human body.

   Although this theory is more Greek than Hebrew, it had been to some
   extent anticipated by the Jews. In the Book of Proverbs 'Wisdom' is
   represented as co-eternal with God, and rejoicing with Him at the
   creation. The Book of Wisdom, which was probably written by an
   Alexandrian Jew in the second century B.C., personifies the divine
   Wisdom who is the spotless mirror which reflects the operations of God
   and is the image of God's goodness. The same book in ch. xviii. 15,
   speaks of the almighty Word of God as leaping down from heaven to
   punish the Egyptians.

   On the whole, it seems less probable that St. John was influenced by
   Philo, than that both writers were influenced by the books of Proverbs
   and Wisdom.

   St. John was also probably familiar with the word Memra, which is
   frequently employed in the Jewish Targums or paraphrases of Scripture.
   The Memra or Word of God, is simply the personality of God, especially
   as active in the universe. The Targum of Onkelos in its paraphrase of
   Deut. xxxiii. 27 says: 'By His Memra was the world created'--a sentence
   almost identical with John i. 10. The strongly personal conception of
   the Word which appears in this more Oriental Jewish literature is
   certainly nearer to St. John's teaching than the conception of Philo. A
   deep chasm exists between the fourth Gospel with its God of love, its
   Logos who was in eternal intercommunion with God and became flesh and
   redeemed mankind, and Philo with his abstract divine 'Being,' his Logos
   who is perhaps only a group of ideas, his morbid dislike of matter, and
   his theory of salvation by speculation. St. John indulged in no
   fanciful subtlety. He had lived with Jesus, and had become convinced
   that Jesus and God are inseparable, and that the worship of Jesus is
   the worship of God. And he chose for Jesus the one and only title which
   informed both Jew and Gentile that his Master was the perfect message
   of God to man, and that the person who shows us the way to God is God
   himself.

   St. John's Doctrine of the only-begotten Son.--If St. John had only
   said that the divine Logos dwelt in the human nature of Jesus, he would
   have seemed to sanction the theory that the divine element in Christ
   had no personal subsistence. His readers might have supposed that the
   Logos was only a quality of a universal Father, found equally in Jesus
   and in all men. But St. John balances the word Logos with the phrase
   only-begotten Son, and so protects it from misinterpretation. By
   itself, the phrase only-begotten Son might be misleading. It might
   suggest that the divine Fatherhood is to be understood in a crude
   anthropomorphic sense, and that the Son is not eternal like the Father.
   But as the apostle has already explained that he is speaking of the
   eternal spiritual Reason of God, he goes on to speak of this Reason as
   the 'Son.' By using this term, he shows that the Logos has a distinct
   personality derived from the Father, and is in perfect moral communion
   with the Father. The Word is the manifestation of the intellectual life
   of God, passing out from the Father and returning to the Father with
   conscious love. St. John therefore teaches that there are within the
   Godhead activities which make it possible for God to have lived from
   eternity that moral life which He calls us to imitate. The Father is
   love from all eternity, and filial submission to His love is not
   something which began when man was created, but an eternal fact in the
   complex life of God.

   St. John's Gospel is a narrative of the manifestation of this eternal
   Sonship as it tabernacled among men. Jesus knows the Father in virtue
   of that life which He lived with the Father before He took human flesh.
   He was the object of this Father's love before the foundation of the
   world. He shared His glory, and reveals it to the eye of faith while
   dwelling upon earth. Even the Passion of Christ (xii. 23) is a stage in
   the increase of His glory. It is morally glorious, it is an exhibition
   of the eternal love and power of God which will be rewarded by the love
   and reverence of men. It is part of the peculiar attraction of this
   Gospel that it sees nothing incongruous in the fact that the Word
   himself sat weary by the well at Samaria, wept at the grave of Lazarus,
   was consoled by a human friend, and in dying remembered a human mother.

   Christ in the Apocalypse.--The Apocalypse is said by Irenaeus to have
   been written in the time of Domitian, about A.D. 93 to 96. Internal
   evidence strongly confirms this, and while certain parts of the book
   contain indications of an earlier date, these indications only point to
   the fact that St. John in extreme old age edited various visions in one
   united volume. The doctrine of Christ's person agrees closely with that
   in St. John's Gospel. He is called the Word of God, and receives
   perpetual adoration in heaven. It is plain that worship of the Logos is
   regarded as worship of God. His eternity is stated in the majestic name
   'Alpha and Omega.' He is 'King of Kings and Lord of Lords.' In His
   wounded humanity, He, 'the Lamb, as it had been slain,' is present on
   the throne of God. His Passion is an episode of victory, for He leads
   His armies in a vesture dipped in blood. The writer who had walked with
   Him on earth falls prostrate as though dead when he sees Him in the
   glory of heaven.
     __________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER III

  CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE FROM A.D. 90 TO A.D. 180

   General Characteristics of the Period.--The Church spread rapidly
   through the more accessible parts of the Roman Empire, and at the close
   of this period was firmly established in Rome, Athens, Alexandria,
   Antioch, Lyons, Ephesus, and Edessa. While Christianity won a great
   number of converts among the pagans, the Jews opposed it with
   increasing hostility, and the second destruction of Jerusalem in A.D.
   135 widened the division between Christianity and Judaism. The Gentile
   Christians, after a severe struggle, were successful in repressing the
   teaching of the Gnostics, or 'men of knowledge' who attempted to
   combine Christianity with pagan mythology and pagan philosophy. This
   struggle caused more stress to be laid upon certain particular aspects
   of Christian truths and also taught the Christians to make use of
   various theological phrases which had been used in a pagan sense by the
   Gnostics. The Church consequently began to fight paganism with some of
   its own weapons.

   The Christians throughout assumed that the sayings of the Lord, the
   traditions derived from the apostles, and the Jewish scriptures were
   the ultimate authority in questions of doctrine. This threefold
   authority was unique and inalienable. The manner in which it was to be
   interpreted in order to meet present wants was one of the great
   problems which the Church of this period faced and answered. The answer
   was given by insisting upon three great tests of truth.

   1. The teaching of the apostles was summed up in a creed which was
   taught to every candidate for Christian baptism. A fixed baptismal
   creed, similar to our present Apostles' Creed, was certainly in use at
   Rome about A.D. 140, and was probably in use at the beginning of that
   century. The Church in Asia Minor used a similar creed. The various
   Churches were convinced that their creeds contained an implicit
   refutation of heresy.

   2. A selection of genuine Christian writings was made, and the writings
   thus selected were named the 'New Testament,' the Jewish scriptures
   being called the 'Old Testament.' The four Gospels were set apart from
   all others, and to these Gospels various collections of apostolic
   writings were added. Books which did not agree with the tradition of
   the Church were excluded from the New Testament.

   3. The bishop, as the chief office-bearer of each Christian community,
   was required to testify to the true apostolical tradition preserved in
   his Church and handed down from the days when that Church was founded.
   Great stress was therefore laid upon the 'apostolical succession' of
   the bishops and clergy. The bishops were the custodians of the truth by
   virtue of that gift which they received from God with the laying on of
   hands.

   Another characteristic of this period is to be found in the Apologies
   which were written by Christians in order to defend the doctrines and
   the morals of the Christian Church. The oldest of which we possess
   clear knowledge were written in A.D. 125. Some description of the
   theology of the Apologists will be given in the next chapter. Their
   writings contain a most valuable account of the popular paganism of the
   second century, and undoubtedly showed where it was most vulnerable.

   Judaistic Christianity.--After the writings contained in the New
   Testament, the most important Jewish Christian document is the Didache,
   or 'Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,' published to the modern world in
   1883. It is a church-manual belonging to a section of the primitive
   Church. It was probably written in Palestine before A.D. 100. It is
   marked by an archaic simplicity and by a conception of Christianity
   which is less wide and deep than that contained in any book of the New
   Testament. One striking proof of an early date is the fact that side by
   side with a localised ministry there exists an order of itinerant
   prophets as in Eph. iv. 11, 1 Cor. xii. 28.

   Christ is called there the Son of God and the God of David and also the
   Servant or Child of God. In the baptismal formula we find God
   represented as 'the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.' Through
   Christ we receive life, knowledge, faith, and immortality. Directions
   are given for the celebration of the Eucharist, 'a spiritual food and
   drink,' given to us through God's Child. The 'Church' is mentioned and
   schism condemned. Fasting on the fourth and the sixth day of the week
   is commanded. The 'world-deceiver' or Antichrist is expected to appear
   'as a son of God,' and the tone of certain passages suggests that the
   end of the world is thought to be not far distant. The 'Kingdom' of God
   is regarded as a future state into which the Church is to be gathered.

   During the lifetime of the apostles the tendency to deliberately
   Judaise the Church was kept in check, but when they were all dead, a
   number of Hebrew Christians refused to amalgamate with Gentile
   Christianity. Their history is involved in much obscurity, but it
   appears most probable that these Judaising Christians left the Church
   after the death of Symeon, bishop of Jerusalem, about A.D. 104. The
   first clear account of these sectaries is given by Justin Martyr, who
   wrote between A.D. 150 and A.D. 160. He describes a sect of Judaising
   Christians who regard the observance of the law of Moses as necessary
   to salvation, and hold no fellowship with Gentile Christians. This sect
   appears to be identical with a party which, Justin says, confesses that
   Jesus was the Messiah, but believes that He was only human and not
   divine. Justin describes other Jewish Christians who are circumcised
   and keep the law of Moses, but do not regard the law as binding on
   Gentile Christians. It is almost certain that the latter party believed
   in the divinity of Christ.

   These Jewish Christians, who were willing to live with Gentiles and
   believed that Jesus was truly divine, represented the Christianity of
   St. James and his friends. They appear to have called themselves
   Nazarenes. The other Jewish Christians, who held opinions similar to
   modern Unitarianism, were called Ebionaeans or Ebionites, i.e. 'the
   poor.' Both the names Ebionite and Nazarene date from very primitive
   times (Matt. v. 3; Acts xxiv. 5), but we have no reason to believe that
   Ebionite opinions are as old as the time of the apostles.

   Various writers from the end of the second century until the end of the
   fourth century give us details about these Jewish Christians. Irenaeus,
   Origen, Jerome, and Epiphanius are the most important of these writers.
   Even the Ebionites became divided among themselves: some retained a
   belief that Jesus was born of a virgin, while others invented the
   theory that He was born of a human father like any ordinary man. Among
   orthodox Jewish Christian writings of the second century we must reckon
   the Dialogue of Ariston of Pella, a controversial treatise against the
   Jews. We have also fragments of an Ebionite 'Gospel according to the
   Hebrews,' an apocryphal work which is a mixture of the narrative of our
   Gospels with various legends.

   In addition to the Ebionites and Nazarenes there was a Jewish Christian
   sect which showed the same characteristics as the false teachers
   rebuked by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Colossians. These Essene
   Ebionites, as they are now generally called, were circumcised, and kept
   the Sabbath like the other Ebionites. They also ridiculed St. Paul. But
   they differed from the other Ebionites in eating vegetables only, and
   in declaring that the sacrificial system of the Old Testament was not
   ordained by God. They believed that Christ was a great angel, higher
   than all other created beings. One of their sacred books was said to be
   a revelation given in the time of Trajan to a man named Elkesai. They
   also invented a number of legends about St. Clement of Rome, which
   unfortunately passed into Catholic circles, and after undergoing some
   alterations were believed to be genuine, and did a great deal to build
   up the authority of the bishops of Rome.

   The Nazarenes became gradually mingled with the Syriac-speaking
   Christians of Palestine. The Ebionites continued to exist for a long
   time in Palestine and Arabia, and it was chiefly from them that
   Muhammad derived his teaching. The detestation which the Moslems have
   for Christianity shows us what a prophetic insight St. Paul had into
   the true character of his Judaising opponents.

   Catholic Gentile Christianity.--The strictly theological Catholic
   writings of this period are the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians
   (A.D. 97), the Epistle of Barnabas (? A.D. 98), the seven Epistles of
   Ignatius (A.D. 110), the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians (A.D.
   110), the fragments of the Expositions of Papias (A.D. 130), the
   Shepherd of Hermas (A.D. 140), and the so-called Second Epistle of
   Clement (? A.D. 140).

   The Catholic faith itself is clearly set forth in the Roman baptismal
   creed of this period:--

   'I believe in God, the Father Almighty, and in Christ Jesus, His Son,
   the only-begotten, Who was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary,
   Who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried, on the third day
   rose again, ascended into the heavens, sitteth at the right hand of the
   Father, whence He cometh to judge the living and dead. And in the Holy
   Ghost, and the Resurrection of the flesh.'

   The exact date of some of the remaining clauses of the creed is
   doubtful, but the words 'holy Church' and 'forgiveness of sins' were
   probably recited in the creed during part of the second century.

   While the theology of the Catholic writers is marked by considerable
   variations of thought and expression, they show a close agreement as to
   the main articles of the Christian faith. A clever attempt has been
   made to prove that the early Christians held two fundamentally
   different conceptions as to the person of Christ, one party believing
   that He was only a man to whom the Holy Spirit was given, and that He
   was afterwards adopted by God and made semi-divine, the other party
   believing that He was a heavenly Spirit who took flesh and then
   returned to heaven. This theory may be compared with Baur's theory that
   the primitive Church contained two parties which differed fundamentally
   with regard to the observance of the Mosaic law. But just as there is
   no proof that any of the apostles insisted that Gentile converts should
   observe the law, so there is no proof that any members of the early
   Church denied that Christ existed in heaven before He appeared on
   earth.

   The Epistle of Barnabas was probably written by a converted Jew of
   Alexandria, but is anti-Jewish in tone. The view of Christ is a high
   view. He is in a unique sense the Son of God, the Beloved, and the
   Child or Servant of God. He is the Son 'not of man, but of God.' He was
   'Lord of the whole world' at the creation, and 'the prophets receiving
   grace from Him prophesied concerning Him.' He 'came in the flesh' for
   if He had not assumed human flesh men could not have looked upon Him,
   any more than they can endure to gaze upon the rays of the sun. A
   propitiatory character is attributed to His death. He 'desired so to
   suffer' that we might be cleansed 'through the blood of His
   sprinkling.' 'He could not suffer except for our sakes.' He is the
   'future Judge of quick and dead.' He has 'renewed us in the remission
   of sins, so that we should have the soul of children.' This renewal
   takes place in 'the baptism which bringeth remission of sins.' The
   author closely connects faith with hope, and teaches that we are under
   'the new law of our Lord Jesus Christ,' this law being 'free from the
   yoke of constraint.' We Christians are 'children of gladness.'

   The real beauty of much that is said in this Epistle is somewhat marred
   by the author's extreme antagonism to Judaism and his strange idea that
   the Jews were wrong in giving a literal interpretation to the
   ceremonial commands of the Jewish Law.

   St. Clement, bishop of Rome, is one of the most interesting figures of
   the early Church. His letter was written to restore order in the Church
   of Corinth, where the laity had been quarrelling with their presbyters,
   or 'overseers' as they are still called. Clement writes in a sober and
   moderate tone, but he insists strongly upon the principle of
   Apostolical Succession, and his statements imply that the Jewish
   threefold ministry of high-priest, priest, and Levite is reflected in
   the threefold ministry of the Christian Church. Although he does not
   use the word 'overseer' in the sense of bishop, the position which he
   occupied at Rome and the tone of his directions combine to prove that
   he believed in an episcopal system of Church government

   Clement's theology is comprehensive though not profound. It unites
   various elements of apostolic teaching in a manner which would have
   been impossible if the apostolic band had been divided into the two
   camps which have been depicted by modern sceptics. Clement uses the
   phrase 'justified by faith,' but he is anxious that good works should
   be strenuously maintained, for we are under 'the yoke of the
   loving-kindness' of Christ. He asserts that 'the Lord Jesus Christ
   liveth' and mentions His name together with the name of the Father and
   of the Holy Spirit. He speaks of the sufferings of Christ as the
   sufferings of God. He is 'our High-priest and Guardian.' He is called
   Lord, and it is said that He 'hath given His blood for us by the will
   of God, and His flesh for our flesh and His life for our lives.' It
   should be observed that although Clement firmly believes in the
   Divinity of Christ, he does not hesitate to call Him by the title
   'Beloved Child ' or 'Beloved Servant.' We are therefore justified in
   saying that the early Christians did not, when they used that title,
   mean that Christ was only an exalted man.

   The old Homily which is incorrectly called the Second Epistle of
   Clement teaches similar doctrine. It says, 'We ought to think
   concerning Jesus Christ as concerning God, as concerning the Judge of
   quick and dead.' The pre-existent divine nature of Christ is called
   'Spirit' in contrast with His 'flesh' or human nature--'Christ the Lord
   who saved us, being at first Spirit became flesh and thus called us.'
   The practice of calling the divine nature of Christ' Spirit' is found
   in the New Testament (John vi. 63; 1 Cor. xv. 45; 2 Cor. iii. 17, and
   probably Rom. i. 4). It is found in Athanasius, although in his time
   this use of the word was rare. In writers of the second century this
   was very common, [1] and it has led many modern critics into the
   mistake of thinking that these ancient writers made a confusion between
   the second and the third persons of the Trinity. The author of 2
   Clement has a strong idea of the earnestness of the Christian life. He
   calls it 'the contest of incorruption,' i.e. the contest which has an
   immortal reward, and he says 'if we cannot all be crowned, let us at
   least come near to the crown.' The writer considers it impossible to
   serve both God and Mammon, and necessary for all to 'keep their baptism
   pure and undefiled.' In insisting upon the necessity of good works the
   author makes some statements which seem to depart from the spirit of
   the New Testament. 'Fasting is better than prayer, but almsgiving than
   both.' On the other hand, he sharply rebukes the spirit of
   'merchandise' which seeks for an immediate recompense from God for its
   righteousness.

   St. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, wrote seven letters shortly before his
   martyrdom at Rome in 110. While the tone of these letters is emotional
   and enthusiastic, the theology is well-reasoned and highly developed.
   Ignatius desired to warn his readers against certain tendencies to
   Judaism which he had observed in Asia Minor, and also against some
   Docetic theories which represented that the human life and suffering of
   Christ were unreal, as though He were too sacred to share our lot. The
   completeness of the theology of Ignatius is largely the result of this
   double attack upon the Christian religion.

   The doctrine of Ignatius is that 'God appeared in human form unto
   newness of eternal life.' Christ is 'our God.' He was 'with the Father
   before the ages' timeless, invisible, and unbegotten, i.e. He did not
   derive life from His Father in the same way as men derive life from
   their fathers. Ignatius is quite convinced that the Son is God, and yet
   he confidently says that 'there is one God, who manifested himself
   through Jesus Christ.' The Son took true human flesh, and therefore we
   worship 'one only Physician, of flesh and of Spirit, generate and not
   generate, God in man, true Life in death. Son of Mary and Son of God,
   first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord.' The Son is
   called the Word as in the Gospel of St. John, and in the manner of St.
   John Ignatius says, 'I wish for the bread of God which is the flesh of
   Christ.' The fact that Christ was miraculously born is asserted in the
   plainest way, for Ignatius puts side by side 'the virginity of Mary,
   and her child-bearing, and likewise also the death of the Lord.' He
   lays stress upon the indwelling of Christ in the Christian; Jesus
   Christ is 'our true living,' 'our inseparable life.'

   If we had no remnant of the age which came after the death of the
   apostles except these letters, it would be almost impossible to doubt
   that the apostles held those doctrines which we find in the writings
   which bear the names of St. Paul and St. John.

   Ignatius in maintaining the unity of the faith does everything in his
   power to preserve the unity of the Church. He regards the episcopate of
   what he calls the 'Catholic Church' as the guarantee of the Church's
   visible unity. He is the earliest writer known to us who uses the word
   'episkopos' or 'overseer' no longer as the title of a presbyter but as
   the title of the highest order in the Christian ministry. He speaks of
   bishops as 'established in the farthest parts of the earth,' and his
   statements with regard to them are one of the strongest proofs that the
   apostles created a permanent order of ministers to govern the local
   presbyters and deacons. He regards a valid ministry as essential to the
   existence of a Church. 'Apart from these (sc. bishop, presbyters, and
   deacons) there is not even the name of a Church.'

   St. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, suffered martyrdom in 155 or 156. Of
   his letters, that to the Philippians alone survives, but a full account
   of his martyrdom and a true index to his opinions is found in an
   epistle written immediately after his death by the Christians of
   Smyrna. Polycarp remembered St. John, he received from Ignatius an
   epistle which still exists, and he taught Irenaeus. He is therefore the
   most important link between the age of the apostles and the date when
   the Church emerges into the clear daylight of history. His letter is
   very simple, and abounds in quotations from St. Paul's Epistles. He
   shows the same horror as Ignatius towards the tendency to deny the real
   manhood of Christ. Christ is called 'our Lord and God' and 'the eternal
   High-priest.' His atonement, example, and future judgment are
   mentioned. It is important to notice that although Polycarp was the
   disciple of St. John, he delights in the teaching of St. Paul. His
   letter, like the letter of Clement of Rome, shows no trace or
   recollection of any fundamental opposition between the different
   apostles, and the simplicity of the document makes any idea of a pious
   fraud entirely ridiculous.

   The letter of the Smyrnaeans on the martyrdom of Polycarp is a writing
   of the utmost dignity and pathos. It is historical and not doctrinal,
   but contains some passages of great doctrinal importance. The dying
   words of Polycarp therein recorded show a clearly defined belief in the
   Holy Trinity. 'I praise Thee, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, through the
   eternal and heavenly High-priest, Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son,
   through whom with Him and the Holy Spirit be glory both now and ever
   and for the ages to come. Amen.'

   The Smyrnaeans in worshipping Christ did not regard Him as a deified or
   saintly man. They expressly distinguish their worship of Christ from
   their reverence for the saints. 'For Him, being the Son of God, we
   adore, but the martyrs as disciples and imitators of the Lord we
   cherish as they deserve.' Like Ignatius, whose writings this letter
   somewhat resembles, the Christians of Smyrna speak of 'the Catholic
   Church throughout the world,' of which Church Christ is the Shepherd.

   Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, was another disciple of St. John. Only a
   few fragments of his writings remain. From a doctrinal point of view
   they are important for two reasons. (1) Papias interpreted the story of
   the six days of creation and of Paradise 'spiritually,' i.e. he
   apparently thought that they contained an allegorical account of the
   Church; (2) He believed that after the general resurrection Christ will
   reign with the saints upon the earth and the Kingdom of God will come,
   creation being renewed and the fruits of the earth becoming
   extraordinarily productive. Jerome calls this 'a Jewish tradition of
   the Millennium' but the tradition is also connected with such Christian
   sources as Rev. xx. 4 and Rom. viii. 19.

   The Shepherd of Hermae is an important work written by a Roman
   Christian about 140. The book is marked by a desire for the moral
   improvement of the Church, and at the same time its severity is
   tempered by rules which admit the possibility of a new admission to
   Church privileges after one serious fall. Hermas teaches that penitence
   does remove sins committed after baptism, that the gravest sins may be
   forgiven, but that this penitence, which implies a certain routine,
   must take place only once.

   The teaching of Hermas with regard to the Holy Trinity is not very
   clear, and it has been asserted that he does not believe in the Trinity
   at all, but in two divine persons, viz., the Father and the Holy Ghost.
   It has also been asserted that he taught the 'Adoptionist' theory of
   Christ's person, namely, that Jesus was a mere man upon whom the Holy
   Ghost descended at His baptism, so that He became an 'adopted' Son of
   God. This is then alleged to be a truer form of Christian doctrine than
   we find in Ignatius and Polycarp, and so the Shepherd of Hermas is
   quoted in order to throw doubt upon the historical character of the
   Catholic faith.

   All these assertions rest upon a complete misconception. Hermas is not
   an Adoptionist at all. He says nothing about any exaltation of Jesus at
   His baptism, and so far from teaching that He was a man who became
   half-divine at His baptism, Hermas teaches that the 'Son of God'
   existed before the creation of the world, was the Counsellor of the
   Father at the creation, and upholds the world. [1] The modern
   misunderstanding concerning Hermas has been caused by the fact that he
   calls the divine nature of Christ 'Spirit,' and in a somewhat clumsy
   parable represents God the Father as the master of a vineyard, Christ
   as the maste's servant, and the Holy Ghost as the master's son. Clumsy
   as the parable is, it is enough to prove that Hermas believed that
   there were three Persons in the Godhead. And the respect felt for this
   book by ancient Catholic writers, including Irenaeus and Clement of
   Alexandria, is enough to prove that the early Church regarded the book
   as orthodox.

   Gnosticism. -- The existence of Gnosticism is a strong proof that in
   the second century the Christian religion was attracting the attention
   of the heathen world. Gnosticism can scarcely be called a creed. It was
   a half-religious, half-speculative movement which tried to combine
   pagan philosophy and mythology with Christian tradition and worship.
   But though their tenets were very shifting, the Gnostics were generally
   agreed as to the following points : --
    1. The supreme God is distinct from the Creator of the world.
    2. The God of the Jews is not the supreme God.
    3. The material world is evil and the redemption of man requires his
       release from matter.
    4. Since matter is evil, Jesus Christ had not a true human body.

   These tenets suggest the answer to two great problems which the
   Gnostics faced: (a) the problem of creation; how can a spiritual Being
   be the Creator of matter? (b) the problem of the existence of evil; how
   can God be credited with permitting sin? and how can deliverance from
   sin be attained?

   It was inevitable that a system which struck such a blow at the
   fundamental principles of Christianity should be strenuously opposed by
   the Church. The Catholics soon found that it was more necessary to
   oppose Gnosticism than to oppose Judaism. Justin Martyr, Irenseus,
   Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and others devoted much of their
   energy to this task, with the result that Christianity was saved from
   becoming a dilettante mixture of popular beliefs and ceremonies.

   The origin of Gnosticism. -- Behind the Greek forms which Gnosticism
   generally assumed, there are many Oriental elements. Modern
   investigation is making it more and more evident that these elements
   are partly Persian and partly Babylonian, although they are greatly
   modified and confused. The Persians were of Aryan race, and their
   religion was originally akin to that of the oldest Aryan inhabitants of
   India. They professed the Magian religion, which is preserved for us in
   the book called the Zend-Avesta and is retained in a modified form by
   the Parsis. They venerated Zoroaster as their prophet, and reputed
   works of Zoroaster were circulated in the Greek world. It is probably
   from the Persians that the Gnostics derived their dualism, i,e. the
   theory that good and evil are almost equally matched, and that the
   contrast between them is caused by the fact that there is an evil God
   as well as a good God. The Babylonians were a mixed race, partly
   Turanian and partly Semitic. Their religion was also mixed and had an
   elaborate system of worship. It was intimately connected with
   astrology, and the modem divisions of the Zodiac are of ancient
   Babylonian origin. The Babylonian religion not only influenced that of
   Persia but actually survived until after the birth of Christ. Many
   traces of it still remain in the religion of the Mandaites, a dwindling
   sect which is to be found on the Euphrates. The later Babylonians
   taught that after death the soul would have to travel through seven
   gates before it appeared in the highest heaven. These seven gates were
   watched by the gods of the seven planets, and it appears that the
   Archons whom some Gnostics were taught to propitiate are simply these
   planet- gods. The chief end of the 'Gnosis' of some of the Gnostics was
   to be able to repeat the proper pass-words to the heavenly Archons. The
   'Sophia' or Wisdom, who was a potent spirit among the Gnostics and was
   believed by some Gnostics to have created the heavens, is the
   Babylonian Istar, the Queen of heaven. Hie Mandaites call Istar the
   Holy Spirit. The Gnostic story of her fall from heaven is probably
   derived from the old Babylonian story of her descent into the
   under-world to free the dead.

   The Gnostic Sects.-- The Fathers of the Church speak of Simon Magus as
   one of the founders of Gnosticism. There is evidently a true basis for
   their belief. Samaria was the home of a mixed population and open to
   Oriental influences, and the Syrian Gnostics, such as Simon, Menander,
   Saturninus, Cerdo, and Bardesanes, show a strong Babylonian influence.
   Simon taught that a divine female shared in the work of creation, and
   he identified her with a woman named Helen who was his own companion.
   Bardesanes, who was born in 154, taught that there was a divine
   'Mother' and seven Archons who created the world. He was a learned
   philosopher and a charming poet and the best Syriac writer of his age.
   Cerdo maintained that there were two Gods -- the evil God who created
   the world, and the good God revealed by Christ. Saturninus regarded the
   God of the Old Testament as good, but inferior to the supreme God. Both
   denied the reality of Christ's human nature, Saturninus reducing it
   simply to the level of an apparition. And we may say of Gnosticism in
   general that it did not believe in any life of Christ. The Gospel story
   was interpreted not as a history but as a series of allegorical
   pictures of the relations between God and the world. Tne work of Christ
   was generally regarded as simply an appearance which so enlightens a
   man that he frees himself by accepting the 'mysteries' and practising
   extreme asceticism. In a hymn which was used by a Gnostic sect called
   the Naasenes, Jesus thus describes His work:--


   Having the seals I will descend,

   Through whole worlds I will journey,

   All mysteries I will open,

   And the forms of gods I will show;

   And the secret things of the holy way.

   Having called them knowledge, I will impart.

   The seals are possibly the sacraments, and Jesus imparts the Gnosis
   which enables the soul to find its path beyond the regions occupied by
   the inferior gods.

   In the third century a most elaborate form of Oriental Gnosticism was
   taught by lEanl or Manichseus, a native of Babylon, who began to preach
   in the time of Sapor I., King of Persia, and died in 276. The best
   information about his doctrine has been preserved by Arabic writers,
   and it proves conclusively that Mani endeavoured to combine elements of
   Buddhism, Christianity, and Zoroastrianism with the old religion of
   Babylon. The reality of Christ's manhood is denied, the goddess Istar
   appears as the mother of life, and a sharp distinction is made between
   the 'elect' believers who devote themselves to an ascetic life and the
   'hearers' who live in the world. The sect spread far and wide and had
   numerous adherents in Rome.

   The Gnostics of Egypt generally looked upon the supreme God as an
   absolute and unknown abstraction. The great leaders of this school were
   Basilides and Valentinus. The former claimed to possess secret
   traditions derived from St. Peter, and the latter claimed to possess
   similar traditions derived from St Paul. The Valentinians became
   divided into two sects, one Italian and the other Oriental. On the
   whole, we may say that the Gnosticism of Egypt shows the influence of
   Greek paganism and of Christianity more strongly than the Gnosticism of
   Syria. The dualism is not so prominent. Both Valentinus and Basilides
   apparently believed in one God and gave a very inferior position to the
   Archons and the emanations who were the thoughts of God, or, as some
   said, spirits that came out of God. And Valentinus, instead of dividing
   all mankind into those who had Gnosis and must inevitably be saved and
   those who had no Gnosis and could not possibly be saved, admitted the
   existence of a middle class who might be saved in time.

   It is difficult to determine what Basilides really taught. According to
   Irenseus and other writers he believed in seven great emanations from
   God and 365 lower spirits, and the disciple was obliged to learn the
   names of all these angelic beings. But according to Clement of
   Alexandria, Basilides held a Pantheistic view of God, holding that
   there were no emanations from God but that He created a world-seed from
   which all future growths developed. This involves an elaborate theory
   of evolution, and reminds us of the teaching of some of the Stoic
   philosophers. It seems most likely that the followers of Basilides
   adopted the views of other Gnostic sects, and that Basilides himself
   held the opinions attributed to him by Clement.

   Gnostic influence on the Church.-- Modern opponents of Christianity
   have stated that the Christian Church was greatly influenced by
   Gnosticism, accepting from it the ritual employed in the services of
   the Churchy the use of allegory in the interpretation of Scripture, the
   idea that the sacraments convey God's assistance to the soul, and even
   the doctrine that there are two natures in Christy, one human and one
   divine. Such statements are gross exaggerations, although it is true
   that for a time some Christian writers who lived amid Gnostic
   surroundings were infected with Gnosticism. Little, if any, of the
   ritual of the Church seems to have been derived from the Gnostics. The
   use of allegory had been anticipated by Philo and St. Paul. In the New
   Testament the sacraments are represented as communicating the life of
   Christ to the believer, and the existence of two 'forms' or natures in
   Christ is plainly stated (Phil, ii. 6, 7). Gnosticism helped the
   Christians to express their faith more clearly. Its influence was
   therefore important, although it was negative. It compelled the
   Christians to reflect and questioned them until they learnt to make
   effective answers. A few theological terms which had been used by the
   Gnostics, such as the word homo-ousios (of one substance), were adopted
   by the Catholics, but only in order to give a formula to the facts
   which they had long believed.

   Marcion. -- This great heretic left the Church about 144. His system is
   half Gnostic and half Catholic. Under the influence of the Gnostic
   Cerdo he adopted a dualistic belief. He taught that the God of love
   revealed by Christ is different from the God of justice who made the
   world. Consistently with this view of creation, Marcion denied that
   Christ's manhood was real, denied the resurrection of the body, and
   insisted upon an extreme asceticism. He maintained that the original
   apostles had been too much infected with Judaism to understand Christ,
   while St. Paul had realised the full truth. Marcion therefore rejected
   all the New Testament except ten Epistles of St Paul and the Gospel
   written by St. Luke, the friend of St. Paul. But as he found that the
   beginning of St. Luke's Gospel teaches that Christ did undergo a human
   birth, and that St. Paul's writings do not always oppose the Law, he
   rejected certain passages both in St. Luke's Gospel and in St. Paul's
   Epistles. The Fathers of the Church wrote against Marcion as against a
   most dangerous enemy. But the evil done by Marcion has been over-ruled
   for good, inasmuch as the use which Marcion made of the New Testament
   has not only given us a strong proof of the authenticity of the
   writings which he accepted, but in some cases even supports the
   genuineness of the writings which he repudiated.

   Marcion differed from the Gnostics in three particulars: (]) He
   insisted upon the need of faith rather than knowledge; (2) He did not
   explain the Old Testament allegorically, but literally, and rejected it
   as a mere revelation of the secondary God who made the world; (8) He
   founded organised churches, and was not content with forming little
   societies of 'spiritual' persons. He gave the same teaching to all
   alike, making no distinction between 'spiritual' people and the people
   who had no 'knowledge.' This contributed to the power and popularity of
   Marcionism, and it became so strong that when Marcion repented of his
   heresy he was unable to bring back his adherents to the Catholic
   Church, and the sect still lingered in the seventh century.

   NOTE ON THE ORIGIN OF THE CREED.-- The reader is referred to The
   Apostles' Creed by H. B. Swete, D.D. (Cambridge University Press, 3rd
   edition, 1899), and an article by W. Sanday, D.D., in The Journal of
   Theological Studies, October 1899, which contain masterly refutations
   of some theories advocated by Professor Harnack.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1] Hermas, v. Sim. 6; Iren. adv. Har. v. 1, 2; Theophil. ad Autol. ii.
   10; Tert. Apol. 21.

   [1] v. Sim. 6; ix. Sim. 12 and 14.
     __________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER IV

  THE APOLOGISTS -- MONTANISM -- IRENAEUS AND TERTULLIAN

   The Apologists. -- During the second century the interest taken by
   various emperors in all matters of philosophy or religion tempted many
   thoughtful converts to Christianity to write apologies for their faith.
   Some of these treatises have perished, but we possess the Apology of
   Aristides addressed to Hadrian in 125 (or possibly to Antoninus Pius),
   the two Apologies of Justin Martyr, one addressed to Antoninus Pius
   about 152, the other addressed a little later to the Roman Senate and
   less directly to Marcus Aurelius, his Dialogue with Trypho a Jew
   written about 155, Tatian's Discourse to the Greeks about 160,
   Athenagoras's Plea for the Christians about 177, and Theophilus's
   treatise To Autolycus about 180. The Octavius of Minucius Felix was
   perhaps written in the second century, but may be later. It is in the
   Latin language, but in spirit closely agrees with the writings of the
   Greek Apologists. Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, the great
   writers who defended the faith at the end of the second century,
   represent a later development of thought and must be considered
   separately.

   The intention of the Apologists was to present Christianity in such a
   form as to remove all suspicions against the morality and the loyalty
   of Christians, and thus to secure toleration, and, if possible,
   converts. Their views were influenced by the philosophy of the day, and
   they depict the Christian faith as a true and simple moral philosophy
   revealed by God through Jesus Christ. In opposition to the philosophy
   of the 'Hellenes' (a word which was already becoming synonymous with
   'pagans') they extol what they call 'the barbaric (i.e. non-Hellenic)
   philosophy.' At the same time, the Apologists do not regard the
   philosophy of the Greeks as entirely false. On the contrary, Justin
   boldly says, 'Whatsoever things have been said nobly by all men, belong
   to us Christians.' He regards all truth as one, and the same teaching
   is found very plainly in Minucius Felix and Clement.

   The Doctrine of God the Father in the Apologists. -- The Apologists
   regard God the Father as the Creator, Designer, and Lawgiver of the
   universe. In opposition to Gnosticism and some forms of paganism, the
   Source of physical life is represented as the Source of moral truth.
   Sometimes the idea of God is inclined to be shadowy and abstract, and
   seems to be in contact with the Neo-Platonic doctrine that God is
   'beyond intelligence and being.' The reason for this tendency is
   obvious. The Apologists are strongly protesting against the popular
   pagan worship and mythology, and this worship was offered to gods 'of
   like passions with ourselves.' They show us that Greek art had been
   used to glorify scenes and persons of the foulest character. In hatred
   of such anthropomorphism the Apologists occasionally use almost
   Agnostic language. Justin declares that in himself God is nameless, for
   it would be blasphemous to limit by a name a God who has no more
   ancient being from whom to receive a name. He apparently thinks that
   the Father cannot come into immediate contact with the world. Minucius
   Felix shows an equally decided dislike of limiting God by names. But
   both these and other Apologists do attach a real meaning to the
   Fatherhood of God. Aristides is content with saying that God is
   'immortal and without needs, above all passions . . . unchangeable and
   invisible.'

   The Doctrine of the Logos in the Apologists. -- This doctrine is of the
   highest importance. It was elaborated for two purposes: (a) In order to
   give a convincing reason for the Christian worship of Jesus Christ; (b)
   In order to show how the unseen God acts upon the material world. Thus
   it is asserted that Jesus is that divine Word who is an epitome of the
   consciousness of God, He is the expression of God's own thought. This
   divine Word was not created, He is identical in essence with God. When
   Tatian calls him 'the first-begotten work of the Father,' [1] the
   context shows that he uses the word 'work' in the sense of product or
   expression. Through this Word the Father maintains the life of the
   world and reveals himself to the world. Justin, with his conception of
   a distant divine Father, denies that it was the Father who appeared to
   the Jewish patriarchs; it was His Word.

   The fact that the Greek term Logos fignifies both Reason and Word
   caused the Apologists to think that there were two distinct stages in
   the existence of the Son before His incarnation. At first He was
   'immanent ' in the Father, says Theophilus, then when creation was to
   begin, He became 'uttered' from the Father. [2] These phrases had been
   used in Stoic philosophy and were adopted again by Marcellus of Ancyra
   in the fourth century. On the whole, the Apologists do not keep
   together the idea of the personality of the Son and the idea of His
   eternity. They say that He was 'put forth' from the Father, and that He
   is nevertheless not cut off from God so as to be separate from Him.
   They say that He was 'begotten by the Father's will,' a phrase which
   was afterwards perversely used by the Ariaus to insinuate that the Son
   was created and not begotten. But their language more than once
   suggests that the Son was not begotten and was not strictly personal
   until God intended to create the universe by Him. Nevertheless, the
   Apologists have no doubt that the Logos is truly divine, and Justin
   calls Him 'another God,' a phrase obviously open to criticism, but a
   phrase which certainly was not meant by Justin to teach that there is
   more than one God.

   The unity of nature which exists between the Son and the Father is
   illustrated in Justin by the simile of a thought and the reason which
   produces it, and a flame with the fire from which it is derived. Justin
   thinks that the relation of a ray to the sun is not adequate to
   illustrate the relation of the Son to the Father, but Tatian uses this
   simile to describe the relation between the Spirit and the Father. [1]
   The Apologists employ Trinitarian phrases, e,g, Justin speaks of 'the
   Creator, the Teacher in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in
   the third position.' Theophilus is the first known writer who uses the
   Greek word for 'Trinity.' He speaks of 'types of the Trinity, God, and
   His Word, and His Wisdom.' Here, as in their allusions to the earthly
   life of Christ, these writers show themselves in close connection with
   the tradition of the Church. For instance, both Aristides and Justin
   assert that Christ was born of a virgin. During the period in which
   they flourished, the canonical collection of New Testament books was
   being gradually made. Tatian regarded our four Gospels as the
   exclusively authentic Gospels. His teacher Justin used all our Gospels,
   but apparently also quotes from certain Apocryphal Gospels. The exact
   position which he gave to the latter class of writings cannot be
   determined.

   In conclusion, it should be noticed that modern writers are too prone
   to criticise the Apologists (a) as if they were making a full statement
   of Christian doctrine; (b) as if their writings proved that the creed
   of the early Church was loose and chaotic.

   These criticisms are hardly fair. Writing under the circumstances which
   then prevailed, the Apologists naturally laid more stress upon certain
   aspects of Christian doctrine than others; for instance, the Divinity
   of Christ is explained more carefully than the atonement. Moreover
   there is a great foundation of unity under these explanations of the
   faith, although they occur in books which represent not so much the
   past traditions of the Church as new efforts to meet the needs of the
   present. And so far as we can trace the official teaching of the Church
   during this period, it appears to have been of a thoroughly apostolic
   type. We must seek for this official teaching, not in the apologies of
   laymen like Justin and Tatian, but in the writings of bishops like
   Ignatius, Poly carp, and Irenaeus.

   Montanism.-- About A.D. 157 Montanus, formerly a mutilated priest of
   Cybele, headed a strange religious revival which has had several
   parallels during the nineteenth century, more espeially among
   Irvingites and the Mormons. He pretended to possess a gift of prophecy,
   and was joined by two women named Prisca and Maximilla who also
   professed to prophesy. They proclaimed that the reign of the Paraclete,
   foretold in St. John's Gospel, had now truly arrived, that the heavenly
   Jerusalem would descend, and that Christ would speedily return. Pepuza
   in Phrygia was to be the favoured spot chosen for the new city of God.

   Montanism spread rapidy through Asia Minor, and from thence to Thrace,
   Rome, Gaul, and North Africa, where it secured an ardent advocate in
   the great Tertullian. It is evident that it owed some of its sucess to
   the conservative elements which it retained. The Montanists maintained
   a stringent discipline at a time when merely nominal Christianity was
   not uncommon. They strongly opposed Gnosticism, which wsa one of the
   most serious forces arrayed against the Church. They forbade flight
   under persecution, and were eager to suffer for the Christian faith.
   The 'recognition of spiritual gifts,' suh sa prophecy, a recognition on
   which the Montanists particularly prided themselves, had not only been
   common during the apostolic age, but the Catholics of the second
   centurey frequently testify to the existence of such gifts in their own
   day. Why, then, did the Church oppose Montanism? The chief reasons were
   these:--

   (1) The Montanists organised schismatical communities, an treated the
   Church sa a second-rate institution, now superseded. (2) The Montanists
   held that mortal sin committed after baptism must not be forgiven by
   the Church, but could only be wiped out by martyrdom. (3) The Montanist
   prophecy was a 'new prophecy.' It was chiefly on this ground that the
   Catholics criticised the Montanists. It was new both in matter and in
   form. The Montanists said that 'the Holy Spirit was in the apostles,
   but not the Paraclete, and that the Paraclete said more things in
   Montanus than Christ uttered in the Gospel -- and not only more, but
   even better and greater.' These sayings were delivered in a state of
   frenzy. Thus Montanus said that he was in a state of sleep and passive
   like a lyre when the Lord made him prophesy, and Miltiades, a Catholic
   opponent of Montanism, affirmed that 'a prophet ought not to speak in
   an ecstasy.' These ecstati frenzies led to the wildest blasphemy.
   Montanus spoke of himself as 'the Father and the Son and the
   Paraclete,' and Prisca said that Christ had appeared to her in a female
   form.

   Some Montanists came to deny the doctrine of the Trinity. The sect was
   persecuted by Justinian, and nearly two hundred years later, in A.D.
   722, the surviving Montanists burnt themselves alive rather than submit
   to orthodox baptism.

   St. Irenaeus. -- St. Irenaeus became bishop of Lyons, in Gaul, after
   the martyrdom of his aged predecessor, Pothinus, in 177. Just
   previously he had visited Eleutherus, bishop of Rome, and consulted him
   with regard to Montanism. Irenseus is the most important figure in the
   Church history of the second century. He had known Polycarp, the pupil
   of St. John, and his testimony to the authenticity of the fourth Gospel
   and of the synoptic Gospels is of unique value. He was acquainted with
   Christian life and thought in Asia Minor, Rome, and Gaul, and his
   evidence as to the traditions of the Church therefore rests upon a
   threefold foundation. His writings are largely directed against
   Gnosticism, but give us information about other important heresies.

   The theology of Irenseus is profoundly Christian. His writings are more
   imbued with the spirit of the Gospel than those of the Apologists,
   although he seems to have been influenced by the Apologists. There is
   much in his books which reminds us of the writings of St. Ignatius and
   St. John and of the more developed Christology of St. Paul. Opposition
   to Gnosticism has caused him to reflect upon and define the faith of
   the Church.

   The Doctrine of God in Irenseus. -- Against the Gnostics who denied
   that the Creator is the same as the God revealed in Christ, Irenseus
   insists that the Creator is the Redeemer. There is one omnipotent God,
   not two Gods who limit each other's action, or one God with a train of
   emanations attached to Him. This one God is an omnipresent, active
   Spirit; everything originates with Him and is what it is through His
   will -- 'the substance of all things is the will of God.' [1] The
   justice and goodness of God, instead of being incompatible, as Marcion
   held, involve each other. Man needs communion with this good God. 'For
   this is the glory of man to persevere and abide in the service of God,'
   and again, 'the life of man is the vision of God.'

   The Doctrine of the Word in Irenaeus. -- The Son, who is also the Word,
   'is ever co-existing with the Father ' He is 'the measure of the
   Father,' who alone fully knows and reveals the Father. There is an
   identity of nature between the Father and the Son. The Word is the
   Creator as truly as the Father is the Creator; it is He who revealed
   the Father to the angels, and appeared to the patriarchs (so the
   Apologists). The manner of His generation from the Father cannot be
   declared by man.

   The Word is known to us through the historical life of Christ, who was
   born of the Virgin Mary, the new Eve. Why did God thus become man? The
   answer of Irenaeus is clear and unmistakable: 'On account of His
   boundless love He became what we are, in order that He might make us
   what He is himself.' In Irenaeus the doctrine of the incarnation of God
   is as fundamental as the doctrine of the unity of God. 'Without God we
   cannot know God.' Christ is the centre of theology, not because He is a
   Teacher, but because He is both God and Man. 'He united man with God.'
   Man was destined to resemble God; the development of this resemblance
   was broken by the fall of Aaam, but restored by Christ Irenseus loves
   to dwell upon the thought that Christ is the second Adam who
   'recapitulates' mankind (cf. Eph. i. 10). Jesus Christ is the first who
   realised the true destiny of mankind in His own person. He is the
   Teacher who reforms mankind, but He is above all the Giver of
   incorruptibility, which consists in the sight and the service of God
   and in a communion with His nature. 'Those who see God partake of life:
   and therefore the Unseen made himself seen and comprehended and
   contained by the faithful.

   An attempt has been made to prove that Irenaeus, in spite of his
   vigorous opposition to the Gnostics, borrowed from the Gnostics the
   theory that Christ had two distinct natures. But the doctrine of
   Irenaeus is quite different from that of the Gnostics. Irenaeus is true
   to the doctrine of St. Paul, who teaches in Phil ii. that Christ, who
   had from eternity 'the form' or nature of God, condescended to take
   'the form' or nature of a slave, and yet remained essentially divine.
   The Gnostics, on the contrary, denied that Jesus Christ was essentially
   or truly human. They preferred to say that there was a 'Jesus' who
   suffered, and that on this Jesus descended a 'Christ' who could not
   suffer. Irenaeus opposes this heresy in the most explicit terms; he
   declares that Jesus is the Christ, and that Jesus Christ suffered and
   rose again, and that Jesus Christ is 'truly man, truly God.'

   We should finally observe that Irenaeus has a distinct conception of
   the personality of the Holy Spirit, and that he brushes aside the
   notion of some of the Apologists that the Word was not from all
   eternity the Son of God. [1] He teaches that the Word is not only
   eternal, but also eternally personal. His idea of the gradual
   development of the human race is also remarkable. In fact, Irenaeus has
   a deeper insight into the truths involved in the incarnation than some
   of his most eminent successors, and the language in which he explains
   the Christian faith is often as felicitous as it is religious.
   Tertullian. -- The writings of Tertullian are stepping-stones from the
   theology of the second century to the theology of the third. His
   writings extend over thirty years, beginning about 195. He appears to
   have been acquainted both with the Greek Apologists and with the
   Christian doctrine taught in Rome and Asia Minor. He wrote against
   paganism, Monarchianism (see next chapter), and Gnosticism. He had
   enjoyed a lawyer's training, and the influence of this training is
   shown in his practical nature, in his keen arguments, and in his
   juristic representation of the divine persons of the Trinity and of
   man's reconciliation with God. He was a thorough Western, interested
   less in Christian speculation than in Christian life and discipline.
   The latter fact induced him to welcome the rigid disciplinary rules of
   the Montanists and to ahandon the Catholic Church. He was much
   influenced by the philosophy of the Stoics, and, like them, speaks of
   'nature' and 'reason' as guides of life. He appeals to 'the witness of
   the soul naturally Christian.' He possessed the same mastery over the
   strong and fervid Latin of Africa as Luther possessed over the simple
   and vigorous High German of the sixteenth century. The consequence was
   that both his dialect and his ideas had an immense influence over
   Western Christianity.

   The Doctrine of the Trinity in Tertnllian. -- One peculiarity of
   Tertullian's teaching is that he holds the Stoic doctrine that 'the
   soul is a body' and the corresponding doctrine that God is in some
   sense corporeal. [1] Against Marcion he asserts that the same God is
   both just and good. 'Nothing is so worthy of God as the salvation of
   man.' Tertullian is the first writer to use the Latin word 'Trinity.'
   He uses the phrases which became so familiar in later theology-- 'the
   Unity in Trinity' -- 'one substance' in which different 'persons'
   share. Tertullian thinks that the unity of God, the one dominatio
   (monarchia) or sovereign power, is secured by the fact that the plenary
   divine power which is exercised by the Son and the Spirit is derived
   from the one Father. He is sometimes guilty of speaking of the Son and
   the Spirit as if they were only administrators temporarily acting for
   the Father. Such a theory secures neither the doctrine of the Unity nor
   that of the Trinity. For the doctrine of the Unity is impaired if we
   regard the Father as delegating His authority, and the doctrine of the
   Trinity is impaired if we regard the Trinity, not as the life of God,
   but as an 'arrangement' for the benefit of the world.

   The fact seems to be that Tertullian is hampered by his legacy, direct
   and indirect, from Stoicism and Neo- Platonism.

   (a) He regards the Son as a delegate of the Father, because the Son is
   only 'a portion of the Father's substance' and he calls the Son a
   'portion' because he regards the Father as 'the total substance,' i.e,
   a person who has all the divine attribiites, some of which cannot enter
   into a human life.

   (b) He retains the idea, found in the Apologists, that there were two
   stages in the existence of the Word before the incarnation. The result
   is that while he lays peculiar stress on the Sonship of the Word, he
   denies that He was always Son, and represents the Trinity as only a
   gradual development in the life of the Deity.

   In making this criticism I have purposely called attention to the
   unsatisfactory elements in Tertullian's doctrine. But even here
   Tertullian displays great genius. If he had only seen with Irenaeus and
   Origen that the Son was from eternity truly Son as well as Word, and
   had developed his own statements about the unity of the 'Three
   cohering,' his vindication of the doctrine of the Trinity would have
   been of the very highest order.

   The Doctrine of the Incarnation in Tertullian. -- Tertullian expounds
   the doctrine of the incarnation with such clearness and precision, that
   when we read his words we might easily imagine that we were reading the
   statements written by St. Leo in the fifth century. Christ is 'God and
   man,' and 'we see a double existence (status), not confused but joined
   together, in one person, the God and man Jesus,' and 'the peculiar
   character (proprietas) of each substance was preserved.' One
   interesting link with earlier writers is to be found in the fact that
   he uses the word 'Spirit' to signify the Divinity of the Son, and the
   word 'spiritual' to signify divine. While strongly insisting that Jesus
   is God and that 'God was crucified,' he carefully denies that there was
   a 'transfiguration,' or, as we should say, transfor- mation, of the
   Word into flesh. He took a true human body and true human soul.
   Tertullian quaintly says that the invisible Father is, 'so to speak,
   the God of the philosophers' hut that in Christ 'God was found little'
   that man might hecome exceeding great.'

   Consistently with his clear view of the two natures in one person,
   Tertullian brings the atonement into the foreground. He calls the death
   of Christ 'the whole weight and fruit of Christianity,' and says 'our
   death could not be destroyed except by the passion of the Lord.' But in
   spite of the value which he attaches to the sufferings of Christ his
   idea of the atonement is less rich than that of Irenaeus. He does not
   develop as thoroughly as Irenaeus the thought of man being made 'at
   one' with God through communion with the second Adam, who alone made
   humanity perfectly acceptable to the Father. Tertullian speaks of men
   'making satisfaction to God,' and uses language which suggests the
   notion of our purchasing forgiveness from God by meritorious actions.
   It is probable that the less scriptural phrases of this description are
   merely metaphorical.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1] Ad Groecos, 5.

   [2] Cf . Tert. adv. Prax. 5, where God is called both rationalis and
   sermonalis, having first a Thought and then a Word.

   [1] For similar illustrations see Tertullian, who compares the Father
   and the Son to a root and its bush, a spring and its stream, the sun
   and its ray.

   [1] Adv. Haer, ii. 30. 9.

   [1] Adv. Haer, ii. 30. 9.

   [1] Adv. Prax. 7.
     __________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER V

  EARLY ALEXANDRINE THEOLOGY CONTROVERSY WITH MONARCHIANS

   Christianity in Alexandria. -- Alexandria had long been one of the most
   cosmopolitan and most cultured cities in the world. It was the
   meeting-place of Greek and Egyptian religion, and the writings of Philo
   (about A.D. 40) show how profoundly some of the Jews of Alexandria were
   touched by the spirit of Greek philosophy. The foundation of the
   Christian Church in this city was traditionally ascribed to St. Mark.
   In any case it is certain that Christianity had a large number of
   converts there during the first half of the second century, and the
   popularity of Egyptian Gnosticism proves that there was a general
   readiness to give paganism a Christian colouring. The necessity for
   instructing the Christians how to deal with these attractive errors was
   quickly realised. A school of catechists was formed whose special work
   it was to devote themselves to a scientific study of theology and show
   the relationship of Christianity to secular learning. The first leader
   of this school was a certain Pantaenus who had been a philosopher of
   the Stoic school but of whose life we know little. The desire to
   utilise and promote the learning of the period was widely spread among
   the Christians at the close of the second and the beginning of the
   third century. In Palestine, Rome, and Asia Minor they put forth the
   same efforts, although their teachers were less eminent than Clement
   and Origen, who were at the head of the Alexandrine school.

   Clement of Alexandria. -- Clement appears to have begun to teach about
   190. His style is pure and captivating. He was much influenced both by
   his Christian predecessors and by Plato. He took in hand the work which
   had been begun by Justin and some other Apologists. That is, he
   attempted to show that Christianity is able to satisfy all men who are
   intellectually and morally in earnest. But he attempted to do the work
   of the Apologists on a far more magnificent scale than they had
   attempted themselves. He tried to combine Christian tradition with
   Greek philosophy in such a way as to present the world with a complete
   philosophy of religion. That ideal of fellowship with God which was
   prominent in much of the later Greek philosophy was heightened by
   Clement, and the attainment of this ideal was promised to those who
   desired to know and love God through Christ. Clement agreed with the
   later Platonists in saying that God might be known by those who freed
   themselves from the bonds of sense, and he said that the Christians who
   fear Greek philosophy are 'like children who are afraid of hobgoblins.'
   We may almost say that what Philo is towards Judaism, Clement is
   towards Christianity. But we cannot quite say this, for Clement is less
   visionary and more practical than some of his sayings might lead us to
   imagine, and the knoio- iedge of God which he extols is not a rare,
   ecstatic rapture, but the joyful confidence of a mind which has been
   disciplined by the Word of God.

   The Doctrine of the Word in Clement. -- Clement, after the manner of
   the Neo-Platonists, regards God the Father as 'beyond being'; we cannot
   describe Him adequately. But nevertheless He was eternally Father,
   never without the Son. [1] The Word is 'the beginning, without
   beginning, of the things that are.' He gave existence to the world.
   Christianity is the doctrine of the creation, education, and perfection
   of mankind by the Word. The Word employed two means for instructing
   men, the law of the old Covenant and the philosophy of the Greeks,
   which is itself a kind of Covenant. Clement here advances a step beyond
   Justin. The latter regards Jewish prophecy as the great positive proof
   that Christianity is true, Clement uses the whole istory of morality
   and reasoning as the proof of Christianity.

   The Word appeared in Christ. 'This Word is the Christy and was of old
   the cause both of our being and our well-beings but now this same Word
   has appeared to men, who alone is both God and man.' It is most
   important to observe that, in spite of his doctrine of the wise man's
   approximation to the divine nature, Clement denies tnat men are
   'consubstantial' with God, [1] and sharply distinguishes even a perfect
   man from God. Christ is the only Man who is God indeed. He is regarded
   as the Priest who bestows upon man a series of initiations which lead
   him to perfect union with God. This idea that Christianity unfolds to
   man a number of precious mysteries which are hidden from the
   unbelieving is very marked in Clement. Christ not only teaches and
   initiates, He also forgives. 'He forgives sins as God, and as man
   instructs us to be free from sin.' 'He wishes us to be saved from
   ourselves.'

   Clement's conception of the incarnate life of Christ is rather Docetic,
   a proof that Clement was influenced by that dislike of matter which
   marked the teaching of the Neo-Platonists. He thinks that Christ only
   ate food in order to show that His body was real, not because He was
   hungry, and that Christ could not experience the sensations of bodily
   pleasure and pain.

   Origen. -- Clement was eclipsed by his great disciple Origen, born
   about 185. Origen was one of the greatest philosophers whom the world
   has ever seen; he was the first great exponent of the Christian
   Scriptures, and had more influence than any theologian who lived before
   the time of Athanasius. He travelled far, read deeply, wrote fully. He
   united the doctrine of the older theologians with the arguments of the
   Apologists and some of the more important speculations of the
   Neo-Platonists. His work is essentially comprehensive and intended to
   unite and not to separate. In his school the works of Greek poets and
   philosophers were studied, only the works of atheists being excluded.
   In his system he endeavoured to combine the conclusions of all
   philosophers, except those who had definitely believed that there is no
   God or that there are many gods. At the same time he was an orthodox
   Christian at heart. He did not place Greek philosophy on so high a
   pedestal as Clement had done, and he had a truer conception both of the
   Scriptures and of our Lord.

   Origen on Ood and His Manifestations. -- The Neo-Platonists taught that
   God is One, an abstract Being from whom proceeds 'Mind' and the world
   of thought; from 'Mind' comes the soul of the world, in which world the
   souls of men exist surrounded by matter. Salvation consists in the
   'turning to God' through asceticism and ecstatic rapture. It was held
   by some, as by the modern Hindu philosophers, that the soul which thus
   unites itself with God actually becomes God himself. This idea of God
   as the true centre of all things was quite agreeable to the mind of
   Origen; he found it in harmony with St. Paul's prediction of the time
   when God should be 'all in all.' But the distinction between the
   theories of Origen and those of the Neo-Platonists is nevertheless
   real.

   Origen sometimes speaks of God as an abstract Being. He is 'beyond
   limitation, beyond estimation, beyond sensation,' and even 'beyond
   being.' But it is plain that Origen does not mean to deny that God is
   personal, (lod is declared to be the 'Creator, Preserver, and
   Governor.' He is 'just and good, the God of the Law and of the Gospel.'
   In teaching this, Origen opposes the Marcionites, the Gnostics, and the
   Neo-Platonists. For the Marcionites denied that the same God was both
   kind and just, the Gnostics universally denied that God created all
   things, and the Gnostics Basilides and Valentinus agreed with the
   Neo-Platonists in regarding God as impersonal, without
   self-consciousness. The very idea of God, according to Origen, implies
   that He eternally manifests His perfections. He manifests them in the
   manifold life of the universe of created spirits, both angelic and
   human, and of the material world.

   But the perfections of God are chiefly manifested in the divine Word,
   through whom God created and still creates the world of spirits, which
   Origen believes to be eternal. The Word is thus the living link between
   the One and the manifold. This resembles the teaching of Philo and the
   Neo-Platonists, but it is nevertheless distinct from their teaching,
   for Origen regards the Word as truly personal. He perceives that within
   God's own life there must be a perfect expression of God's thought,
   otherwise the perfect Being would not be perfectly productive. The Word
   is incapable of change,'He is incorporeal. He is consubstantial with
   the Father. He is not a part of the substance of God but comes from Him
   as the will proceeds from the mind. As the perfect expression of the
   Father's mind He is (1) the summary of the ideas which God has of the
   world and (2) the eternal Son of God. Origen expressly denies that we
   may say that the Son did not always exist, or say that we are
   consubstantial with God.

   The begetting of the Son is not an act which has taken place once for
   all, it is a process which never ends. The Saviour is ever being
   begotten. [1] The process itself cannot be adequately described by
   human analogies, but is represented as both an act of the Father's will
   and the result of God's essence being what it is.

   Origen uses the word 'Trinity.' He asserts the eternity of the Holy
   Spirit. He describes the Word as finding his peculiar sphere of action
   in all rational life, while the sphere of the Spirit is the Church
   which He sanctifies. He speaks of the Son as less than the Father who
   begat Him, and the Spirit as less than the Son. [2] This refers to the
   manner in which the life of the Trinity is unfolded, and does not mean
   that the Son or Spirit are outside the Godhead in any way. It is
   wortliy of remark that (a) Origen does not perceive the function of the
   Holy Spirit in the life of the Trinity as clearly as He perceives that
   of the Word; (b) Origen seems to anticipate the later doctrine of the
   Western Church that the Spirit 'proceedeth from the Father and the
   Son.' He says 'The Holy Spirit came into being through the Word.' [3]

   Origen on Redemption. -- With regard to the redemption wrought by the
   Word, Origen says that the Word took a 'human nature.' He therefore
   calls Christ God-Man. [1] Christ became true man with a true body and
   soul. The Word, the body and the soul make a unity. Nevertheless the
   Word, altnough 'within the limitation of that man who appeared in
   Judaea,' was not deprived of His divine perfections. He continued on
   the throne of God even during His life on earth. Origen does not hold
   the Docetic views held by Clement; he asserts that the body and soul of
   Christ suffered. He speaks strongly of the importance of the atonement.
   It is not only an example, but a commencement of the destruction of the
   devil's power. It is also an expiation for sin. Like some other Fathers
   of the Church, Origen misinterprets Matt xx. 28, and thinks that the
   ransom paid by Christ was paid to the devil. He even represents the
   death of Christ as a deception of the devil performed by God, the devil
   having been permitted to think that he had a right over the human soul
   of Christ, inasmuch as the human race had succumbed to temptation.

   The Christ who suffered and made propitiation as our High-priest, is
   also 'the Head of all men.' Through Him we became the adopted sons of
   God, in heaven He continues the work of our purification. He still acts
   as High-priest, that henceforth 'human nature may become divine through
   communion with that which is more divine, not only in Jesus, but also
   in all those who both believe and take up the life which Jesus taught.'
   The work of atonement extends itself beyond the world of men into the
   world of spirits. After death, the wicked, and perhaps even the saints,
   will pass into the 'cleansing fire' of hell. This hell, Origen, like
   Clement, regards as consisting of the torments of conscience. Finally
   all spirits, good and evil, will be purged and rescued. Then will be
   the 'restoration of all things' (Acts iii.'21), when everything
   material and sinful will have ceased to be and God will be truly 'all
   in all.' According to Origen, the punishment of tne wicked, although
   very long, is in one sense not eternal. God will take from them the
   sense of shame and anguish. And yet in another sense their punishment
   may he said to be eternal, for they will not attain to the joy of
   seeing God face to face.

   Origen's writings were most attractive to thoughtful Christians during
   the third and fourth centuries, and have proved nearly as attractive to
   modem students. He was not only pious, zealous, and learned. He really
   perceived that the incarnation, if true, must be the central fact in
   the history of the world. A philosopher who had only laid stress upon
   the creative work of the divine Word or Reason would have transformed
   Christianity into Greek metaphysics. But Origen not only taught men
   about this creative work, but also taught men to value the human life
   of Christ in whom God condescends to reveal himself and to show us of
   what the human spirit is capable. And the language in which Origen
   expresses his thoughts is sometimes of great beauty, as when he speaks
   of Christ making 'an impression in our soul after the likeness of His
   wounds,' and says that 'we are justified by faith, but much more by the
   blood of Jesus.'

   Much of Origen's teaching with regard to the Trinity and the
   incarnation was agreeable to the mind of the Church, and was retained
   as a permanent possession. But there are three points which were
   objectionable and which caused difficulties : --

   1. Origen's doctrine of the function of the divine Word in creation
   seems to imply that the Son is eternal because creation is eternal. If
   we deny that creation is eternal we should be obliged, on Origen's
   principles, to deny that the Son is eternal. This was done in the
   fourth century by the Arians.

   2. His psychology implies that the highest element in man, his rational
   soul, existed from all eternity. The Word united himself with a
   material body by the medium of an unfallen eternal spirit, which had
   always obeyed God and chose to become a soul in order to further the
   work of redemption.

   3. The language of Origen is sometimes inaccurate and does not express
   his real convictions in an adequate manner. Thus, although he is a
   strong Monotheist, he speaks of the Son as a 'second God,' [1] and
   although he plainly asserts the eternal generation of the Son, he calls
   Him a 'creature.' [2] When he says that the Father and the Son are 'two
   in hypostasis, but one in unanimity and agreement and identity of
   Will,' he uses words which agree more with Arianism than with
   Catholicism. But we must remember that it was not until the fourth
   century that the phrase 'union of will' was perversely used in
   contradistinction to 'union of essence,' and also that the word
   'hypostasis' in Origen is already losing its ancient significance of
   'essence' and tending towards the later meaning of 'person.'

   Monarchianism and the Fatherhood of God. -- The Apologists and Origen
   had done much to show the reasonable character of the Catholic faith
   and to vindicate the doctrine of Christ's Divinity. But such
   expressions as 'second God' naturally aroused suspicions in the minds
   of men who appreciated the value of monotheism. More than this, some of
   the most orthodox statements about the eternal personality of the Word
   seemed to ignorant Christians to imply a belief in two or three Gods.
   They were unable to conceive that the life of God contains an eternal
   revelation of the highest moral relationship. So we are told by
   Tertullian that 'some simple people, not to say foolish and
   uneducated,' after being brought over from polytheism to believe in one
   true God, 'assert that we preach two or three gods but pretend that
   they are really worshippers of one God; they say, we hold the
   Monarchia.'

   This word Monarchia signifies the 'sole rule' of the first person of
   the Trinity, and Monarchianism became the most dangerous heresy of the
   third century. The phrase, 'we hold the Monarchia,' like the modern
   phrase, 'we are Unitarian Christians,' quietly suggested that Catholic
   Christianity was polytheism, and although Monarchianism found most of
   its supporters among the ignorant, it had its prophets among the clever
   and cultured. Widely as the two great schools of Monarchians differed,
   they both agreed that no real Fatherhood had eternally existed in the
   nature of God. They both denied that Christ was from eternity the Son
   of God. And thus, like modem Unitarians, they refused to admit that
   perfect fatherly love and divine submission to that love always existed
   in the life of God. Modalist Monarchianism. -- This was the more
   popular of the two forms of Monarchianism. It regarded the holy Trinity
   as the three different modes in which the One divine person manifested
   himself. It is assumed that Christ is essentially divine. The Son was
   ordinarily taught to be simply the Father made manifest. Thus St.
   Hippolytus (died about 235) accuses this heresy of maintaining that
   'the Father is called also by the name of Son according to a change of
   times . . . confessing him- self to be the Son unto those who saw Him,
   but not having concealed that He was the Father unto those who could
   receive it.' TertuUian gave to these Monarchians the name of
   'Patripassians,' i,e, those who teach that the Father suffered.

   Tertullian, Origen, Novatian, and especially St. Hippolytus, were the
   ablest opponents of this theory.

   It was introduced into Rome in the time of Pope Victor (189-198) by
   Praxeas, who afterwards went to found a sect in Africa. He taught that
   the Father and the Son were the same person, but in attempting to
   explain him- self he said that in Jesus Christ there was a man who was
   'the Son' and that this was Jesus, and also a Spirit who was 'the
   Father,' and that this was Christ, The Popes Victor, Zephyrinus and
   Callistus were considered favourable to Patripassianism. The case of
   Victor is doubtful, but Zephyrinus appears to have been inclined to
   this heresy, and Callistus taught much the same as Praxeas.

   Noetus of Smyrna and certain of his disciples had a large following at
   Rome at this period. Noetus taught Patripassianism in its simplest and
   barest form. 'He said that Christ himself was the Father, and that the
   Father himself was born, and suffered, and died.' [1] He accepted the
   Gospel of St John, but asserted that the statements about the eternal
   Word were merely figurative and allegorical. His disciple Cleomenes
   held the theory that God is both invisible and visible and that when
   visible He is the Son. It is very probable that these teachers
   sincerely desired to maintain the great truth that it was God himself
   who chose to share man's griefs and trials, but it cannot be denied
   that their theory undermines some of the most important truths of the
   Gospel. There are reasons for thinking that their conception of God was
   influenced by the philosophy of the Stoics.

   Sabellius taught the most complete and systematic form of Medalist
   Monarchianism. He appears to have been connected with the district of
   Pentapolis in Libya, and lectured in Rome in the days of Zephyrinus and
   Callistus. His influence was so important that Catholics in the East
   generally called Modalist Monarchians 'Sabellians.' He advanced beyond
   Noetus by giving a definite place in the Godhead to the Holy Spirit.
   Moreover, by teaching that the three divine persons are three distinct
   activities, he made a nearer approach to Catholic doctrine than Noetus.
   But the likeness between Sabellianism and Catholicism was only
   superficial. Sabellius was strictly Modalist. He held that God is a
   unit, and that as Father God is the Creator and Law-giver, as Son He is
   Redeemer, as Spirit He is the Giver of life and holiness. These modes
   of God's life were taught to be manifested successively and not
   simultaneously. They were called prosopa, a word which the Catholics
   sometimes employed to describe the different persons of the Trinity,
   but which Sabellius used in the sense of a transitory manifestation. He
   described God by the uncouth word Huiopator, Son-Father. Pope
   Callistus, in spite of his leaning towards Monarchianism,
   excommunicated Sabellius.

   It is important to notice that the central idea of this doctrine was
   accepted by Schleiermacher, an eminent German preacher and writer of
   the early part of the nineteenth century. Schleiermacher became the
   founder of a large school of German theologians, who have used
   Christian phrases about the Trinity and the incarnation while rejecting
   the ancient and legitimate meaning of such phrases. Even in England we
   may discern a tendency towards Sabellianism in shallow explanations of
   the Trinity as 'God in nature, God in history, and God in the
   conscience,' or in the statement that we preserve the doctrine of the
   Trinity if we recognise that God has revealed himself as Power, Wisdom,
   and Love, while denying that these three essential activities eternally
   knew and loved each other in a personal relationship.

   Adoptionist Monarchianism.--This agrees with Modalist Monarchianism in
   holding that there is only one person in the Godhead. Its peculiarity
   is the theory that Jesus became the adopted Son of God, a divine power
   having been bestowed upon Him. It is assumed that Christ is essentially
   human. This heresy was brought to Rome by Theodotus, a tanner from
   Byzantium. He was expelled from the Church by Pope Victor about 190 or
   earlier. As St. Hippolytus shows that Theodotus taught that Jesus was
   only a human prophet on whom the Spirit, otherwise called Christ,
   descended at His baptism, [1] we can safely assert that the view held
   by Theodotus as to 'the rule of faith' was very different from the view
   held by Catholic Christians. His heresy is often called Psilanthropisin
   (i.e. the doctrine that our Lord is 'mere man').

   Another Theodotus, by profession a banker, taught the same doctrine at
   Rome in the time of Pope Zephyrinus. Christ, he said, was a 'mere man'
   who received the Holy Spirit as His baptism, and so became exalted to a
   quasidivine rank. Some of the followers of Theodotus believed that
   Christ became completely deified after His resurrection. Others denied
   this, and thought that He never was really God at all. The Theodotians
   affirmed that the apostles themselves had taught as they did, and that
   the truth of the Gospel-message had been kept until the times of
   Victor! In spite of the grotesque character of this assertion, it has
   been utilised by eminent modern Rationalists who have misunderstood the
   teaching of Hermas as Adoptionist, and endeavoured to establish a chain
   of Adoptionist teaching between the apostles and the Theodotians.

   Artemon who died about 270 was the last important teacher of
   Adoptionist Monarchianism in Rome.

   Paul of Samosata stands out as the greatest representative of this
   school of thought. He was a Syrian and was bishop of Antioch, one of
   the most magnificent and populous cities in the empire, and was partly
   responsible both for the long-lived ecclesiastical jealousies between
   Antioch and Alexandria, and also for the Arian controversies of the
   fourth century.

   Paul of Samosata taught that there was in God only one prosopon or
   person. The Word was only an impersonal power of God, just as the
   reason of any man is impersonal. This Word dwelt, or rather acted, in
   the prophets, especially Moses. In Jesus, the Child of the Virgin Mary,
   this Word dwelt in a peculiar degree. The Word however dwelt in Jesus,
   not essentially but as a quality. That is, Jesus was only a prophet
   more inspired than other prophets. At His baptism Jesus was anointed by
   the Holy Ghost and His nature became still more divine after His
   resurrection. He therefore became divine progressively, His progress
   being the reward of His love and obedience to God. He might be called
   'God,' and be said to have 'one will with God.' These expressions were
   nevertheless only metaphorical. The real meaning of Paul of Samosata
   was that 'the Saviour was connected with God.' He consistently tried to
   put down the use of chants which implied the real Divinity of Christ.

   His fellow-bishops regarded his doctrines with natural horror, and
   three successive synods were held at Antioch to consider his case. The
   last synod was held in 268 or 269, and it is known that it rejected the
   word homo-ousios, consubstantial, as applied to the Son. St. Hilary and
   St. Athanasius differ in their account of this circumstance. Athanasius
   suggests that the word was rejected by the Catholics because Paul said
   that they used it in a materialising sense; Hilary leads us to suppose
   that Paul used it to imply that the Word was an impersonal attribute of
   the Father, and that the Catholics therefore condemned it.

   In 272 the Emperor Aurelian took from Paul the ecclesiastical property
   of the Church of Antioch. But his influence was by no means at an end.
   His pupil, Lucian of Antioch, who was martyred in 312, changed the
   doctrine of Paul of Samosata by teaching that the Word who dwelt in
   Jesus was a semi-divine creature, a kind of demigod, and not an
   impersonal influence of the Father. He admitted that there was another
   Word which was the impersonal reason of God. This theory was so simple
   that it won acceptance, and among the hearers of Lucian who embraced
   this paganised Christianity were Arias and Eusebius of Nicomedia.

   Something more similar to the original teaching of Paul lingered in
   some districts of the East. The Acts of the dispute of Archelaus and
   Manes, a document of the early part of the fourth century, is
   Adoptionist in its Christology, and the sect of the Pauliani was
   well-known in that century. It is more than probable that the notorious
   sect of the Paulicians, which spread over part of Europe during the
   Middle Ages, and had a few Armenian adherents even in the nineteenth
   century, was named after the great Syrian bishop. The word 'Paulician'
   is Armenian in form, and it seems that in the ninth century, or rather
   earlier, an Armenian named Smbat revived a crude form of the teaching
   of Paul of Samosata, and secured a host of followers among the less
   cultivated Armenians.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1] Strom. v. 1. 1.

   [1] Strom. ii. 16. 74.

   [1] Cf. In Hierem. Hom. ix. 4; De Pr, i. 2. 4.

   [2] De Pr. i. 3. 5.

   [3] In Joh. ii. 6.

   [1] De Pr. ii. 6. 3.

   [1] c. Cels. v. 39.

   [2] Quoted by Justinian, L. xxi. 482, Anm, 3; cf. in Joh, i. 22.

   [1] Hipp. c. Noet. 1.

   [1] Philos. vii. 35.
     __________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER VI

  DOCTRINE OF THE SACRAMENTS BEFORE A.D. 325

   Sacraments.--In the old Latin Bible the Greek word 'mystery' was
   translated by the word 'sacramentum,' which meant a sacred obligation.
   The word sacramentum thus acquired the meaning of 'sacred ordinance.'
   It was probably used at a very early date by the Christians who spoke
   Latin to denote all the most sacred and secret elements of religion. In
   the letter written about the Christians by Pliny to the Emperor Trajan
   in 112, the word 'sacramentum' is used in a manner which suggests that
   the Christians, though not Pliny himself, already applied it to the
   Eucharist. [1] By the year 200 its use was quite established.
   Tertullian applies it to anything especially important in God's
   revelation to man. Baptism and the Eucharist having been expressly
   instituted by our Lord, were closely associated in the minds of
   Christians. Thus Tertullian speaks of 'the Sacrament of Baptism and of
   the Eucharist.' As St. Paul had spoken of the revealed secrets of God
   as 'mysteries' and called the apostles 'stewards of God's mysteries,'
   the Fathers of the Church continued his practice. Some external
   similarities between the pagan mysteries of initiation and the
   Sacraments instituted by Christ caused a development of this manner of
   speech, and some writers, notably Clement of Alexandria, poetically
   describe the rites of baptism in words appropriate to the mysteries of
   Eleusis.

   There is however no proof that either the doctrine or the ritual of the
   Christian Sacraments was permanently affected by the pagan mysteries.
   The Rationalistic attempts to prove that this was the case have been
   based upon an imperfect knowledge of the antiquity of Christian ritual,
   and upon a neglect of the fact that in all forms of religion there is a
   certain similarity caused by the natural instincts of the human heart.
   The fact that the Greek Fathers speak of the Sacraments in language
   derived from pagan devotion proves very little. St. Peter and St. Paul
   had done the same, and it was almost impossible for any cultured man
   who spoke Greek to do otherwise.

   M. Renan and others have attempted to show that the influence of the
   pagan mysteries entered Christianity through the door of Gnosticism.
   Renan says: 'It is by Gnosticism that Christianity first announced
   itself as a new religion, destined to endure, having a worship and
   Sacraments, and capable of producing an art. It is by Gnosticism that
   the Church united itself with the ancient mysteries, and appropriated
   the elements in them which satisfied the people.' [1] Such statements
   are unproved, and worse than unproved. For it is certain that Christian
   worship and Sacraments occupied a position of high importance long
   before Gnosticism of a Greek type was fashionable, i.e. from A.D. 125
   to A.D. 150. And such evidence as exists with regard to special points
   of ritual, suggests that the Gnostics parodied the worship of the
   Church, and not that the Church imitated the mummery of the Gnostics.

   A real instance of ancient ritual being accepted by the Church is to be
   found in the Christian Marriage service. Marriage being both a civil
   ceremony and a religious ceremony, it was to be expected that some of
   the old ceremonies would be tolerated. The betrothal, the giving of the
   ring, the dowry of worldly goods, the bridal veil, and the floral
   wreath, are all derived from pagan Rome. But everything directly
   religious in the pagan ritual was displaced, and the doctrine of
   Christian marriage remained intact.

   Number of the Sacraments.--As the word 'mystery' and the word
   'sacrament' were both used in a wide sense, so as to include any of the
   deep things revealed by God in Christ, it follows that the early
   Christians could not speak of 'two' or 'seven' Sacraments in the modern
   fashion. It was not until the twelfth century that Hugh of St. Victor
   and Roland, and still more clearly Peter the Lombard, reckoned seven
   Sacraments. Hugh and Peter spoke of Baptism and the Eucharist as the
   principal Sacraments, and in this they retained the spirit, if not the
   letter, of the early Fathers of the Church. These two Sacraments
   certainly far outweighed all other rites in the estimation of the early
   Christians, as is shown by St. Augustine and previous writers. It is
   possible that Confirmation would have been placed in nearly as high a
   position, if Confirmation had not been usually administered immediately
   after Baptism and included in the baptismal service itself.

   Baptism.--The abundant teaching contained in the New Testament with
   reference to Baptism removed the necessity of much discussion as to the
   nature of its effects. St. Paul had plainly taught that Baptism alters
   the spiritual status of the baptized, cancelling his past sins, and
   imparting a power of divine life. It is the laver of regeneration (Tit.
   iii. 5). Baptism was in the name of the Three Persons of the Trinity
   (Didache vii.). In this book, immersion is regarded as the best method
   of baptizing, but to pour water upon the head is sufficient. In the
   Epistle of Barnabas, Christian Baptism is distinguished from Jewish
   Baptism, inasmuch as the former alone 'bringeth remission of sins.'
   Justin speaks of the baptized as 'recreated,' and calls Baptism 'the
   bath for remission of sins and unto regeneration' (Apol. i. 66).
   Ignatius also regards Baptism as a defence against future sin--'let
   your Baptism remain your shields.'

   In Hermas we have the poetical idea that the Church is built upon
   waters (3 Vis. iii.), and the author regards Baptism as so necessary
   that he thinks that those who died before the coming of Christ were
   baptized in Hades by the apostles and the teachers of Christianity.

   Hermas calls Baptism the 'seal,' a word which had been used by St. John
   in the Apocalypse to describe the mark given to the tested followers of
   our Lord. Justin calls Baptism an 'enlightenment,' the author of the
   Epistle to the Hebrews having previously spoken of those initiated into
   Christianity as 'enlightened.' The words 'seal' and 'enlightenment'
   were used by the pagans in connection with their mysteries. Clement of
   Alexandria says: 'Being baptized we are enlightened, being enlightened
   we are made sons, being made sons we are made perfect, being made
   perfect we are made immortal.' [1] It will be observed that such
   language has a very Greek flavour, but that each phrase can
   nevertheless find a parallel in the New Testament.

   Origen calls Baptism 'the first remission of sins.' [2] In studying
   Penitence we shall see how the Church decided to grant absolution for
   sins committed after Baptism, sins which were regarded as infinitely
   more serious than those committed before Baptism, inasmuch as the
   latter were committed in ignorance, and before 'the knowledge of God'
   was gained.

   Infant Baptism probably dates from apostolic times. There are good
   grounds for thinking that when the Jews baptized their proselytes they
   baptized their children also. Justin compares baptism with
   circumcision, which suggests that it was administered to children.
   Irenaeus definitely mentions Infant Baptism. [3] About A.D. 190 Clement
   of Alexandria speaks of 'babes drawn out of the water,' and apparently
   refers to Infant Baptism. [4] Origen both compares Baptism with
   circumcision and says, 'The Church has received it as a tradition from
   the apostles to administer Baptism even to infants' (parvuli). [5]

   The Eucharist as a Sacrament--The Church constantly maintained the
   teaching of St. Paul that to partake of the consecrated bread and wine
   is to partake of the body and blood of Christ. The outward symbols were
   not regarded merely as symbols but as the channel or vehicle for
   imparting the life of Christ to the believer. Although the Didache
   gives us a rather meagre idea of belief, even here the Eucharist is
   thought to be connected with a special presence of Christ, as is
   suggested by the use of the words Maran atha (the Lord cometh) and the
   thanksgiving at the communion, 'Thou didst bestow upon us spiritual
   food and drink and eternal life through Thy Son.' Wherever apostolic
   traditions were strong and the doctrine of the incarnation was
   intelligently grasped, a definite belief as to the Eucharist prevailed.
   The language of our Lord in John vi. had a marked influence in the
   creation of this belief.

   So Ignatius (ad Eph. xx.) says, 'breaking one bread, which is the
   medicine of immortality, and he reproaches the Docetists, who denied
   the reality of the incarnation, because 'they abstain from Eucharist
   and prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh
   of our Saviour Jesus Christ' (ad Smyrn. vi.). In the same way Justin
   says, 'We have been taught that this food (over which thanks have been
   offered by the word of prayer which comes from Him, and on which our
   blood and flesh are nourished by a transformation) is the flesh and
   blood of that Jesus who was made flesh; (Apol. i. 66). In these
   statements of Ignatius and Justin we see that the Eucharist is regarded
   (a) as a guarantee of the incarnation, a symbol of the union between
   the human and the divine nature of Christ, and (b) as a guarantee of
   the cleansing and resurrection of the Christian's body.

   This is very clearly stated by Ireneeus: 'It is no longer common bread
   but the Eucharist, composed of two things, an earthly and a heavenly;
   thus also our bodies partaking of the Eucharist are no longer mortal,
   but have the hope of the resurrection' (adv. Haer. iv. 18. 5). These
   doctrines are sometimes represented by modern writers as magical and
   superstitious; but if we grant that the writings attributed to St. Paul
   and St. John are genuine, it is hard to deny that the doctrines are
   apostolic, and it is equally hard to represent them as inconsistent
   with the apostolic doctrine of Christ's person. The teaching of
   Tertullian is fundamentally the same as that of Irenseus, and his
   belief is misrepresented when he is said to hold that the Eucharist is
   only a figure of the body of Christ.

   The teaching of Clement of Alexandria and Origen is less clear, being
   affected by their allegorical method of interpreting religious facts.
   Clement says that the Eucharist brings man to immortality and to a
   union between the human spirit and the divine Logos. But he seems to
   regard the body of Christ in the Eucharist as itself a spirit (Paed.
   ii. 2. 20). In the same way Origen quite simply says, "We eat loaves
   which have become through prayer a certain holy body which also
   sanctifies those who use it with sound intention' (c. Cels. viii. 33).
   But he elsewhere speaks of the body and blood of Christ received in the
   Eucharist as 'the word which nourishes and the word which rejoices the
   heart' (in Matt. Comm. Ser. 85). It is therefore difficult to determine
   what precise meaning Clement and Origen attached to holy communion, but
   they believed that the communicant receives 'the divine Word,' i.e. the
   Divinity of Christ, or a word from the Word. They did not believe that
   the Christian only receives Christ figuratively, but on the other hand
   they did not state with sufficient clearness that the Christian
   partakes of the flesh of Christ. This is the result of their doctrine
   of Christ's person in which Christ is too exclusively regarded as
   belonging to the sphere of spirits. We may say that Clement and Origen
   imagined in the Eucharist a mystery behind the mystery discerned by
   their predecessors, for they regarded the elements not simply as united
   with the flesh and blood of Christ but with a flesh and blood which are
   divine energies.

   The Eucharist as a Sacrifice.-- The Eucharist from very early times was
   habitually called a sacrifice, although very little attempt was made to
   define the word 'sacrifice.' The Ante-Nicene writers agree in regarding
   the Eucharist as a sacrifice in which we offer the first fruits of
   earth with thanksgiving for all that God has done for us, and
   consecrate these first-fruits so that they become Christ's body and
   blood, and thereby we make a memorial not merely of His death but of
   Him. During the Middle Ages there arose a tendency to lay such stress
   upon the passion of Christ as to forget His ascended life, and side by
   side with this tendency grew the habit of connecting the Eucharist
   almost entirely with the death of Christ. This habit passed from
   mediaeval Catholicism into Protestantism, but it was generally absent
   in the early Church. The ancient liturgies do not isolate the passion
   of Christ but connect it with His resurrection [1] and ascension. Thus
   they are in harmony with St. Ambrose (died A.D. 397) and other later
   writers who teach that the Eucharist is neither a bare commemoration of
   the death of Christ nor a repetition of that deaths but is the
   co-operation with Christ's present intercession and His offering of
   himself to God in heaven.

   The most ancient references to the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist
   are in 1 Cor. x. 14-22 and, probably, Hebr. xiii. 10. The theory that
   the word 'altar' in the latter passage has reference to the Lord's
   Supper is supported by the use of the word in a passage in Ignatius:
   'There is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup unto union in
   His blood; there is one altar, as there is one bishop; (ad Philad.
   iv.). Clement also teaches this doctrine in a very simple form when he
   says that it is the duty of the Christian clergy 'to offer the gifts,'
   i.e. oblations (ad Cor. 44). In the Didache xiv. the Eucharist is
   called a sacrifice and is described as the pure offering foretold in
   Malachi i. Justin also quotes this prophecy, and calls the Eucharist
   'the bread which our Christ delivered unto us to offer for a memorial
   of His incarnation' (Dial. 70). Irenaeus, like Justin, believes that
   our Lord intended that His disciples should offer up the bread which is
   made the body of Christ and the cup which is made His blood. Tertullian
   and the Canons of Hippopolytus show us that about A.D. 200 the
   Eucharist was offered for the departed.

   These writers, however, are content to describe the elements as
   offered, and do little towards defining in what sense, if any, the
   Eucharist is offered after it has been consecrated.

   St. Cyprian (died A.D. 258) seems to go somewhat further. He says:
   'That priest acts in the place of Christ who imitates that which Christ
   did, and then offers in the Church to God the Father a true and perfect
   sacrifice' (Ep. 63. 14). But it is wrong to suppose that Cyprian
   represents the Eucharist as a repetition of the death of Christ, or to
   suppose that his words countenance the theory of some Roman writers
   that the essence of the Eucharistic sacrifice is that Christ in the
   Sacrament submits to a new 'self-emptying' or annihilation. Cyprian
   says: 'The passion is the sacrifice of the Lord which we offer" (Ep.
   63. 17), and though he speaks of 'offering the blood' he also speaks of
   'offering the chalice in commemoration of the Lord.' He apparently
   means that in the Eucharist we offer the blood which was once shed, and
   plead the merits of Christ's passion. In spite of the fact that he is
   now ordinarily regarded as having introduced a marked change into the
   doctrine of the Eucharist, we must conclude that his teaching shows but
   little development. Nor does his doctrine of the priesthood exclude the
   participation of the laity in the offering of the Eucharist. For he
   both speaks very plainly of the union of 'the people' with Christ in
   the Eucharist, and also by saying 'we offer' seems to allow all the
   faithful a share in the sacrificial work. This participation of the
   laity in the act of offering the sacrifice is expressed with great
   clearness in the Roman canon of the mass and in the present Anglican
   service.

   Penitence.--While it was held from the first that Baptism was the means
   of obtaining remission of sins committed before conversion, the
   treatment of sins committed after Baptism underwent a gradual change.
   In the apostolic age it was found that some Christians might sin so
   gravely as to lose eternal life (1 John iii. 15). They might be guilty
   of crucifying Christ afresh (Hebr. vi. 6). While they continued in such
   sin it was impossible 'to renew them again unto repentance'; they were
   excommunicated, and Christians were forbidden to eat with them (1 Cor.
   v. 5, 11). It would even seem that after a man was excommunicated the
   Christians hesitated to pray for him. He was regarded as beyond the
   reach of prayer (1 John v. 16).

   Stringent as this discipline was, the truly penitent sinner might be
   received again (2 Cor. ii. 7). Even in the case of less serious
   offences some kind of confession of sins was usual. St. James tells his
   readers to confess their sins one to another and pray one for another.
   In the New Testament to 'confess sins' does not only mean to
   acknowledge them to God, but to acknowledge them openly in the face of
   men.¹ In the Didache xiv. the communicants are to confess their sins
   'in order that your sacrifice may be pure.' St. Clement urges the need
   of confessing transgressions to the divine Master (ad Cor. 52; cf.
   Barnabas xix.). The author of 2 Clement joins confession with
   repentance, urging that the craftsman may reshape a twisted vessel, but
   that he cannot mend it after he has once cast it into the fiery oven.
   That these confessions were sometimes made in public is shown in the
   Didache iv.: 'In church thou shalt confess thy transgressions.'
   Sometimes the confession was made to God only, as in Hermas 3 Vis. i.

   It is clearly the purpose of Hermas to aid the Church by advising that
   a sinner should be allowed to be reconciled with the Church after one
   relapse, but not after a second relapse. It is presupposed that the
   Church intervenes. About A.D. 250 the penitent first made his
   confession privately to the bishop or a presbyter, who took care that
   the discipline enjoined was proportionate to the sin. A private
   confession seems also to be implied at an earlier date by Tertulian.
   From Irenseus (adv. Haer. i. 13. 5) and Tertullian we gather that the
   public discipline was accompanied by signs of self-abasement. The
   penitents asked the presbyters and martyrs for the prayers of the
   assembled Church. The more scrupulous Christians doubted whether the
   Church ought to grant absolution for idolatry, blasphemy, murder, false
   witness, fraud, adultery, fornication, 'and any other violation of the
   temple of God.' In some places, such as Carthage and Corinth,
   absolution was granted to the penitent after one

   ¹ See Westcott on 1 John i. 9. But the word 'confess' in Biblical Greek
   is also used for confession to God only. relapse into such sins. At
   Rome, however, the Church appears to have been more rigid. When Pope
   Callistus, A.D. 218, offered to grant absolution to those who repented
   of adultery or fornication, he was bitterly criticised by Hippolytus
   and Tertulian. The Montanists, in particular, regarded absolution for
   such sins as a shameless condescension to human weakness. Callistus and
   his supporters appealed with great fitness to the action of St. Paul at
   Corinth, to Christ's forgiveness of the adulteress, and to the parable
   of the prodigal son. Callistus had no intention of condoning sin, or
   even of granting absolution twice to the Christian who had fallen into
   such gross sins.

   About 250 the persecution of the Church by Decius led to a new
   development in the ministry of penitence. During the persecution many
   Christians lapsed, and the question arose whether these lapsi who had
   denied the faith ought to be received back into communion with the
   Church. St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, is the man whose history and
   genius are most closely connected with this controversy. He set his
   face against (i) the rigorist theory that no absolution should be
   granted for apostasy, and (ii) the lax theory that a repentant apostate
   ought to be admitted again to communion if he received a recommendation
   from a Confessor, i.e. a Christian who had conspicuously suffered for
   the faith.

   In spite of furious opposition Cyprian and the Church of Rome succeeded
   in carrying their point, and the absolution of sins became definitely
   regulated by means of a procedure approved by the bishops. Penitentiary
   presbyters were appointed by the bishops to receive confessions and
   direct the discipline of penitents. In the fourth century we find that
   this discipline corresponded closely with the discipline imposed on the
   catechumens who were being prepared for baptism. The party of Novatian,
   which insisted that the Church ought not to pardon apostates, left the
   Church and organised a powerful sect in 251.

   Those modern writers who exaggerate the so-called sacerdotalism of
   Cyprian, declare that he secured the triumph of an unprimitive and
   unscriptural theory of the episcopate and of the Church. But Cyprian
   certainly does not attribute more authority to the episcopate than that
   which is attributed to the bishops by Ignatius and claimed by St. Paul
   for himself. It may be urged with fairness that to forgive apostasy
   seems to imply a forgetfulness of the truth that baptism means that the
   Christian has for ever dissociated himself from paganism. But the same
   argument holds good with regard to other mortal sins. If St. Paul and
   Callistus were right in allowing a Christian who had been guilty of
   impurity to be restored to communion with the Church, then Cyprian was
   right in allowing even an apostate 'a second plank' on which those who
   had made shipwreck of their lives might be saved.

   The public penance which the Church required to be performed by those
   whose sins had been public, became rare after the end of the eleventh
   century, as it caused more scandal than edification.

   It should be observed that the present Roman doctrine of Indulgences
   differs totally from the original conception. In the fourth century
   absolution was occasionally granted to a penitent before he had passed
   through the discipline ordinarily required. This was the only
   indulgence granted. But the present practice of the Roman Church is to
   say that inasmuch as the penance or discipline is not always enough to
   make satisfaction for the sin committed, the penitent ought to try,
   after his sin has been forgiven, to gain an Indulgence, i.e. remission
   of the temporal punishment due to sin. These Indulgences are granted
   for certain periods of time, so that the penitent who gains an
   Indulgence of one hundred days is reckoned as having endured an
   equivalent of one hundred days of such discipline as was anciently
   required before absolution was granted. Nevertheless, the penitent is
   required to perform the penance imposed upon him, whatever Indulgences
   he may gain.

   Confirmation.--Baptism was immediately followed by the laying on of
   hands on the part of the bishop. The candidates were also anointed on
   the head with perfumed oil. Both these rites are mentioned by
   Tertullian about A.D. 200. In A.D. 251 Cornelius, bishop of Rome,
   explains that this laying on of hands communicates the holy Spirit and
   must follow Baptism. A similar statement is made by one of the bishops
   who acted with Cyprian. Until the thirteenth century children were
   confirmed as soon as possible after Baptism. The necessity of baptizing
   by priests in the absence of a bishop led to the present custom of the
   Eastern Church, in which Confirmation consists in the anointing of the
   child by a priest with oil which has been consecrated by the bishop.
   The ordinary Roman Catholic practice for a bishop, when confirming a
   large number of candidates, merely to extend his hand towards them, and
   not to lay his hand upon them, does not appear to have become general
   until after the Reformation.

   Holy Orders.--In this small book it is impossible to make more than the
   briefest references to such a subject as the doctrine of the ministry.
   We may, however, observe that the belief that the apostles instituted a
   permanent threefold ministry depends mainly upon a belief in the
   authenticity of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles to Timothy
   and Titus. These books make it evident that the apostles instituted the
   order of deacons and the order of presbyters, and that above these two
   orders there were officials who were either apostles or delegates of
   the apostles. All the ancient Churches of Christendom retain this type
   of government, which is known as Episcopacy, a name derived from the
   Greek word episkopos, or overseer, which was originally a title of the
   presbyters, but was afterwards given to the highest order of the
   clergy. At the present day the opponents of Episcopacy are divided
   among themselves, and their theories are even more antagonistic to one
   another than to Episcopacy. They all admit that the Episcopal system
   appears to have been dominant almost everywhere about A.D. 170, but
   hold that at the end of the first century the government of the Church
   was either (1) Presbyterian, the presbyters forming the highest class
   of officials, or (2) Democratic or Congregational, varying according to
   the pleasure and necessities of the various communities.

   The writers who support the Presbyterian theory have failed hitherto to
   produce one clear case of the presbyters ruling a primitive Church. The
   only two instances which seem to favour their view being (a) the fact
   that St. Polycarp in writing to the Philippians about A.D. 110 only
   mentions presbyters and deacons, and no bishop, at Philippi; and (6)
   the fact that St. Jerome, late in the fourth century, states that in
   early times the presbyters of Alexandria 'nominated' their own bishop.
   It cannot be said with complete certainty that Jerome thought that this
   nomination included ordination, but it is possible that he meant this.

   Both these facts are very far from conclusive. For to say that there
   was no superior at Philippi above the presbyters when Polycarp wrote is
   very different from proving that these presbyters were not under a
   superior. And there are statements in Origen and elsewhere which make
   it very unlikely that Jerome could say with accuracy that the bishop of
   Alexandria derived his commission from his presbyters.

   The writers who support any Congregational theory of the ministry rely
   mainly upon the variations in the names of the ministers of the Church
   described in different parts of the New Testament. Some deny that the
   presbyters mentioned in the New Testament were officials at all. Some,
   including prominent continental Rationalists, find that their theory is
   quite incompatible with the genuineness of Acts and some of St. Paul's
   Epistles, and reject these writings chiefly on this ground. So much
   fresh evidence has recently been produced in favour of the genuineness
   of Acts, and the later Epistles attributed to St. Paul show a state of
   affairs so much in harmony with their traditional date, that it is now
   as unreasonable to reject these writings as it is unreasonable to
   reject those of St. Ignatius. Ignatius speaks of a threefold ministry
   in the most distinct terms. While mentioning presbyters and deacons, he
   regards bishops as essential in the Church and speaks of them as
   'established in the farthest parts of the earth.'

   To sum up. In Acts we have the apostles above the presbyters or
   episkopoi. In the Epistles to Timothy and Titus (about A.D. 62-67), in
   St. Clement A.D. 97, in the Didache perhaps near the same date, in St.
   Ignatius A.D. 110, in Hermas about A.D. 140, we find the presbyters are
   always under superior officials who were gradually given the title of
   episkopoi when it seemed unnecessary to use this title for the
   presbyters themselves. We also find that in the latter part of the
   second century Episcopacy was firmly established in regions where
   apostolic traditions were most faithfully preserved, and we have lists
   of the early bishops of Jerusalem, Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria,
   together with information about bishops in Smyrna, Ephesus, and
   Corinth, which go to prove that Episcopacy is an apostolic institution.
   We should finally add that ancient writers, and notably St. Clement,
   hold fast to the principle of Apostolical Succession. They assume that
   the ministers of the Church receive power to act as the representatives
   of man to God and as 'stewards of God's mysteries' through the
   laying-on of hands by the apostles. [1]

   The nature of some of the functions discharged by the clergy has
   already been indicated in the account of Baptism, Penitence, and the
   Eucharist. During the second century their duties of teaching and
   preaching seem to have been enlarged. This was partly caused by the
   fact that there was a diminution of those 'prophets,' whose office, as
   the name indicates, had been to 'tell forth' the divine message to the
   first Christians (see 1 Cor. xiv.).

   Marriage.--The teaching of our Lord and His apostles raised Marriage to
   a level entirely different from that which it occupied among the Jews
   and the pagans of the Roman Empire. Some Jews married more than one
   wife, and many divorced their wives on the most trivial pretexts. The
   increase of divorce among the Romans was very marked, and the general
   moral tone among both Greeks and Romans was most degraded and
   unnatural. The Church proclaimed that marriage between Christians is
   indissoluble, and is of that sacred character which belongs to the
   union between Christ and His Church. This immediately brought
   Christianity into sharp antagonism both with popular licentiousness and
   with the exaggerated asceticism which was preached by some philosophers
   and sectaries. The Apologists give us some valuable information on this
   subject, and show how the Church had to denounce not only open vice,
   but also the conduct of pagans who, when married, used iniquitous means
   to avoid the responsibilities caused by marriage. The Christians in
   some quarters viewed a second marriage with dislike, and thus laid upon
   the laity a restriction which seems originally to have only affected
   the clergy. [1] The Montanists altogether prohibited second marriages.

   Anointing of the Sick.--The anointing of the sick by the presbyters of
   the Church is prescribed in St. James v. 15. There can be no reasonable
   doubt that this text would be considered a sufficient authority for
   making the rite general, but until the fifth century we have little
   evidence for its use among Catholics, except in a letter written to the
   Armenians by Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, about A.D. 330. This letter
   only exists in an Armenian translation, but is probably genuine.
   Irenaeus shows us that the Gnostics employed this ceremony as a means
   of assuring the dying of forgiveness, and Origen also alludes to their
   practice. In spite of the fact that some of the prayers used at the
   administration of this rite are intercessions for the recovery of the
   sick person, the habit of postponing its administration until the hour
   of death has been common in Western Europe. Thus a rite which has full
   scriptural authority has become popularly perverted into a resemblance
   of a Gnostic 'mystery.' There is every reason why this abuse should be
   corrected by a widespread revival of the primitive custom. In our own
   day this anointing has been restored among Anglicans and among the
   Armenians who are subject to Rome.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1] As the service included an undertaking to obey God's Commandments,
   this 'Sacrament' was possibly Baptism.

   [1] L'Eglise Chrétienne, p. 155.

   [1] Paed. i. 6. 26.

   [2] In Lev. Hom. ii. 4.

   [3] Adv. Haer. ii. 22. 4; cf. Greek Fragment, 33.

   [4] Paed, iii. 11. 59.

   [5] Ep. ad Rom. Lib. v. 9 ; in Lev. Hom. viii. 3

   [1] St. Cyprian, Ep. 63. 16, says that whereas Christ offered the
   Eucharist in the evening, Christians offer it in the morning in
   commemoration of the resurrection.

   [1] 2 Tim. i. 6; Acts xiv, 23.

   [1] 1 Tim. iii. 2.
     __________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER VII

  ARIANISM AND THE DIVINE NATURE OF CHRIST

   Aritis.--About A.D. 319 there began in Alexandria a struggle which
   gradually affected the whole Christian world. Alexander the bishop was
   a member of the School of Origen and firmly maintained the eternal
   generation of the Son of God--'the Son being ever present with Him the
   Father is ever perfect.' There never was a time when the Father was not
   Father. The Eternal Son, so he taught, was mysteriously begotten
   without being created, and acted as a mediating power between the
   created world and the unbegotten Father. Alexander was opposed by
   Arius, a popular and ascetic presbyter of Alexandria. Arius had been a
   pupil of Lucian of Antioch, and inherited from him his modified form of
   the teaching of Paul of Samosata. He also was connected with a school
   of theologians who accepted Origen's teaching about the subordination
   of the Son to the Father, while they disliked his teaching about the
   true eternity of the Son. He himself particularly disliked any phrases
   which suggested that the Son was an eternal and personal expression of
   the Father's own life.

   Arius himself taught as follows:--
    1. A father must exist before his son. Therefore the Son of God, whom
       we know as the Word, did not exist eternally with the Father.
    2. The Word, not being eternal, was created before time began, in
       order that He might be the instrument of God in the creation of the
       world.
    3. The Word, being created, is in all things unlike the Father, and He
       might have sinned. He cannot know the Father perfectly.
    4. The body of Christ had no human soul, the place of its soul was
       taken by the Word.

   In order to support this system of belief, Arius appealed to those
   passages in the Old Testament which assert the unity of God, and to
   those passages in the New Testament which show the dependence of the
   Son upon the Father. We are bound to believe that there must be some
   attraction in Arianism, because so many people, both in ancient and in
   modem times, have found it attractive. With some unimportant
   modifications it was accepted in the sixteenth century by Socinus and a
   large number of Protestants on the continent of Europe, and it was
   accepted more recently by many Presbyterians in England and Ireland,
   and by many Congregationalists in America. Hence the origin of modern
   Unitarianism. The attraction of the theory seems to lie in the fact
   that it does not reject the narrative of the Gospels, and at the same
   time avoids those difficulties which are occasioned by the idea of a
   threefold life within the divine Unity.

   Nevertheless, Arius violated a fundamental principle of the Monotheism
   which he professed to defend. The Catholics accused the Arians of
   polytheism, and they were perfectly right. For the Arians denied that
   the Son was God in any real sense of the word, and yet they continued
   to worship Him. Moreover, the Arians in their devotion to logical
   syllogisms neglected an obvious truth. They argued that the Father must
   be older than the Son because they knew that a human father is always
   older than his son. But they forgot that we call a man the son of his
   father, not because he is younger than his father, but because he has
   derived his life from his father. The whole of the Christian idea of
   God and of redemption disappears in the Arian system. We are left with
   an unknown God, who teaches us through a demigod who is neither human
   nor divine.

   The Council of Nicaea.--The religious policy of the Emperor Constantine
   differed as widely from the modern notion of toleration as it differed
   from the old Roman policy of persecution. Constantine was at heart a
   believer in Christianity, but he remained the official head of Roman
   paganism. He supported the pagan religion of Rome and supported the
   Christian Church, allowing the world to see that he had a personal
   preference for the latter. He had no wish to support or countenance
   various forms of Christianity, and as soon as the contest between Arius
   and Alexander became serious he endeavoured to quiet the combatants
   with platitudes which were as ill timed as they were well meant.
   Finding that neither party was content to regard so important a
   question as a mere matter of dialectics, he summoned the bishops of the
   Church to meet at Nicaea in A.D. 325. The Council ended in a quick
   defeat of the Arian party and the adoption of a creed which was
   intended to exclude the possibility of Arianism ever finding an
   entrance into the Church again. The creed was that already in use at
   Caesarea, to which the Council added several significant phrases. [1]

   We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible
   and invisible.

   And in one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God, begotten of the Father,
   only-begotten that is of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light
   of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, of one substance
   (homoousios) with the Father, by whom all things were made, both the
   things in heaven and the things on earth; who for us men and for our
   salvation came down and was incarnate, and suffered and rose on the
   third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and
   dead.

   And in the Holy Ghost.

   But those who say that there was a time when He was not, and that
   before He was begotten He was not, and that He was made out of what did
   not exist, or assert that He is of a different hypostasis or substance,
   or that the Son of God is created or capable of change or alteration,
   the Catholic Church anathematises.

   Among the most determined opponents of Arius was Athanasius, a deacon
   of Alexandria. He had written a treatise On the Incarnation before the
   outbreak of the controversy. It is a wonderful production for so young
   a man. It is an inquiry into the reason of the incarnation, followed by
   a defence of Christianity against Judaism and paganism. In spirit it
   bears a considerable resemblance to the theology of Ignatius, Irenaeus,
   and St. John. 'He became man' in order that we might become divine; and
   He manifested himself through a body, in order that we might gain a
   conception of the unseen Father,' and, 'He takes a body capable of
   death in order that it, having been made to participate in the Word who
   is above all, might be fit to die instead of all, and through the
   indwelling Word might remain incorruptible, and that for the future
   corruption should cease from all by the grace of the resurrection.' The
   leading idea of the treatise is that man is restored to virtue and
   immortality through the work which Christ has done and the power which
   Christ bestows. The whole argument assumes that Christ is God indeed,
   and this conviction runs through all the writings of Athanasius. On the
   death of Alexander in 328 Athanasius became bishop of Alexandria, and
   was henceforth the pillar of Catholicism until his death in 373.

   The Eusebians.--The Catholic victory at Nicaea was brilliant, but in
   one sense superficial. While it was destined to have an effect hardly
   inferior to the effect of the Council at Jerusalem in A.D. 49, it was
   encountered by a mass of sullen opposition. The leader of this
   opposition was Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. Trained in the school of
   Lucian of Antioch, he was a convinced Arian and a clever schemer. He
   hesitated to attack the Nicene Creed, but he rallied round him a great
   party of malcontents who were united by their dislike of the creed.
   They hoped to depose one Catholic bishop after another, and then secure
   the adhesion of the Church to another formula. Constantine was turned
   by the learned Eusebius of Caesarea, who stood half way between
   Athanasius and Arius, and in a short time ten Catholic leaders were
   exiled.

   The Eusebians were given an opportunity by Marcellus of Ancyra, one of
   the warmest supporters of the Nicene Creed. Marcellus endeavoured to
   beat the Arians on their own ground, with the result that he fell into
   Sabellianism and furnished the Eusebians with a powerful argument
   against the loyalty of the Nicene party. He agreed with the Arians that
   the idea of sonship implies beginning and inferiority, so that the Son
   of God cannot be the equal of His Father. The Arians argued that this
   proved that the Son is only a creature. Marcellus denied their
   conclusion, and turned to Scripture. St. John had said, 'In the
   beginning was the Word,' and had asserted the true Divinity of this
   Word who became the Son of Man. Therefore, said Marcellus, the Word was
   always divine. He was a silent thinking principle in the Father's mind,
   then He became an 'active energy' in order to create the universe,
   finally God 'expanded' into a Trinity, the Word took flesh and became a
   distinct person. Only when He took flesh did He become the Son of God
   and the Image of God. After the work of redemption is finished the Son
   will lay aside His human nature and deliver up the Kingdom to the
   Father, and the Trinity will 'contract' once more into one person. It
   is plain that this teaching was Monarchianism of a Sabellian type with
   some additional refinements resembling the distinction between the
   'immanent' Word and the 'uttered' Word in Theophilus of Antioch. A
   pupil of Marcellus, named Photinus, exchanged this Monarchianism for a
   theory which closely resembled the doctrine of Paul of Samosata, and
   was singled out by the Eusebians for their special detestation.

   In 336 Arius died, in 337 Constantine. The West was strictly Catholic,
   but in the East the Eusebians were masters of the situation. In the
   summer of 341 the retrograde character of their doctrine was clearly
   shown at the Council which assembled for the dedication of the
   cathedral church of Antioch. Three creeds were put out, the second of
   which is said to have been composed by the martyr Lucian. This
   'Luciauic' or Dedication Creed is orthodox in phraseology, but is so
   worded as to leave Arianism possible. It asserts the exact likeness of
   the Son to the Father, omits the word Homo-ousios, and says that the
   three persons of the Trinity are 'three in substance (hypostasis) but
   in agreement one.' After the Council was over, a few bishops
   reassembled and drew up a creed to present to Constans, the emperor of
   the West. The Nicene anathemas were ingeniously altered so as to strike
   at Marcellus and sanction an Arian doctrine of the divine Sonship. This
   creed became the basis on which the subsequent Arianising confessions
   of 343 (Philippopolis), 344 (the Macrostich creed of Antioch), and 351
   (Sirmium), were fashioned. This multiplicity of creeds shows that the
   opponents of the Nicene Creed included conflicting parties, although
   the creeds do not conflict openly with one another. The mildly
   reactionary party wished to go behind the Nicene Creed because they
   feared Sabellianism and saw that the Roman Church which favoured that
   creed had accepted the explanations which Marcellus gave concerning his
   own doctrine. The strongly reactionary party, who were genuine Arians,
   took advantage of this feeling, and the result was that the new creeds,
   as a whole, only half condemned Arianism, while they tacitly set aside
   the Nicene formula and violently attacked Marcellus.

   The Anomoeans.--Gradually the two streams of tendency which had been
   combined in the Eusebian party began to divide. It became more evident
   that some members of this party were influenced by Origen while others
   were the descendants of Paul of Samosata. They were only united by a
   negation and veiled their difference under evasive statements. But
   after 351 there arose a party of uncompromising Arians who were
   determined to teach the Arian system in all its bearings. This was the
   party called Anomoean, and it taught the complete dissimilarity of the
   Father and the Son. The leaders of the party were Aetius and Eunomius.
   They declared that the essence of the Son was to be found in the fact
   that He was begotten--by which word they really meant created. The
   essence of the Father was to be found in the fact that He was
   unbegotten. It will be seen at once that this theory represents God as
   a blank abstraction, and directly repudiates the teaching of Christ,
   'He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.' The central facts of
   Christianity are so completely repudiated that God becomes the vague,
   shadowy Being described in later Greek philosophy. Eunomius gave a
   finishing touch to the Anomoean faith by maintaining that since the
   essence of God is so perfectly simple, we can understand God as well as
   God understands himself.

   A formula was drawn up in 357 at the third Council of Sirmium. It does
   not openly call the Son 'unlike' the Father, but it does not use the
   word 'like,' and it actually forbids the assertion that there is an
   essential likeness between the Father and the Son. 'The question which
   used to agitate some or many concerning substance, which in Greek is
   called ousia, that is, to explain the matter more expressly, the word
   homo-ousios, or what is called homoi-ousios, ought not to be mentioned,
   nor ought any one to preach it, for the reason that it is not contained
   in the divine Scriptures, and that it is above the knowledge of man.'
   The creed suggests that the Son was created by insisting upon His
   subjection to the Father, 'along with all things subjected to Him by
   the Father.' The Father is said to be 'greater in Godhead' than the
   Son.

   This creed, which has been known through all Church history as the
   Blasphemy, was the greatest blunder in the annals of Arianism. It
   immediately alienated the moderate party, of which the numerical
   strength of the non-Catholics had been composed. The religious men who
   really feared Sabellianism, but had never intended to support Arianism
   for its own sake, saw that they must dissociate themselves from the
   Arians. In 358 they met at Ancyra under the leadership of Basil of
   Ancyra, a man of high character. Cyril of Jerusalem, Eustathius of
   Sebastia, Mark of Arethusa, Meletius of Antioch, and other influential
   bishops were in sympathy with Basil. The statement which was drawn up
   at Ancyra consolidated this party, which is known as Semi-Arian and may
   with equal truth be called Semi-Nicene. They were determined that the
   divine Sonship of Christ should not be represented as a merely titular
   dignity. And therefore while they repudiated the term Homo-ousios, they
   declared that 'every father is understood to be father of a substance
   (ousia) like his own.' The Son is 'like in substance, perfect of
   perfect.' The divine substance is 'life,' and this is given by the
   Father to the Son, so the Son was not merely begotten by the 'power' of
   the Father, which would really imply that He was only created, but 'by
   the power and substance alike.' The confession of this divine
   Fatherhood in God is asserted to be the distinguishing mark which
   separates the Church from the Jew and the heathen, who only know God as
   Creator.

   It is evident that the Semi-Arians who met at Ancyra had conceded
   almost everything that the Catholics desired. Nothing but a nominal
   breakwater now stood between them and the rising conviction that the
   Nicene Creed was scriptural. They had admitted the fact of the divine
   Sonship, they were only repudiating the use of a word which, though
   they did not see it, was the only word which did justice to that fact.
   In less than ten years numbers of them had accepted the faith in its
   fulness.

   The Latitudinarians.--Thorough Arianism was now hopelessly discredited.
   It had failed to get more than a precarious foothold in the empire. The
   Catholic party had not entirely convinced the Semi-Nicene bishops,
   although St. Hilary of Poictiers in his masterly treatise De Synodis
   scu de fide Orientalium, probably written in 358, had done his best. He
   proved that the word Homoi-ousios, 'of like substance,' ought to imply
   the consubstantiality of the Son and the Father. But it was still
   possible to maintain that no formula had proved satisfactory, and to
   suggest a new scheme. If we cannot say of one substance, nor of like
   substance, nor yet unlike, the only course open is to say like, and
   forbid any further definition. To have a broad, elastic phrase and to
   persecute every bishop who preferred an unambiguous statement of his
   faith, was the policy of the Latitudinarians or Homoeans (from homoios
   like).

   This party was led by Acacius in the East and by Valens in the West.
   These two bishops appear to have been among the most unscrupulous men
   of the period. Videns was at heart an Anomoean. But he was clever
   enough to see that he could only accomplish his purpose by making use
   of less extreme men than himself. He was willing to pose as a Homoean
   in order to win a body of adherents strong enough to annihilate the
   Nicene Creed. The Blasphemy of 357 had been his work, and it had the
   full approval of Acacius, who was a court bishop willing to accept any
   creed which he thought would receive the support of the State. After
   the Council of Ancyra in 358 Valens saw a new opportunity. All
   ecclesiastical parties were excited and dissatisfied, and he therefore
   suggested to the Emperor Constantius the idea of a general Council. He
   also suggested that it should be divided into two parts. Half was to
   meet at Ariminum, where Valens would be present in person. The other
   half was to meet at Seleucia in Cilicia under the management of
   Acacius. It was agreed that these two synods should accept a Homoean
   creed which was composed beforehand. The result was the Dated Creed of
   May 22, 359. It prohibits the word ousia, and asserts that the Son is
   like in all things to the Father. Valens and his friend Ursacius
   endeavoured to suppress the words in all things, but the Emperor
   Constantius insisted that the words should be retained. Basil of Ancyra
   and George of Laodicea were both weak enough to sign the creed, and
   felt it so necessary to explain their conduct that they drew up a
   memorandum of a Semi-Nicene character. In this memorandum they insisted
   on the essential likeness of the Son and the Father, and repudiated the
   Anomoean doctrine that the nature of God is adequately expressed by the
   statement that he is unbegotten.

   The two synods of Ariminum and Seleucia were completely outwitted by
   the Homoeans, although the majority of bishops at Ariminum was Catholic
   and at Seleucia was Semi-Arian. The majority at Ariminum rejected the
   Dated Creed, and the majority at Seleucia rejected another form of the
   same creed. From both synods went deputations to the emperor. He
   detained the deputies from Ariminum at Hadrianople and then at Nice in
   Thrace, where they were induced to sign a distinctly Homoean creed.
   Valens returned to Ariminum with this creed, and by a series of lies
   and evasions induced the simple Catholic Western bishops to sign it. He
   then hurried to Constantinople, where he met the Semi-Arian deputies
   from Seleucia. He and Acacius invoked the help of the emperor, and
   induced the Semi-Arians to yield, partly by holding over them the
   threats of the emperor, partly by declaring that they repudiated the
   word unlike. The Semi-Arians yielded on New Year's Eve, 359-360. In
   January 360 a Council was held at Constantinople, and the creed of Nice
   was reissued without the anathemas against Anomoean doctrine which had
   been appended at Ariminum. The Latitudinarian party was now supreme.
   They persecuted Catholics and Semi-Arians alike, and while they
   sacrificed the Anomoean Aetius to the Homoean scruples of the emperor,
   they permitted the appointment of several Anomoeans to vacant episcopal
   sees. The Catholic cause appeared absolutely hopeless when it was saved
   from annihilation by the death of Constantius in 361.

   The Catholic Revival.--Constantius was succeeded by Julian, a
   dilettante pagan, who had been brought up on Arian principles, and
   hoped that the conflicting Christian parties would destroy each other.
   He recalled the Christian bishops who had been banished from their
   sees, with the result that Athanasius was able to exercise his potent
   influence once more. Julian also persecuted and annoyed the Christians
   just enough to make them more inclined to close their ranks. The
   Council held under Athanasius at Alexandria in 362 proved that the
   Christians were neither as ignorant nor as narrow-minded as Julian
   hoped.

   The Council dealt with three doctrinal points. (1) The terms on which
   communion should be granted to those Arians who desired to be admitted
   into the Church. It was decided that they should only be required to
   accept the Nicene Creed and to anathematise Arianism, including the
   doctrine that the Holy Spirit is a creature. It is evident that
   Arianism was now sacrificing the Deity of the Holy Spirit to a false
   idea of the unity of God as it had previously sacrified the Deity of
   the Son. (2) The integrity of Christ's human nature. It was asserted
   that the Son took not only a true human body but also a true human
   soul. This assertion was probably directed against Arianism, but it was
   soon to derive new importance from the heresy of Apollinaris (see chap.
   viii.). (3) An old misunderstanding as to some theological phrases. In
   the anathemas appended to the Nicene Creed, the word hypostasis had
   been used as an equivalent to the word ousia, substance. The Latins
   used the word substantia to represent both these words. On the other
   hand, most of the Eastern bishops used the word hypostasis in the sense
   of subject or person. It was therefore natural that those who spoke of
   one hypostasis should regard the phrase 'three hypostaseis' as pagan or
   Arian, while those who spoke of three hypostaseis should regard the
   phrase 'one hypostasis' as Sabellian. The contradiction was only
   verbal, and the two parties came to a complete understanding. All
   agreed that it was better to use the language of the Nicene Creed than
   either of these conflicting phrases.

   Owing to the influence of the writings of the three great Cappadocian
   fathers--Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of
   Nazianzus--the phrase, 'one ousia, three hypostaseis,' became and
   remained the ordinary formula of Catholic Christians. This is further
   explained by the following words of Gregory of Nyssa: 'One and the same
   person of the Father, of whom the Son is begotten and the Spirit . . .
   proceeds.' The Cappadocian Fathers were warm admirers of Origen, and it
   is partly to him that the habit of speaking of more than one hypostasis
   in the Godhead is to be traced.

   The Council of Constantinople.--The final establishment of the Nicene
   faith throughout the empire took place in 381, when a Council was held
   at Constantinople at the command of the Emperor Theodosius the Great.
   This Council was not intended to be a General Council of the Church,
   but it received universal consent, and therefore has always been
   reckoned as the Second General Council of the Church. The Council
   ratified the Nicene Creed. The Council also appears to have expressed
   approval of another creed without intending that it should be publicly
   employed. This second creed was the baptismal creed of Jerusalem, into
   which some phrases of the Nicene Creed had been wisely inserted by
   Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem. It states that the Son is 'of one
   substance' with the Father, but omits the words, 'That is of the
   substance of the Father.' It adds the words, 'Whose kingdom shall have
   no end.' After the words, 'And in the Holy Ghost, it goes on, 'The
   Lord, the Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the
   Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spake by
   the Prophets. And one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We
   acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins. And we look for the
   resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.'

   This Jerusalem Creed has had a strange history. The approval which it
   received at Constantinople caused it to be known as the Creed of
   Constantinople. And after the Council of Chalcedon in 451 placed it
   side by side with the Nicene Creed it gradually began to take the place
   of the real Nicene Creed. It can only be called Nicene in the sense
   that it has incorporated the heart of the Nicene Creed.

   The Council of Constantinople also condemned the Semi-Arian
   Pneumatomachi or 'Opponents of the Spirit,' [1] who made a point of
   denying the Divinity of the Holy Ghost, and the Apollinarians, whose
   heresy is described in our next chapter.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1] These additional phrases are here printed in italics.

   [1] Also known as Macedonians, after Macedonius, the Semi-Arian bishop
   of Constantinople.
     __________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER VIII

  THE UNION OF THE DIVINE AND THE HUMAN NATURES IN CHRIST

   Atbanasius.--Throughout the controversy with Arianism, Athanasius and
   the Catholics were mainly concerned with asserting the fact of the
   incarnation and the consequent truth of the doctrines of the atonement
   and of the Trinity. The manner of the union between the divine and the
   human natures in Christ was not minutely discussed. Nevertheless, the
   Arians raised the question whether Christ is truly human no less than
   the question whether Christ is truly divine. They taught that Christ
   was destitute of a human spirit, the place of a spirit having been
   taken by the half-divine Word. They therefore excluded from the
   Saviour's life all possibility of true human experience. Now, we might
   have feared that Athanasius, in asserting the true Divinity of the Son,
   would forget the real meaning of the Gospel narratives and give only a
   Docetic explanation of Christ's sufferings and humiliations. This,
   however, was far from being the case. He insisted very plainly upon the
   truth that Christ's manhood was real. Two points especially deserve
   attention:--

   (1) With regard to the human knowledge of Christ. The Arians declared
   that the texts, Mark xiii. 32 and Luke ii. 52, proved that the Word
   when He became Incarnate was ignorant of certain divine truths. They
   said that the mind which the Word brought with Him from heaven was not
   omniscient, and was therefore able to advance in knowledge. The
   argument of Athanasius in opposing this theory is that omniscience
   belongs to the Godhead of the Word, but that the human mind which the
   Word took was limited. It was able to grow just as truly as the human
   stature of Christ was able to grow. He appeals to the passages in
   Scripture which show that our Lord possessed a knowledge transcending
   human limitations, and he declares that Christ manifested a divine
   knowledge. At the same time he asserts that our Lord could as Man be
   ignorant of what He knew as God. It was 'for our profit' that Christ
   during His life on earth willed to be limited in respect of His human
   nature. Athanasius here, as elsewhere, keeps strictly to Scripture. He
   avoids (a) the exaggerated theory which was common in the Middle Ages,
   and has been still further exaggerated in Jesuit theology--the theory
   that Christ's human ignorance was simply lack of actual human
   experience. Athanasius equally avoids (b) the theory which has become
   popular among modern Protestants--the theory that the divine mind of
   the Son of God became diminished and ignorant when He became incarnate.
   (2) With regard to the consubstantiality of Jesus Christ with man. In
   371, two years before his death, Athanasius wrote a "Letter to
   Epictetus." In this letter he carefully criticises the theory that the
   body of Christ was unreal or identical in nature with His Divinity. He
   declares that the Saviour in very truth became Man, and that the
   incorporeal Word was in a passible body. 'That which was born of Mary
   was according to the divine Scriptures human by nature' and the body of
   the Lord was a true one; but it was this because it was the same as our
   body, for Mary was our sister inasmuch as we are all from Adam.' His
   human nature was really born of Mary,
   really nourished at her breast, it was weary and was smitten and was
   crucified and was handled by Thomas. Athanasius is here dealing with
   two classes of writers: (a) some who believed that the Word was
   actually transubstantiated into human flesh; (b) some who thought that
   the flesh of Christ was not natural but of a divine essence, so that it
   might have existed without Mary. A heresy which had much in common with
   these two kindred theories was soon afterwards rapidly propagated by
   the Apollinarians.

   Apollinaris.--Apollinaris and his father were excommunicated by the
   Semi-Arian George of Laodicea. They supported Athanasius and the Nicene
   faith. In 362, Apollinaris was made bishop of Laodicea. Jerome studied
   with him in 374. Soon afterwards his teaching caused great anxiety to
   the orthodox, and it was condemned at Rome, Antioch, and
   Constantinople. Apollinaris was a man of penetrating mind, well
   acquainted with Greek literature, and a voluminous writer. His
   followers became an organised sect, with bishops, churches, and
   ceremonies of their own. They exercised a deplorable influence by
   circulating writings of Apollinaris under the names of Gregory
   Thaumaturgus and Athanasius. It is from these works that we gain a
   knowledge of the opinions of Apollinaris, but our knowledge of them is
   extended by the statements of Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus,
   and a treatise Against the Appolinarians which has been popularly
   attributed to Athanasius.
    1. Apollinaris wished to secure the infallibility and the sinlessness
       of Christ. Like Marcellus, he wished to present the world with a
       theory which would render Arianism an impossibility. Like
       Marcellus, he made the mistake of accepting a fundamental tenet of
       the men whom he intended to oppose. The Arians said that the body
       of Christ was truly human, but that He had no human spirit, the
       place of this spirit having been taken by the Word. Apollinaris
       admitted this, with the difference that he declared the Word to be
       essentially divine and not half divine. He declared that Jesus
       Christ comprised within himself three elements--human flesh, a
       fleshly soul, i.e. physical human life, and the divine Word. Christ
       had no human nous or rational soul, and therefore He could not err
       or sin.
    2. The result was summed up in the phrase, 'We confess that there is
       one nature of God the Word which was incarnate. God and flesh made
       one nature, the flesh was divine because joined with God; there was
       only one energy in Christ, and therefore only one substance. The
       body of Christ was only a passive instrument of His Divinity. The
       Catholic Christ was denounced by Apollinaris as a hybrid being like
       a Minotaur.

   The clearness and the ingenuity with which Apollinaris expounded his
   theory rendered opposition exceedingly difficult. But his Catholic
   opponents saw that a Christ who had not taken the most essential and
   distinctive element in man was not really Man at all. However much
   Apollinaris might have desired to take a reverent view of Christ, he
   had really conceived of Him as only taking those characteristics which
   man shares with the lower creatures. A man without a spiritual
   intelligence is not a man but an animal. Therefore the Apollinarian
   Christ is not a real Redeemer. Gregory of Nazianzus appropriately says
   'that which was not taken was not healed.' The Apollinarian Christ
   could experience no real mental trial or temptation, and therefore He
   is not a Saviour.

   Apollinaris tried to meet this difficulty by teaching that the Word was
   the pre-existent heavenly man, and that it could therefore take the
   place of Christ's reason and spirit without making Christ unhuman. It
   seems that some of his followers taught that the flesh of Christ
   existed before the incarnation, but Apollinaris probably only meant
   that there was eternally in God an element peculiarly fitted to show
   itself in a human life. If so, Apollinaris was near an important truth.
   But he made it of no effect by teaching that the reason of man is
   necessarily prone to sin. Instead of teaching that the human will needs
   union with the divine will in order to realise its own true power and
   freedom, his teaching implied that the human will and rational soul
   inevitably tend to evil. Therefore he said that Christ must have no
   human will and no rational soul. The statement of the Athanasian Creed
   that Christ has a rational soul as well as human flesh is a standing
   record of the fact that the Church repudiated Apollinaris.

   Theodore of Mopsuestia.--This celebrated writer became bishop of
   Mopsuestia in Cilicia in 392, very soon after the death of Apollinaris.
   He wrote many commentaries on the Bible, an account of Zoroastrianism,
   and a great treatise On the Incarnation against the Apollinarians and
   Anomoeans. He had been ordained priest at Antioch, and his theology
   shows a strong dislike of the allegorical method of interpreting
   Scripture which Origen had done so much to popularise at Alexandria.
   This fact has caused modern writers to exaggerate the difference
   between the theological tone of Alexandria and of Antioch, and to
   represent the theology of Antioch as entirely practical, and that of
   Alexandria as entirely mystical. A difference did exist and it was
   increased by the national jealousies of the two great cities. But
   though Alexandria was the home of the mystical Origen, it was also the
   home of the practical Athanasius; and Antioch, which was the home of
   the questionable Theodore, was also the home of the orthodox John
   Chrysostom.

   Theodore firmly believed in the Nicene Creed, but he was out of
   sympathy with its spirit. His doctrine of the person of Christ does not
   really start out from the idea of One who is God of God from eternity
   and then was made man. Nor, on the other hand, does the doctrine of
   Theodore start out from that moral appreciation of the historical life
   of Christ which will cause a man to inquire what Christ really is.
   Theodore, like Paul of Samosata, mentally separated the humanity and
   the Divinity of Christ, kept them both before his mind's eye, and then
   endeavoured to combine them. This is plainly shown by his own language.
   Christ is regarded as such a man that His human nature is a distinct
   person. With this man the Word united himself by a progressive
   'connection,' similar to the connection which exists between God and
   the saints, who are God's adopted children. Theodore says that we can
   say that Christ is one person. But this is only a manner of speech made
   more or less legitimate by the 'connection.'

   Diodore, the teacher of Theodore, held the same doctrine, and taught
   that there were in Christ both the divine Son of God and the human Son
   of David, and that the human person was adorable on account of the
   divine person who dwelt in it.

   In fact, these writers believed that Christ was not one agent, but two.
   Consistently with this idea, Theodore held that it was possible for Him
   to have sinned. The human Christ who was the associate of the Word,
   might have yielded to temptation, although, as a matter of fact. He did
   not. At the Fifth General Council of the Church, held at Constantinople
   in 553, Theodore was anathematised for teaching that Christ had been
   troubled by desires of the flesh, and had gradually become separated
   from what was evil. That is, he was anathematised for teaching that
   Christ was subject to the solicitations of evil not merely from
   without, but also from within. Such a theory is not an innocent
   speculation. It aims at the heart of Christian doctrine. It says with
   one breath that Christ was God, and that He could nevertheless have
   wished to be the enemy of God.

   Against the teaching of Theodore and all similar opinions the Church
   has always maintained that our Lord is one agent, and that His human
   nature had no existence whatever until the Son of God created it for
   himself. 'Although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one
   Christ'; and, 'As the rational soul and the flesh are one man, so God
   and Man is one Christ.' This illustration of the Athanasian Creed
   cannot be pressed without danger, it does not show us a complete
   parallel. It reminds us that Christ is one, and that as the personality
   of man remains in his soul after death has separated his soul from his
   body, so the person of Christ truly existed before He took a body. On
   the other hand, this illustration is not intended to suggest that
   Christ had only one will. The Church had already maintained against
   Apollinaris that the manhood of Christ was complete, and had a truly
   human will as well as that divine will which He possessed from all
   eternity.

   Nestorius.--The full meaning of the doctrine of Theodore was understood
   when it was taught in a popular form by Nestorius, a priest of Antioch
   who was bishop of Constantinople in 428. He became the founder of a
   large and active community which propagated Christianity through many
   parts of Asia, extending its missions into China. Since the rise of
   Islam, the Nestorian Christians have suffered severely from Muhammadan
   persecutions. They are now mainly represented by the 'Assyrian'
   Christians on the borders of Turkey and Persia, most of whom have in
   modern times placed themselves in connection with the Roman, Anglican,
   or Russian Churches respectively.

   A presbyter of Nestorius, named Anastasius, preached a sermon in the
   cathedral church of Constantinople, in which he attacked the use of the
   word Theotokos or Mother of God, a title which had been applied to the
   mother of Christ since the days of Origen. Nestorius supported his
   presbyter, and the whole Christian Church became involved in the
   controversy. Cyril, archbishop of Alexandria, a man of scholarly mind
   but imperious temper, wrote to Nestorius and protested. The two
   prelates then both appealed to Celestine, bishop of Rome. Celestine
   supported Cyril, and Cyril in 430 held a Synod at Alexandria which
   declared Nestorius to be a heretic. At the same time he published
   twelve anathemas condemning the teaching of Nestorius. These anathemas
   were joined to his third letter to Nestorius.

   Nestorius published twelve counter-anathemas, and, thanks to the favour
   which he enjoyed with the emperor, he obtained the convocation of a
   General Council. The Council met at Ephesus in 431, and Cyril opened
   the sessions without waiting for the arrival of John, bishop of
   Antioch, the most influential clerical supporter of Nestorius. The
   Council affirmed anew the creed of Nicaea and condemned Nestorius. John
   was most indignant when he arrived and learned what had happened. He
   held an opposing Council and excommunicated Cyril. The emperor first
   ratified both the sentence pronounced against Cyril and that pronounced
   against Nestorius. He was afterwards persuaded to restore Cyril, and in
   433 John of Antioch and Cyril came to an agreement, probably through
   the efforts of Theodoret, a learned and temperate bishop of the
   Antiochene school.

   Nestorius justly condemned.--There are good reasons for believing that
   Nestorius was somewhat ignorant of the real point at issue between
   himself and Cyril, and it is to be regretted that Cyril did not act
   with greater consideration. But the whole course of action taken by
   Nestorius shows that his condemnation was necessary. In his sermons he
   says: 'A creature did not bear the Creator . . . but bore a man who was
   the instrument of the Godhead,' and, 'I divide the natures, but I unite
   the veneration.' The meaning of these statements is made clearer by his
   saying, 'I will never call a child two or three months old God.'
   Nestorius did not really believe in the incarnation of the Son of God
   but in the exaltation of a man. He believed that there was an
   increasing connection between Jesus and the Son of God, which became so
   close that they might be regarded as one person and worshipped as one
   person. He thought that Jesus Christ was God and a man, not the
   God-Man. Nestorianism is a new Adoptionism.

   For Nestorius did not really believe that the experiences and
   humiliations of Jesus Christ were the experiences and humiliations of
   the divine Word, otherwise he would not have repudiated the phrase,
   Mother of God. This phrase was intended by the Church to guard the
   honour of the Son rather than increase the honour of the mother. It
   means that the Child of Mary is himself divine and not a man with whom
   God condescended to dwell.

   St. Cyril of Alexandria.--Cyril had a true insight into the teaching of
   Nestorius and into the consequences which were involved in it. His own
   theology was essentially the same as that of Athanasius. He asserts
   that the two natures of Christ came together without confusion and
   without change. The Christian acknowledges 'one single Christ, the Word
   who is from God the Father, and has His own flesh.' The union between
   the two natures is personal or hypostatic, or 'natural,' i.e. the
   manhood of Christ did not destroy the unity of His person. Cyril
   expressly rejects the idea that the union between the two natures is a
   'connection' or 'juxtaposition' or 'relative participation' according
   to which Christ would be only a man in whom the divine Word acted. The
   Christian's worship of Christ is therefore not the 'co-adoration' of a
   man side by side with God, It is offered to Emmanuel 'God with us.' The
   flesh of the Lord is life-giving because it is the Word's own flesh,
   not the flesh of a man connected with the Word. Against the Nestorian
   doctrine Cyril urges the teaching of St. Paul in Phil. ii. 6, 7. He
   maintains that Christ in becoming incarnate submitted to a 'voluntary
   self emptying' and it would not have been a real self emptying if the
   humiliations of Jesus had not been the humiliations of the Word.

   While Cyril did his utmost to defend the faith as it had been taught by
   St. John and St. Paul, his language was sometimes lacking in precision.
   (1) He declares that he believes in 'one nature of God the Word which
   was incarnate.' This phrase had been used by Apollinaris, and as the
   Apollinarians circulated writings of their master under the name of
   Athanasius, it is probable that Cyril believed that the phrase was
   really coined by Athanasius. Cyril in one place explains that he uses
   the word 'nature' in the sense of hypostasis or person. But he
   unfortunately uses the word elsewhere in its ordinary sense. It was
   thus possible for his readers to suppose that after the incarnation the
   human nature became swallowed up in the divine nature. The phrase 'one
   nature' was destined to become before long the shibboleth of a party as
   mischievous as the party of Nestorius. (2) He strongly asserts that the
   human mind of Christ was not omniscient, and in this he is following
   the teaching of Athanasius. But he more than once uses words which
   suggest that the human ignorance of Christ was feigned. Here again
   Cyril explains himself; he means that the Son of God was not limited in
   such a way that His divine mind became idle or imperfect during His
   life on earth. He also means that the Divinity of Christ restrained its
   influence upon His human mind, and that Christ appeared to be wholly
   ignorant of what His divine mind really knew. In the same way a good
   teacher frequently appears not to know what he really does know. He
   consciously accommodates both his language and his thoughts to the
   language and thoughts of children, while he still retains and uses his
   own superior knowledge. It is to be regretted that Cyril spoke with
   some ambiguity on this subject, so that Theodoret and many modem
   writers have accused him of representing Christ as saying what was
   untrue.

   Eutyches.--Recoil from Nestorianism led to the opposite opinion that
   there was only a single nature in Christ. This doctrine found a
   champion in Eutyches, abbot of a monastery at Constantinople, who first
   became prominent in 448. Like Nestorius he wished to be logical and
   consistent. The Nestorians said that Jesus Christ was Man and was God;
   He was therefore two persons. Eutyches and his followers said that
   Jesus Christ was only one person; He could therefore only have one
   nature. Eutyches regarded the human nature of Christ as swallowed and
   lost in the glories of the divine nature with which it was united. When
   he was accused before a synod held at Constantinople, he confessed his
   faith in these words: 'I confess that our Lord was of two natures
   before the union, but after the union I confess one nature.' He
   compared the relation of the two natures with a drop of vinegar
   absorbed in the ocean. He thus taught that there was a fusion of the
   two natures.

   Eutyches appealed to the teaching of Cyril. But he both ignored the
   fact that Cyril had said that there was a 'difference of the natures,'
   and also quoted Cyril's words, 'one nature of the Word,' without adding
   the phrase, 'which was incarnate.' Eutyches said that Christ had a
   'human' body, but his teaching appears to nullify its human character.
   He made the divine element the only substantial element in the life of
   Christ. He suppressed the human nature of our Lord in order to make
   room for the divine.

   While the teaching of Eutyches totally differs from that of Nestorius,
   these two theories are 'extremes' which 'meet.' They deny that God
   really came to take part in human suffering and weakness. Both men seem
   to have been partly conscious of this fact, although neither of them
   saw all that their teaching involved. Nestorianism refuses to say that
   it was the divine Word himself who really suffered--it was only a man
   whom the Word strengthened and illuminated. Eutychianism refuses to say
   that it was a real human nature which suffered--it was a nature which
   had lost its own proper character through fusion with God. Therefore in
   the Eutychian system the experiences and sufferings of Christ are no
   longer truly human. They are only half human. Wherever Nestorian
   tendencies prevail, men will think that Christ was only a good example
   and not a real Mediator. Wherever Eutychian tendencies prevail, men
   will think that Christ is too divine to be what He seems.

   St. Leo.--When condemned at Constantinople, Eutyches appealed to Leo,
   bishop of Rome, who, after learning the true state of the case from
   Flavian, archbishop of Constantinople, addressed to him the famous
   Tome.

   In the meantime, Dioscorus, archbishop of Alexandria, induced the
   Emperor Theodosius II. to summon a Council of the Church at Ephesus.
   The Council met in 449, Dioscorus and his supporters declared Eutyches
   to be orthodox; his opponents were deposed and treated with the
   greatest violence, and the gentle Flavian died from the wounds which he
   received. Such was the end of the Latrocinium, or Robber-Council of
   Ephesus.

   The Tome of Leo was set aside at the Latrocinium, but it was reserved
   for a fitting opportunity. It contains a remarkably clear and practical
   statement of the doctrine of the incarnation. It is far less subtle
   than many theological documents written by Greek authors, and is
   thoroughly Latin in its tone. Against Eutyches it insists upon the
   following facts:--
    1. There are two natures in Christ. There is His divine nature which
       was begotten of the Father, and His human nature which was born of
       the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary. The reality of the body which
       Christ took of His mother is asserted, and each 'form' or nature of
       Christ is said to do that which is appropriate to it, but in
       communion with the other 'form.' The distinctive properties of the
       two natures remain and are not abolished.
    2. The humiliation which was involved in Christ's taking our flesh
       'was the condescension of pity, not a failure of power.' This
       supreme act of love shows the true greatness of our Creator.
    3. The two natures are united permanently. Christ when incarnate was
       truly God; 'the Word did not abandon equality with the Father's
       glory.' But at the same time the manhood is not consumed by the
       dignity of the Godhead. Christ remains in each nature; the word in
       being used to guard against the Eutychian quibble that Christ was
       of two natures, but did not remain in both. The Son of Man who came
       down from heaven is the same as the Son of God who was crucified.

   The Council of Chalcedon.--Theodosius died in 450. He was succeeded by
   Marcian and Pulcheria, who were not under the influence of Dioscorus,
   and determined that a new Council should be held at Chalcedon in 451.
   At the fifth session of this Council a Definition was ratified which
   was intended to exclude Eutychianism. The Nicene Creed of 325 was
   acknowledged, and side by side with it the so-called Constantinopolitan
   Creed. This latter creed was put upon the same level as the Nicene
   Creed, and in many countries, including England, it now passes for the
   Nicene Creed. It should also be noticed that even the Nicene Creed
   itself, as recited at Chalcedon, differed slightly from the Nicene
   Creed of 325. It added the words, 'of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin
   Mary,' and 'whose Kingdom shall have no end,' and described the Holy
   Ghost as 'the Lord, the Giver of life.' There were also some smaller
   changes which show that the language of the 'Constantinopolitan' Creed
   had already tinged the phrases of the old Nicene Creed.

   The Definition condemns all Nestorian, Apollinarian, and Eutychian
   theories by repudiating those who deny that Mary is Mother of God, and
   those who introduce the idea of a fusion and mixture of the two
   natures, and pretend that there is only one nature consisting of the
   flesh and of the Godhead of the Son, and vainly say that the divine
   nature of the only-begotten Son could suffer. In order to check such
   ideas, the Council endorses the letters of 'the blessed Cyril' to
   Nestorius and to the Easterns, and 'the letter of the most blessed and
   holy Archbishop Leo which was written to Archbishop Flavian, who is
   numbered with the saints.' The Definition then makes its own meaning
   still more unmistakable by condemning those who teach that there is a
   double Sonship in Christ, or say that His Godhead could suffer, and
   that there is a fusion of the two natures, and that His 'form of a
   servant' was made of a heavenly substance, and that there were two
   natures before, but only one nature after, the union.

   Then the faith is thus confessed: 'One and the same Son, our Lord Jesus
   Christ, the same being perfect in Godhead and the same being perfect in
   Manhood, truly God and truly man, the same having a rational soul and a
   body, of one substance with the Father according to the Godhead, and
   the same being of one substance with us according to the manhood, in
   all things like unto us except sin . . . one and the same Christ, Son,
   Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures, without fusion,
   without change, without division, without separation; the difference of
   the two natures having been in no wise taken away by the union, but
   rather the property of each nature being preserved, and combining to
   form one person and one hypostasis.'

   The phrase, in two natures, was intended to assert that our Lord's
   manhood remained real and permanent after the union of the manhood with
   the Godhead. The words 'without fusion, without change' exclude
   Eutychianism, while the words 'without division, without separation' as
   plainly exclude Nestorianism. As it is, this Definition made by the
   Fourth General Council is a masterpiece of moderation and strength. It
   is not a mere reactionary document, and it does not drive men into
   opposition by any unguarded or one-sided statement. On the other hand,
   it is clear and definite. The most ardent believer in the Divinity of
   Jesus Christ can conscientiously feel that nothing which really exalts
   Christ in the thoughts of men has been in any way suppressed. The
   modern Christian can look back upon the great Councils of the years
   325, 381, 431, and 451 with deep thankfulness. Through an age of
   bitterness and jealousy, when the Church was divided within and opposed
   without, the Church still remained 'the pillar and ground of the
   truth.' The dogmatic decisions of these Councils have kept the Christ
   of the Gospels. And we witness with reverent wonder the fulfilment of
   those words which Christ spoke to His apostles concerning the work of
   the Holy Ghost: 'He shall glorify me; for he shall take of mine, and
   shall declare it unto you' (John xvi. 14).

   Note.--The doctrinal teaching expounded by the First Four Councils is
   accepted by the Churches of the Roman communion, of the Anglican
   communion, and of the Orthodox Eastern communion. The last includes the
   Greek-speaking Christians of the patriarchal Churches of
   Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, also of the
   Churches of Greece and Cyprus. Some Arab Christians are also included.
   The Orthodox Eastern-Church also includes the Churches of Russia,
   Georgia, Servia, Montenegro, and Roumania, and three national Churches
   in Austria, respectively under the Orthodox Archbishops of Czernowitz,
   Carlowitz, and Hermannstadt. The Bulgarian Church accepts the same
   doctrinal standard, but is not at present in communion with the rest of
   the Eastern Church.

   The First Three Councils are recognised by the Armenians, who are
   slightly affected by Eutychianism and have not accepted the Fourth
   Council, though sometimes in practical agreement with it. Similar in
   doctrine, but more definitely Eutychian, is the West Syrian or Jacobite
   Church situated in the country which lies between Antioch and Mosul;
   the Coptic Church, which numbers about 600,000 souls in Egypt; and the
   large, but very ignorant, Church of Abyssinia.

   The First Two Councils are recognised by the Assyrian or East Syrian
   Church of Kurdistan. It now numbers only about 200,000 souls, and its
   Nestorianism is not very definite.

   The total number of unorthodox Christians in the East is infinitesimal
   compared with the enormous number belonging to the Orthodox Eastern
   Church.
     __________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER IX

  ST. AUGUSTINE AND THE ATHANASIAN CREED

   St. Augustine's Doctrine of the Trinity.--No Father of the Church has
   had an influence equal to that of St. Augustine (A.D. 354-430). A
   convert from paganism to the half-pagan system of Manicheism, he
   discovered that nothing less than the Catholic faith could sanctify his
   life and satisfy his heart. He dedicated to the service of Christ all
   the fruit of a religious imagination, a comprehensive mind, and a
   magnificent education. He was as familiar with the latest Greek
   philosophy as he was skilled in every nicety of the Latin language. One
   of the most independent of thinkers, he was also one of the most devout
   of mystics; and while his manly vigour has won able admirers even for
   his few mistakes, his words have carried with them a fragrance too
   delicate to be caught except by those whose souls are like his own.

   St. Augustine's work De Trinitate, presents a more complete doctrine of
   the Trinity than had hitherto been stated. The author starts out from a
   firm conception of the unity of God. 'This Trinity is one God, and not
   therefore simple, because God is a Trinity.' Hence 'the works of the
   Trinity are inseparable,' all the three persons combine in their work.
   The Son and the Holy Spirit co-operated with the Father in causing the
   incarnation. The word 'person' is necessary, although it is not
   adequate to describe the mystery of divine life. 'We have said three
   persons, not merely in order to say it, but to avoid keeping silence.'
   [1]

   Father, Son, and Spirit are not three separate beings like three human
   persons. They may be compared with the three facts of mind, knowledge,
   and will (or love), in one human being. The mind is the source of
   knowledge and of will, the mind knows itself in realising knowledge,
   and the relation between the mind and the object of its knowledge
   produces an active will. Nevertheless these three facts are
   inseparable, and thus although 'the Father is one, and the Son another,
   and the Holy Spirit another, all together are one Lord.' [1] Augustine,
   in the plainest way, states that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son
   as well as from the Father. [2] No Eastern theologian has stated this
   so plainly.

   The 'Athanasian' Creed.--This creed is in form completely Western and
   Latin, and it is most strange that it has become popularly associated
   with St. Athanasius. The origin of the creed is still involved in
   obscurity, but it is plain that it represents the theology of
   Augustine, and it may be regarded as fairly certain that it was
   composed during the fifth century in South Gaul. Possibly its author
   was Vincent of Lerinum who wrote about 434. Vincent was familiar both
   with the writings of St. Augustine and with the Nestorian controversy,
   and the creed shows traces of St. Augustine's influence and of the
   language used by the Catholics in opposing Nestorianism.

   The 'Athanasian' Creed is here subjoined, with a new translation of
   some of its phrases, and references to the heresies condemned in its
   various clauses:--

   INTRODUCTION

   1. Whosoever wisheth to be saved, before all things he ought to hold
   fast the Catholic Faith.
   2. Which Faith except a man have kept whole and unviolated, without
   doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

   THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY TRINITY

   3. Now the Catholic Faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity,
   and Trinity in Unity. 4. Neither confusing the persons (against
   Sabellianism, see p. 68) nor separating the Substance (against
   Arianism, see p. 87).
   5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and
   another of the Holy Ghost.
   6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is
   all one: the Glory equal, the Majesty co-eternal.
   7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son: and such is the Holy Ghost.
   8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated: and the Holy Ghost
   uncreated.
   9. The Father infinite, the Son infinite: and the Holy Ghost infinite.
   10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal: and the Holy Ghost eternal.
   11. And yet there are not three eternals: but one eternal (i.e. the
   Three are not three separate Gods, but possess one eternal nature).
   12. As also there are not three uncreated, or three infinites: but one
   uncreated, and one infinite.
   13. So likewise the Father is Almighty, the Son Almighty: and the Holy
   Ghost Almighty.
   14. And yet there are not three Almighties: but one Almighty.
   15. So the Father is God, the Son is God: and the Holy Ghost is God.
   16. And yet there are not three Gods: but one God.
   17. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord: and the Holy Ghost
   Lord.
   18. And yet there are not three Lords: but one Lord.
   19. For like as we are compelled by Christian truth to acknowledge
   every person by himself to be God and Lord;
   20. So are we forbidden by the Catholic Religion: to say, There are
   three Gods, or three Lords (i.e. Catholicism repudiates the pagan
   doctrine that there are many gods).
   21. The Father was made by no one; neither created nor begotten. 22.
   The Son is from the Father only; not made, nor created (against
   Arianism, see p. 87), but begotten (see p. 29).
   23. The Holy Ghost is from the Father and the Son; neither made, nor
   created, nor begotten, but coming forth (i.e. there is only one perfect
   divine sonship, and the Spirit represents intercourse within the
   Godhead rather than filial relationship).
   24. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons;
   one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts.
   25. And in this Trinity nothing is before or after, nothing is greater
   or less (i.e. the attributes of each distinct person are as eternal and
   as perfect as the attributes of the other two persons).
   26. But all three persons are co-eternal together and co-equal.
   27. So that in all things, as is aforesaid: both the Unity in Trinity,
   and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.
   28. He therefore that wisheth to be saved: must thus think of the
   Trinity.

   THE DOCTRINE OF THE INCARNATION

   29. Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation: that he also
   believe faithfully in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
   30. Therefore the right Faith is, that we believe and confess that our
   Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.
   31. He is God, begotten from the Substance of the Father before the
   worlds; and He is Man, born of the Substance of His Mother in the
   world.
   32. Perfect God: perfect Man, having a real existence with a rational
   soul and human flesh (against Apollinarianism, see p. 102). 33. Equal
   to the Father, as touching His Godhead: and inferior to the Father, as
   touching His Manhood.
   34. Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two but one Christ
   (against Adoptionism, see p. 69, and Nestorianism, see p. 105).
   35. One, not by a change of the Godhead into flesh (against Late
   Apollinarianism, see p. 100 ff.): but by taking of the Manhood into
   God.
   36. One indeed, not by confusion of Substance (against Eutychianism,
   see p. 108) but by oneness of person.
   37. For as the rational soul and the flesh are one man, so God and Man
   is one Christ.
   38. Who suffered for our salvation; descended into the lower world, on
   the third day rose again from among the dead.
   39. He ascended into heaven, He sitteth on the right hand of God the
   Father Almighty; from whence He shall come to judge the living and the
   dead.
   40. At whose coming all men must rise again with their bodies: and
   shall give account for their own works.
   41. And they that have done good will go into life everlasting: but
   they that have done evil into everlasting fire.

   CONCLUSION

   42. This is the Catholic Faith: which except a man shall have believed
   faithfully and firmly, he will not be able to be saved.

   The difficulties which are sometimes felt with regard to the so-called
   'damnatory clauses' in this creed can be largely removed. For both
   external and internal evidence show that its condemnations are not
   directed against ignorant unbelief but against wilful apostasy.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1] Trin. v. 9, 10.

   [1] Deut. vi. 4.

   [2] Trin. xv. 29.
     __________________________________________________________________

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE

   An asterisk shows that the exact year is uncertain.

   A.D.

   The Crucifixion of our Lord, . . . 29
   Council of the Apostles declares Gentiles free from the law, . . . 49
   Martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul at Rome, . . . 64 or 67
   St. John's Gospel teaches that Christ is the Word, . . . *85
   St. Ignatius insists on the necessity of Episcopacy, . . . *110
   Aristides and Quadratus write Apologies for Christianity, . . . 125
   Basilides and Valentinus, the Gnostics, flourish, . . . 135
   Marcion founds a Semi-Gnostic Church, . . . 144
   Montanus introduces a new kind of prophesying, . . . 157
   Theophilus uses the word Trinity: his doctrine of the Word is partly
   Stoic, . . . *180
   St. Irenaeus carries on St. John's teaching, . . . *182
   Origen born: combined Christian Theology with the best Greek culture, .
   . . *185
   Adoptionist Unitarianism brought to Rome, . . . *190
   Sabellian Unitarianism taught at Rome, . . . 215
   Tertullian expounds the doctrine of the Trinity, . . . *218
   Callistus, bishop of Rome, maintains that Penance is a means for
   obtaining forgiveness of mortal sin, . . . *218
   Hippolytus dies: was a voluminous theological writer, . . 235
   Manes or Manichaeus teaches an eclectic religion, . . . 242
   Novatian writes on the Trinity against Sabellius. . . . *250
   St. Cyprian maintains that mortal sin may be forgiven, but insists upon
   the necessity of Penance, . . . 250
   Dionysius of Alexandria dies: opposed Sabellianism. . . . . 265
   Paul of Samosata condemned for teaching that Jesus became divine at His
   baptism, . . . . *269
   Lucian dies: he was the forerunner of Arianism, . . . . 312
   Council of Nicaea; Arius is condemned for teaching that Christ is a
   demigod, . . . . 325
   Athanasius becomes bishop of Alexandria, . . . . 328
   Arian Blasphemy Creed; Arianism splits, . . . . 357
   Council of Constantinople; triumph of the Latitudinarian party of
   Arians, . . . . 360
   Catholics combine at the Council of Alexandria, . . . . 362
   Apollinaris denies the reality of Christ's soul, . . . . 380
   Council of Constantinople; final triumph of Catholicism over Arianism,
   . . . . 381
   Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia, teaches that the Word was only
   "connected" with Christ, . . . . 392
   Nestorius, a member of the party of Theodore, denies that Mary is
   Mother of God, and so denies that the Word became flesh; opposed by St.
   Cyril, . . . . 428
   Council of Ephesus condemns Nestorianism, . . . . 431
   Eutyches teaches that the manhood of Christ is absorbed by His Deity;
   opposed by St. Leo, . . . . 448
   The 'Robber-Council' of Ephesus pronounces Eutyches orthodox, and
   murders Archbishop Flavian, . . . . 449
   Council of Chalcedon condemns Eutyches and draws up a Definition of the
   doctrine of the Incarnation, . . . . 451
     __________________________________________________________________

INDEX

   Absolution. See Penitence.
   Acacius the Homoean, 94.
   Acts, doctrine of, 10.
   Adoptionism, 41, 69; Nestorianism resembles it, 106.
   Aetius, 92.
   Alexandria, Christianity in, 59; Council at, 96.
   Alexandrine theology, opposed to Antiochene, 103.
   Anastasius, presbyter of Nestorius, 105.
   Anointing at Confirmation, 82; of the sick, 86.
   Anomcean Arians, 92.
   Antichrist, in 2 Thessalonians 20; in Didache, 33.
   Antioch, Councils at, 70, 91.
   Apocalypse, Christology of, 30.
   Apollinaris, 101.
   Apologists, 32, 48.
   Apostles' Creed, 35.
   Apostolical succession, 32, 37, 85.
   Archelaus, Dispute of, 71.
   Arius, 71, 87; his doctrine Polytheistic, 88. Armenian Christianity,
   71, 86, 112.
   Artemon, 70.
   Asceticism, of St. Paul, 16; of Colossian heretics, 22; of Gnostics,
   44.
   Athanasian Creed, 114.
   Athanasius, on the Incarnation, 90; his Council at Alexandria, 96; on
   Christ's human knowledge, 90.
   Atonement, as taught by Christ, 8; by St. Paul, 16, 22; in Hebrews 24;
   by Irenaeus, 54; by Tertullian, 58; by Origen, 64; by Athanasius, 90.
   Augustine, on the Trinity, 113.
   Baptism, 9, 74; of infants, 75.
   Bardesanes, the Gnostic, 44.
   Barnabas, Epistle of, 36.
   Basil of Ancyra, 93.
   Basil of Caesarea, 97.
   Basilides, the Gnostic, 45.
   Bishops. See Episcopacy.
   Blasphemy Creed, 93.
   Caesarean creed, modified at Nicaea, 89.
   Callistus, bishop of Rome, relations with Monarchians, 67, 68; on
   Penitence, 81.
   Catholic Church, first called thus, 39.
   Celestine, bishop of Rome, appealed to by Nestorius, 105.
   Chalcedon, Council of, 110.
   Christ, claim of, 2; His consubstantiality with God, 89 ff., 111; His
   human knowledge, 99; His consubstantiality with man, 100, 102, 111.
   Church, relation to kingdom of God, 8; unity of, 23; organisation of,
   39, 83.
   Clement of Alexandria, 60.
   Clement of Rome, Epistle of, 36; on the Eucharist, 78; Second Epistle
   of, 37.
   Clementine apocryphal literature, 34.
   Colossians, Epistle to, Christology of, 22.
   Communion. See Eucharist.
   Confession, 80.
   Confirmation, 82.
   Corinthians, Epistles to, Christology of, 20.
   Creed, Apostles', 35; of Nicaea, 89; of Jerusalem, 97; of Chalcedon,
   110.
   Cyprian, on the Eucharist, 79; on Penitence, 81.
   Cyril of Alexandria, opposes Nestorianism, 105; Christology of, 106.
   Dated Creed of Sirmium, 95.
   Dedication Creed of Antioch, 91.
   Didache, theology of, 32; on Sacraments, 74, 76.
   Diodore, teaches that Christ was two persons, 103.
   Dionysius of Alexandria, 118.
   Dioscorus of Alexandria, 109.
   Docetism, 38; of Gnostics, 44; in Clement, 61.
   Dualism, 43, 45.
   Ebionites, 34.
   Elkesai, 34.
   Emanations from God, 45, 54.
   Ephesians, Epistle to, theology of, 23.
   Ephesus, Council of, 105.
   --Robber-Council of, 109.
   Episcopacy, 39, 83.
   Eschatology, See Judgment.
   Essene Ebionites, 34.
   Eucharist, in Gospels, 9; in later theology, 75 ff.
   Eunomius, the Arian, 92.
   Eusebius of Caesarea, 90.
   Eusebius of Nicomedia, 90.
   Eutyches, 107.
   Faith, in St. Paul, 17; in St. John, 26.
   Fasting, in Didache, 33; in 2 Clement, 38.
   Fire purgatorial, 64.
   Flavian, 109.
   Gentile Christianity, 35.
   Gnostics, 31, 42; alleged influence on Catholicism, 46, 73.
   God, Fatherhood of, 6; abstract views of, 49, 93.
   God, Son of, 4.
   God-Man, phrase of Origen, 64.
   Gregory of Nazianzus, opposes Apollinarianism, 102.
   Gregory of Nyssa, on the Trinity, 97.
   Hennas, Shepherd of, doctrine not Adoptionist, 41; on baptism, 74; on
   penitence, 80.
   Hilary of Poictiers, on Arianism, 94.
   Hippolytus, opposes Monarchianism, 67; opposes Callistus. 81.
   Homoean Arians, 94.
   Homo-ousios, phrase of Gnostics, 46; in Clement, 61; in Origen, 63; at
   Nicaea, 89.
   Homoi-ousios, a Semi-Arian phrase disliked by Anomoeans, 93.
   Hypostasis, in sense of substance or essence, 24, 97; in sense varying
   between essence and person, 66; in sense of person, 97, 111.
   Ignatius, opposes Docetism, 38; on Episcopacy, 39, 84; on the
   Eucharist, 76, 78.
   Indulgences, ancient and modern, contrasted, 82.
   Irenseus, his doctrine of God, 53; of the Word, 54; on infant baptism,
   75; on the Eucharist, 76.
   Istar, Babylonian Goddess, in Gnosticism, 43.
   James, St., Epistle of, 11; on unction of the sick, 86.
   Jerusalem, early Christianity at, 10; second destruction of, 31.
   John the Apostle, on the teaching of Christ, 5; agreement with St.
   Paul, 26; doctrine of the Word, 27; of the only-begotten Son, 29.
   John of Antioch, 105.
   Judaistic Christianity, 32.
   Jude, St., Epistle of, 12.
   Judgment by Christ, 3, 4.
   Justin Martyr, 48 ff.
   Kingdom of God, in teaching of Christ, 7; in Didache, 33.
   Lapsi, 81.
   Latrocinium, Robber-Council at Ephesus, 109.
   Law, St. Paul's conception of, 18.
   Laying-on of hands, in confirmation, 82; in ordination, 85.
   Leo, bishop of Rome, his Tome against Eutyches, 109.
   Logos Doctrine, in Philo. 28; in St. John, 29; in Apologists, 49; in
   Irenaeus, 54; in Clement, 60; in Origen, 63.
   Lord's Supper. See Eucharist. Lucian, the martyr, forerunner of
   Arianism, 71, 87; so-called Creed of, 91.
   Macedonius, the Semi-Arian, 98.
   Mandaites, an existing Gnostic sect, 43.
   Manes, or Mani, or Manichaeus, 44, 118.
   Manicheans, origin and tenets of, 44; connection with Augustine, 113.
   Marcellus of Ancyra, revives Sabellianism, 91.
   Marcion, his doctrine half Catholic, half Gnostic, 46.
   Marriage, ritual of, 73; doctrine of, 85.
   Mary, as Virgin, 39, 51; as the second Eve, 54; as Mother of God, 105.
   Meletius of Antioch, 93.
   Memra, 28.
   Merits, human, in 2 Clement, 38; in Tertullian, 58.
   Messiah, 3.
   Millennium, in Papias, 41.
   Minucius Felix, Latin Apologist, 48.
   Monarchianism, Tertullian on, 56; Modalist form of, 67; Adoptionist
   form of, 69.
   Montanism, 52.
   Mother of God. See Theotokos. Muhammadanism, derived from Ebionism, 35.
   Mysteries pagan, alleged influence on Christianity, 73.
   Nature One, of Christ, in Apollinaris, 101; in Cyril, 107; in Eutyches,
   108.
   Natures, Two, of Christ, in Cyril, 106; in Leo, 109.
   Neo-Platonism, influence of, 49, 57, 60, 62.
   Nestorius, 104; justly condemned, 105; kindred error in Nestorianism
   and Eutychianism, 108.
   Nicaea, Council of, 89.
   Nice, Arian creed of, 95.
   Noetus, the Patripassian, 67.
   Novatian, opposes Monarchianism, 67; opposes Cyprian, 81.
   Origen, on God, 62; on Redemption, 64; on the Sacraments, 75, 77.
   Ousia, Substance or Essence, 56, 95, 97.
   Pantaenus, 59.
   Papias, 40.
   Patripassians, 67.
   Paul the Apostle, 15.
   Paul of Samosata, 70.
   Paulicians, 71.
   Penitence or Repentance, in teaching of Christ, 7; in later teaching,
   41, 79 ff.
   Person, in Christology, 103 ff.; in the Trinity, 66, 68, 97, 113.
   Peter, St., Epistles of, 12.
   Philippians, Epistle to, 21.
   Philo, doctrine of the Word, 28.
   Pneumatomachi, 98.
   Polycarp, 39.
   Praxeas, 67.
   Pre-existence of Christ, 20 ff.; of the soul of Christ, 65.
   Priesthood, of Christ, 24; of clergy and laity, 79.
   Prisca or Priscilla, the Montanist, 52.
   Psilanthropism. See Adoptionism.
   Quicunque vult. See Athanasian Creed.
   Real Presence, 76.
   Recapitulation of man in Christ, 54.
   Reconciliation of man with God. See Atonement.
   Repentance. See Penitence.
   Righteousness, as taught by St. Paul, 17.
   Roman or Apostles' Creed, 32, 35.
   Romans, Epistle to, 16, 21.
   Sabellius, 68.
   Sacerdotalism, alleged, of Cyprian, 81.
   Sacraments, 9, 72 ff.; seven Sacraments, 74.
   Sacrifice, in Hebrews, 25; of the Eucharist, 77.
   Salvation, Christ's teaching about, 7.
   Samaria, Gnosticism at, 44.
   Scriptures, Canon of, 32.
   Self-emptying, or self-surrender, of Christ, in St. Paul, 21; in
   Athanasius, 100, in Cyril, 107. Semi-Arians, 93.
   Simon Magus, 44.
   Sin, St. Paul's doctrine of, 15.
   Sinlessness or Impeccability of Christ, Apollinarian doctrine of, 101;
   Catholic doctrine of, 102, 104.
   Sins, treatment of, 79.
   Socinus, revives Arianism, 88.
   Soul of Christ, 65, 88, 101.
   Spirit, a term used of Christ's divine nature, 21, 26, 37, 38, 41.
   Spirit, Holy, personality of, 9, 11, 16, 37, 42; asserted at second
   General Council, 98; work of, 10, 63; revolution in the name of, by
   Montanists, 52.
   Stoicism, 27, 50, 57, 68.
   Subordination of Christ, 87.
   Substance of God, 24, 57. See also Hypostasis and Ousia.
   Symeon, bishop of Jerusalem, 33.
   Synoptic Gospels, date of, 1; Christology of, 2 ff.
   Targums, doctrine of the Word in, 28.
   Tatian, as an Apologist, 48; uses our four Gospels only, 51.
   Tertullian, 55; doctrine of the Trinity in, 56; of the Incarnation, 57;
   on penitence, 80.
   Testament, Canon of the Old, 30; of the New, 32.
   Theodore of Mopsuestia, teaches a double personality in Christ, 103.
   Theodoret, reconciles Antiochene and Alexandrine schools, 105.
   Theodosius I., summons Council of Constantinople, 97.
   Theodosius II., summons a Council of Ephesus, 109; death of, 110.
   Theophilus of Antioch, as an Apologist, 48; is the first to use the
   Greek word for Trinity, 51.
   Theotokos, title of Mary, 105.
   Trinity, doctrine of, in New Testament, 9, 12, 26; first use of term in
   Greek, 51; in Latin, 56; doctrine of, in Tertullian, 56; in Sabellius,
   68; at Council of Alexandria, 97; in Augustine, 113.
   Unction of the Sick, 86.
   Union, hypostatic, 106.
   Unitarianism, Ebionite, 33; Modalist, 67; Adoptionist, 69; modern, 67,
   88.
   Ursacius, 95.
   Valens the Arian, 94.
   Valentinus the Gnostic, 45.
   Victor, bishop of Rome, 67, 69.
   Vincentius of Lerinum, 114.
   Virgin, the Blessed. See Mary.
   Westcott, on the word 'confess,' 80.
   Wisdom, Book of, personifies the Word of God, 28.
   Word. See Logos.
   Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome, 67.
   Zoroastrianism, influenced Gnosticism, 43; and Manicheism, 45;
   described by Theodore, 102.
     __________________________________________________________________

                                    Indexes
     __________________________________________________________________

Index of Pages of the Print Edition

   [1]ii  [2]iii  [3]1  [4]2  [5]3  [6]4  [7]5  [8]6  [9]7  [10]8  [11]9
   [12]10  [13]11  [14]12  [15]13  [16]14  [17]15  [18]16  [19]17  [20]18
   [21]19  [22]20  [23]21  [24]22  [25]23  [26]24  [27]25  [28]26  [29]27
   [30]28  [31]29  [32]30  [33]31  [34]32  [35]33  [36]34  [37]35  [38]36
   [39]37  [40]38  [41]39  [42]40  [43]41  [44]42  [45]43  [46]44  [47]45
   [48]46  [49]47  [50]48  [51]49  [52]50  [53]51  [54]52  [55]53  [56]54
   [57]55  [58]56  [59]57  [60]58  [61]59  [62]60  [63]61  [64]62  [65]63
   [66]64  [67]65  [68]66  [69]67  [70]68  [71]69  [72]70  [73]71  [74]72
   [75]73  [76]74  [77]75  [78]76  [79]77  [80]78  [81]79  [82]80  [83]81
   [84]82  [85]83  [86]84  [87]85  [88]86  [89]87  [90]88  [91]89  [92]90
   [93]91  [94]92  [95]93  [96]94  [97]95  [98]96  [99]97  [100]98
   [101]99  [102]100  [103]101  [104]102  [105]103  [106]104  [107]105
   [108]106  [109]107  [110]108  [111]109  [112]110  [113]111  [114]112
   [115]113  [116]114  [117]115  [118]116  [119]117  [120]118  [121]119
   [122]120  [123]121  [124]122  [125]123  [126]124
     __________________________________________________________________

            This document is from the Christian Classics Ethereal
               Library at Calvin College, http://www.ccel.org,
                   generated on demand from ThML source.

References

   1. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#i-Page_ii
   2. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#ii-Page_iii
   3. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#iii-Page_1
   4. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#iv-Page_2
   5. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#iv-Page_3
   6. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#iv-Page_4
   7. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#iv-Page_5
   8. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#iv-Page_6
   9. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#iv-Page_7
  10. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#iv-Page_8
  11. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#iv-Page_9
  12. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#iv-Page_10
  13. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#iv-Page_11
  14. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#iv-Page_12
  15. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#iv-Page_13
  16. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#iv-Page_14
  17. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#iv-Page_15
  18. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#v-Page_16
  19. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#v-Page_17
  20. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#v-Page_18
  21. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#v-Page_19
  22. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#v-Page_20
  23. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#v-Page_21
  24. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#v-Page_22
  25. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#v-Page_23
  26. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#v-Page_24
  27. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#v-Page_25
  28. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#v-Page_26
  29. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#v-Page_27
  30. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#v-Page_28
  31. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#v-Page_29
  32. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#v-Page_30
  33. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#v-Page_31
  34. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vi-Page_32
  35. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vi-Page_33
  36. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vi-Page_34
  37. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vi-Page_35
  38. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vi-Page_36
  39. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vi-Page_37
  40. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vi-Page_38
  41. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vi-Page_39
  42. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vi-Page_40
  43. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vi-Page_41
  44. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vi-Page_42
  45. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vi-Page_43
  46. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vi-Page_44
  47. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vi-Page_45
  48. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vi-Page_46
  49. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vi-Page_47
  50. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vi-Page_48
  51. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vii-Page_49
  52. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vii-Page_50
  53. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vii-Page_51
  54. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vii-Page_52
  55. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vii-Page_53
  56. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vii-Page_54
  57. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vii-Page_55
  58. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vii-Page_56
  59. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vii-Page_57
  60. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vii-Page_58
  61. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#vii-Page_59
  62. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#viii-Page_60
  63. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#viii-Page_61
  64. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#viii-Page_62
  65. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#viii-Page_63
  66. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#viii-Page_64
  67. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#viii-Page_65
  68. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#viii-Page_66
  69. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#viii-Page_67
  70. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#viii-Page_68
  71. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#viii-Page_69
  72. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#viii-Page_70
  73. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#viii-Page_71
  74. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#viii-Page_72
  75. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#ix-Page_73
  76. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#ix-Page_74
  77. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#ix-Page_75
  78. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#ix-Page_76
  79. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#ix-Page_77
  80. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#ix-Page_78
  81. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#ix-Page_79
  82. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#ix-Page_80
  83. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#ix-Page_81
  84. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#ix-Page_82
  85. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#ix-Page_83
  86. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#ix-Page_84
  87. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#ix-Page_85
  88. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#ix-Page_86
  89. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#ix-Page_87
  90. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#x-Page_88
  91. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#x-Page_89
  92. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#x-Page_90
  93. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#x-Page_91
  94. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#x-Page_92
  95. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#x-Page_93
  96. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#x-Page_94
  97. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#x-Page_95
  98. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#x-Page_96
  99. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#x-Page_97
 100. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#x-Page_98
 101. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#x-Page_99
 102. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#xi-Page_100
 103. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#xi-Page_101
 104. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#xi-Page_102
 105. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#xi-Page_103
 106. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#xi-Page_104
 107. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#xi-Page_105
 108. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#xi-Page_106
 109. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#xi-Page_107
 110. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#xi-Page_108
 111. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#xi-Page_109
 112. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#xi-Page_110
 113. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#xi-Page_111
 114. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#xi-Page_112
 115. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#xi-Page_113
 116. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#xii-Page_114
 117. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#xii-Page_115
 118. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#xii-Page_116
 119. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#xii-Page_117
 120. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#xii-Page_118
 121. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#xiii-Page_119
 122. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#xiii-Page_120
 123. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#xiv-Page_121
 124. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#xiv-Page_122
 125. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#xiv-Page_123
 126. file:///ccel/l/leightonpullan/earlychristian/cache/earlychristian.html3#xiv-Page_124