Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 221


By tltc same Arttlror



FOR 1940



Flu< publiJhc<l 1940
(Born 169o. Died 17$1 FiiSt series of Lectures delivered on
his ~oundation 1779-)
UNIVERSITY "I give and bequeath my Lands and Estates Lo
LIBRARY the Chancellor, lllast ers, and Scholars of the
BRONX NY University of Oxford for ever, to have and to
ROSF Hll.\. hold all and singular the said Lands or Estates
upon trust, and to the intents and purposes
hereinafter mentioned; that is to say, I will and
appoint lbat the Vice-Chancellor of the University
of Oxford for the time being shall take and receive
all the rents, issues, and profits Lhereof, and (after
all ta-xes, reparations, and necessary deductions
made) that he pay all the remainder to the endow-
ment of eight Divinity Lecture Sermons, to be
established for ever ln the said University, and to
be performed in the manner following :
"I cl.irect and appoint, that ... a Leclurer
may be . . . chosen by the Heads of Colleges
only, and by no others . lo preach eight
Divinity Lecture Sermons ... at St. Mary's in
Oxford. . .
" Also I direct and appoint, that the eight
MAO L'l Cfi. ,\'T URITAIN v

Divinity Lecture Sermons shall be preached upon
either of the following Subjects-to confirm and
establish the Christian Faith, and to confute
all heretics and schismatics-upon the divine
authority of the holy Scriptures-upon the
authority of the writings o tbe primitive Fathers, LECTURE l
as to tl1e faith and practice oi the primilive IMDirJO!< : OR> TilL :;(;KI\'rURAL BASIS OF 11ti!OLQCY:
Church- upon the Divinity of our Lord and Saviour A PROLOGUE

Jesus Christ-upon the Divinit y of the Holy Ghost

-upon the Articles o the Christian Faith, as CALLISIOS: OR, FAITH l:f A OIVI~E SAVIOUR
comprehended in the Apostles' and Niccne Creed.
'' Also T direct, that thirty copies of the eight LECTURE Ill
Divinity Lecture Sermons shall be always printed ORIOEI': OR, THE CI.AJMS OH REUCIOUS INTI!LI.IGRNCE .

. . . and one copy shall be given to the Chancellor

of Lhe University, and one copy to the Head of .'.UIA~ASIUS : OR, 'I'UE IJNITY OF GOD . 137
every College, and one copy to the 1\layor of the
City of Oxford, and one copy to be put into the UCL'lJRE V
Bodleian Library ; and the ex pense of printing APOLLINARIS ; OH, DIVINE 111Jt01'TIQN 1 93
them shall be paid out of the revenue of the Land
or Estates given foe establishing the Divinity NES'fORIUo : 0 1<, ltEPEUMED UO.'IMHTY ' 247
Lecture Sermons ; and the Preacher shall not be
paid, nor be entitled lo Lhe reventtc, before t hey LECTURE VTT
CYltLL: Olt, ONR l.-OHDJ ONJ I ~AJ'fH 1 ONE UAl'l1:5J.1 _
are printed.
' ' Also I direct o.ncl appoint, that no person shall
be qltali!lcrl to preach the D ivinity Lecture EROS: o f<, OEVC)'T1\JN 'fO riO! 5:\CRC.O U0f\CAN1TY:
Sermons, unless he hath taken the degree of Master 371
of Arts at leasl, in one of the two Universities of
Oxford or Cambridge; and that the same person
shall never preach the Divinity Lecture Sermons
twice." \"II
THE subject of this first lecture is 'Tradition '
and it has been chosen because tradition is the
true ground, both historically and rationally, o(
such authority as can properly be claimed for the
Christian religion. That assertion may well sound
provocative. So much, therefore, o the argument
which follows may here be summarily anticipated
as, on the one hand, to deny that tradition, as under-
stood by the great religious teachers of the Catholic
Church, affords any special foothold for super-
stition or presents any inherent obstacle in the
way of rational reflection and decision; and, on
the other hand, to aflinn lhat the principles of
authority embodied in tl1e practice of the ancient
Fathers, and summarised in the Greek word
paradosis, or tradition, constitute the title--deeds
of two possessions fundamental to Christianity
-frrst, belief in a divine revehttion, and second,
acceptance of the primacy o[ Holy Scripture as
the guide of faith.
But when the Falhers used the word tradition,
they did not mean what the word would imply in
a modem agnostic preface, or even in a letter to
last Friday's Church Times. The change which
the idea of tradition has undergone in sense an.d lectnal conditions, and without any marked effort to
emphasis is so great, in fact, that there might be think for himself. There may even be a moral
advautage in disusing the term altogether, or a t stigma attached to him for preferring" the traditions
any rate in conftning its use to the original Greek of the elders " to the pure and original truth. The
form, paradosis. On the other hand, Greek implication is that those Christians wbo value
tcclmical terms are not easily assimilated by a tradition inevitably corrupt their recognised
public of which even the well-educated sections principles in the course of public transmission; and
are no longer familiar with the Greek language, I hat dogmatic antiques are therefore only reputable
and an attempt to impose new foreign terms on if they were already lost to sight before St. Paul
nati"e thinkers might. seem presumptuous and wrote his epistles and have been completely buried
might prove fruitless. lt is therefore better to in oblivious sands for the intervening nineteen
keep to the familiar word, already established in centuries. Truth, on tbis view, includes only
native usage, and try to show both what matters what nineteen centuries have forgotten or what the
oflegitimatc importance it covers, and what ~h?se twentieth cent11ry has itself invented.
who first introduced it into the language of religiOn Stated thus, both traditionalism and the attack
were really seeking to express. on it are caricatured. Under certain conditions
Take an extreme example of tradition in the of transmission, corruptions and abuses do creep
modern sense. A ballad or folk-song is commonly into religious practice and even harbour in religious
described as traditional when worcls and tune have thought. To that extent some suspicion of antique
been transmitted over an indefinitely long period survivals m<ty be justified. But the rolling stone
of time, in the course oi which, as a rule, t he text oi tradition also gathers a mo.re valuable moss.
has b een corrupted and the melody vulgarised. Granted that the central truths of rovclation are
In this conncxion, tradition suggests antiquity, presented in the New Testament, there remains
and not antiquity only, but accretion oi matter an essential preliminary revelation in the Old
and deterioration in taste. 5irnilarly, when a Testament, not to mention what the Fathers
theologian is described, by those who differ from called a praeparatio evangelic(l. in the best thought
him, as a traditjonalist, the in1putation which it is of the pagan world, which served to prepare the
usually intended to convey is that be occupies his way lor the Gospel. The deepest ex-periences and
predecessors' trenches, without attempting much noblest convictions of the pre-Christian world
critical adjustment of their views to altered intel- pointed towards Clnist and God. If that be so,
it would be utterly unnatural for the highest post- confuse the origjnal deposit of faith with the
Christian experience not to confirm the Gospel in fully formulated conclusions of theology which
a corresponding degree. In other words, an have sin ce gradually been deduced from the
accretion, enlargement, confirmation of the faith primary dai.a. For instance, the original facts
is to be expected and welcomed in the process of and convictions whic1J cao be guaranteed by
transmitting Christian truth; and as H ebrew critical study of the four Gospels clearly have to be
history paved a high-road to Bethlehem and Calvary distinguished from the theological statement gjven
and Olivet, so subsequent events can and musl be of them in the Nicene Creed. We may well believe
theologically interpreted by Christians, as flag- that the creed only presents, in concise and partly
stones in the paths that lead down from Gospel technical language, what the Gospels imply, and
truth to t he hearts and actions of mankind. It that if the Gospels mean anything at all, they can
would be singularly unpractical to discuss the only mean what the creed asserts. That is a
relation of Sennachcrib and AntiochusEpiphanes to perfectly r easonable position to adopt. But the
the Gospel, ~wd exclude that, let us say, of the two tl1ings are not identical. The Gospels afford
Spanish Armada or Ute Versailles Treaty and the a collection of material for theological constn1ction ;
Third Reich. The whole of history adds material the creed puts forward inferences and conclusions
for testing the validity and illustrating the progress based ou that material. The one represents the
of Christian beliefs, and so enriches Christian evidence, the other records a verdict. And be
tradition. that verdict ever so correct, the fact remains tbat
Thm-e is also ano ther distinct way in whiclt it was the evidence, and not the formal verdict,
tradition qttite prop(~rly and necessarily grows. which was once deposit~:d with the saints, A, valid
Old-fashioned traditionalists of l1alf a century ago appeal must always lie, at least in theory, from
used to take a fum stand on the principle of guard- the formulated verdict to the deposited evidence.
ing the deposit, and contending earnestly for the It is always open to review tl1at evidence afresh.
faith which was once for all delivered to the saints To admit this does not mean that some appeals are
-depositum onstodire, s11percertari semel traditae nol frivolous; norisiLinconsistenl with a conviction
sa1tctis fidei (I Tim. vi. 20; Jude 3). Tllat excellent lhat any reasonable appeal can only lead to
principle has been greatly blown upon during the confumation of t he previous decision.
present centttry, even by some people of incisive A thinking Church, a Chmch that pliofesses to
orthodoxy, bec~use its defenders appeared to love God with all its mind as well as with all its
hc<ITt, cannot be content to lie for ever in an in- thought must vastly have exceeded the diseased
tellectual fallow. Circumstances no less than duty and rotten.
[orce it to interpret its convictions. It is often There was a special reason for the intense
repeated that the creeds are signposts against theological activity of those centuries. Not only
heresies-that is to say, that the need for precise had a new religion emerged, with every need to
formulation of Christian belief arose from the justify itself to lhe world and every intention of
circulation of misunderstandings and the prevalence challenging the allegiance of the world ; there bad
of false interpretations. Though partly, that is also providentially been placed in its hands the
not wholly true. The creeds of the Church grew intellectual equipment necessary to carry ont
out ot the teaching of the Church; the general those objects. The rational methods which the
effect of heresy was rather to force old creeds to be great Greek philosophers had developed, which
tightened up than to cause fresh creeds to be con- they had employed with striking success to inquire
structed. Thus the most famous and most crucial into the ultimate meaning of existence and to
of all creeds, that of Nicaea, was only a new edition penetrate the secrets of the natural universe, had
of an existing Palestinian confession. And a been rendered available by the progress o educa-
further important fact always ought to be re- tion to acute intellects in Africa and Syria and
membered. The real iutellect\Jal work, the vital Egypt, as well as Europe. The provision of fresh
interpretative t110ught, was not contributed by the material for thought coincided witl1 widespread
Councils that promulgated the creeds, but by the opportunities of access t o an instrument of thought
theological teachers who supplied and explained more powerful tl1an any that civilisation had
U1e formulas which the Councils adopted. 'Ihe previously possessed. It was a duty incumbent on
tcachins of Nicaea, which finally commended itself, Christian thinkers both to interpret their faith in
represents the views of intellectual giants working intellectual terms, and also to assess its bearing on
for a hundred years before and for fifty years aiter the general thought of their world. As at aJl times
the actual meeting of the Council Heresy may of similar intellectual vigour, Christians of the
advertise the eJ.:istence of bad theology. But it early centuries accepted that duty with alacrity.
also indicates that men are thinking ; and even Accordingly, the deposit o! faith bas not
allowing for all tllc heresy that was once wnl ten descended to the presenl generation unaccom-
during the early Christian centuries bnl has been panied by increment. Unlike the unproductive
lost to posterity, the amount of sound theological talent whfcb was wrapped in a napkin and buried

in the ground, it has been out at interest with the credited. What they cannot rationally demand is
intellectual banks. Jt has been subjected to an automatic rebate of the whole sum of interest
searching processes of inquiry, which started to that ever has been paid. To return to the naive,
clarily and illuminate its meaning from a time uncritical laitb of Galilean peasants is as complete
even before the books o{ the New Testament were an intellectual impossibility as it is a practical
written. The greatest contribution made in recent impossibility to return to the naive politics and
years to the study ot Biblical theology is precisely rudimentary economics of Galilean peasant~.
the recognition that the writers o( the New Testa- There mus t be creeds. The only question is, Whal
ment, as of the Old, interpreted everything that creeds best exp~:ess the t ruth ?
they recorded; the s<tcred text includes a measure Catholic theology followed a fairly well dcfmed
of tacit, an d sometimes of explicit, commentary. direction. Its path was not :{rorn tJ ,e outset as
FrOJl'\ time immemorial that has been recognised as broad and straight, like an arterial road, a.s it
true of the author of the Fourth Gospel. More alterwards became. At the beginning it branched
recently it has been demonstrated yet more clearly and wandered like a country lane, and pursuing
of St. Paul. "But it is equally true of the Synoptic the first track-s that men made round and across
'Evangelists. St. Mark, tbe oldest and least their own intellectual holdings, served to link
soph:i~ticated of them, is deeply concerned, as he together the scattered habitations of thought.
relates his simple narrative, to emphasise the But steadily the lane grew straighter, as the
meaning which he believes it to contain. His various more important settlements came to be
litlle book is no biography, but a divine Gospel, more clearly established and the extent and
with the Christ and Saviour for its subj ect.. The requirements of the whole :uea were more
bani~ is already accumulating interest. And if this thoroughly surveyed. Great awkward corners
is the case with those who first put Christian pen to were then found t o exist, at which a number of
paper-indeed, as is admitted by the modern top-heavy, bacUy loaded heresies met with
critic, with those who even earlier gave tongue to disastrous road accidents, I t was necessary to
Christian story- the increment did not cease to improve the highway, and so at last the ordered
accrue when the books of the New Testament had ~implicity of the conciliar definitions was brougltt
been completed or when the canon had been mto arterial working. The progress made was
closed. ~Iodem auditors have every right to never arbitrary, nor was its general tendency
inquire how far the interest paid was properly irregular. I t represents simply the first stages in

the formation of that "steadfast and consistent Bible, that, broadly speaking, it signified to them
Christian philosophy ", the Philosoph.ia perenm:s, the actual divine revelation, the substance of
which has grow-n and continues to grow through which was to be found set forth in Scripture and,
reverent and rational reflection on the Gospel, with certain simple qualifications, nowhere else.
and presents, as ?ilr. Alfred Noyes has written, a Tha t is the fact which we shall now proceed to
ceutraJ point of view enaoling men, from the examine.
height of a great historic religion, to sec life steadily Tradition means delivery. When the war-time
and see it whole (The Unknown Goa, pp. II, 370). houscwi fe orders her bacon, she has to deli ver
A road like that is not to be regarded as an illegiti- coupons from her ratiou-boolcs. She hands over
mate accretion on the jungle, but as a main trunk, the precious vouchers on the spot, and no inter-
if not the one main trunk , of the communications o mediary is required. But before th e rashers are
civilising thought. delivered at the house a whole series of intermedia-
There is, then, a true sense in which the Christian ries maybandle t hem. One assistant slices them

faitll, without losing its integrity or its intensity, another may wrap them, a vanman collects them a
may be enlarged in breadti1 and relevancy as it is boy takes them to the back door jn a basket. There'
transmitted down the ages. This is one sense of may be much transmission from person to person
tradition, and theforce of tradition in that sense has before the delivery is completed, and we commonly
to be distinguished from the authority attaching to give the name delivery to the entire process.
the original deposit of faith and, for most practical But, strictly speaking, delivery applies only to the
purposes, from that attaching to the contents of last stage. If the parcel is never handed over al
the Bible. But this is not what the Fathers the tradesman's entrance-if it is lost i:n transil
meant by paradosis. When t hey wished to reier or snalcbed by a mongrel dog outside the garden
to the acCtlmulating wisdom of philosophically gate-no delivery has taken place at aJl. It makes
grounded Christianity they called it, not paradosis, no difference in principle whether the object
but didascalia or teaching. The word paradosis transmitted passes direct or through a number of
they reserved in i ls strict sense for so1nething yet different hands. The essence o1 the delivery is tbe
more fundamental, something that depended not tradition of the object concemed by the first
merely on divine guidance, but on divine act ion, party or his aut110rised agent to the second party.
And so far were they from distinguishing tradition The root of the matter is not handing down nor
from the deposit of fa.it h orfrom the con Lents of lhc handing along, but handing over.
Accordingly, the word tradition itself occurs in episcopo) when he made his formal profession of
connexion with lwo well-known ecclesiastical Cluistianity by reciting il. The creed, then, was
observances: the trnditio i1lStrumen/.omm and the presented to the neophyte not primarily as some-
traditio symboli. In ancient times, when a door- thing laboriously passed from mouth to mouth or
keeper, or an acolyte, or other member of the from book to book, but as a faith impressively
minor orders was admitted to his office, he was delivered to his keeping by the teaching authority
given the church key or a candlestick and cruet, of the living Church. Its tradition, in one sense,
or whatever else constituted at once the tool and might cover three or sLx or twenty centuries, but
the token of his duty. The priest was given at in the deepest sense it covered precisely those few
his ordination a chalice and paten. To this day a minutes which his instructor took to expound it.
relic of the custom survives in the English Ordinal, Go back to the New Testament with this in
where the Bishop is required, immediately after mind, and see the tight that is then thrown on
he has ordained the priests by laying on of hands, what it says about tradition. Tradition is the
to " deliver to every one of them kneeling, the term repeatedly u~ed of the act of Judas Iscariot,
Bible into his hand". This is the' tradition of the tbe traitor or traditor, by which he delivered the
instruments'. Tn the other instance tradition person of J esus Christ to His enemies, and of the
refers to a moral and nol a physical delivery, and is act of the chief priests who 'handed Him over ' to
more closely akin to normal use. In the old rites Pilate, It is the word that describes the com-
for catechumens, who were being prepared for mittal to prison of Jolm the Baptist and of those
baptism at Easter, a series of preliminaryceremonies early Christians whom Saul persecuted before J1is
and instructions took place during Leut, in course conversion, and the sentence by which the Apostle
of wlticb an exposition of tl1e creed was given to e'Xcommwucated Hymcnaeus and Alexander,
tbc canrlidates. This was the l r(l.(iitio symboli, 'handing them over ' from the Church's care to
the solemn delivery into their mental keeping of that of Satan as the eonseq Llcncc of their blas-
the articles of the faith into which they were to be plwmy (Mark 1. I4, Acts vili. 3, I Tim. i. zo). Io
baptised. The Spanish pilgrim of the fourth successive chapters o! Llle Epistle to the Ephesians
century, Etheria, describes them as "taking it expresses the conveyance of themselves by the
possession of" the creed (acdpient silmbo!tum) wicked unto la~civiousness, and of Cbrist by
on this occasion. At the end of the course each Himself as an offering and sacrifice to God (Eph. iv.
candidate " returned '' the creed ('reddet simbo/;um :rg, v. 2). So in the Acts of the Apostles the
brethren at Antioch 'handed over' their mission- mentis related far more closely to disposal than to
aries to the grace of God when they sent them porterage. When we come to consider the con-
forth, and the missionarie$ handed over ' their demnation which was pronounced by Christ on the
lives for the work (Acts xv. 401 26). So much tradition of the elders, U1e same holds good. The
for persons; what o things? The lord in the tradition oi men is contrasted with the command
parable ' handed over the talents to his servants
I of GQd : " ' In vain do they worship me, teaching
(Matt. xxv. 14). The devil claimed at U1e Tempta- as their doctrines the precepts of men; 1 ye leave
tion of Christ that all authority over the world had the commandment of God and hold fast the tradi-
been ' banded over ' to himse\I and his own tion of men." There was no sin in the fact that
nominees (Luke iv. 6). Christ, on the other hand, the J ews derived their knowledge and interpretation
asserted that all things bad been ' banded over ' by of tbe Law from pr~vious generations. They
the Father to Him (Mat t. xi. 27). and St. Paul necessarily owed it to their predecessors that they
adds that the final act of cosmic history would so much as possessed the Law; to that extent
consist in Christ ' handing over ' the kingship to the commandment of God and the tradition of
His God and Father (I Cor. xv. 24). Moses men were very much on the same footing. The
handed over ' customs to the Jews (Acts vi. 14) ; sin lay in failing to distinguish the origin of the
Paul and Silas ' handed over ' the decrees of the precepts in question, and in preferring that which
J erusalem Cotmcil to the Galatian converts for was backed merely by human authority to. that
them to keep (Acts xvi. 4); St. Pa11.l ' handed which rested on. divine auUtorlty. The contrast
over ' to the Corinthians various " traditions" lies b etween God's word and man's word. It has
and statemenLs oi fact which had previously been little to do with the method of their transmission
entrusted to 1\.imsclf (I Cor. xi. 2, 23, xv. 3), and a{ter they had been uttered, but concerns their
directed the Thessalonians to t'etain hold of the actual delivery. Did God say such a.nd such?
" traditions " which he had taught them by word lf so, no principle or precept laid clown by any
or pen (II Thess. ii. IS) ; original eye-witnesses had theologian, whether a venerated elder or a con-
' handed over ' information to S t. Luke (Luke i. 2); temporary sophist, can be allowed to override the
and according to S t. Jude the faith bad been word of God. The message delivered by God is
'handed over' once to the saints (J\Ide 3). greater than any message delivered by men.
All this-and more which could be quoted- A passage in the First Epistle of St. Peter
shows that the idea of tradition in the New Testa- (I Pet. i. r8) illustrates both the biblical meaning

o[ tradition and the fixed tendency of the authori- thus made to appear cheap for doing what their
tative English versions to misunderstand it. The fathers had done. But there is nothing cheapening
Apostle is writing about Christian conduct and in that. What reaUy made their ideals and
contrasting it with the standards of conduct standards cheap, by comparison with those of the
required of the Jews. He points the contrast by Gospel, was not that their faihers had practised
comparing the respective authorities from which them, but that their fathers had asserted them.
the claims of the two codes oi conduct were derived . The Decalogue, imposed on " them of old time "
the Jewish standard of holiness was based on the by Moses and josiah and E~rn, l1ad to yield its
ordinances of the fathers, the great men of old; ancient pre-eminence to the Beatitudes revealed by
but the Christian standard of holiness was based Jesus Christ, whose ''I say unto you" enacted a
on the precious sacrifice of Christ, which had its new law of conduct for mankind.
roots, indeed, in a past yet more remote than The distinction between transmission and de-
Moses and Elijah-He was foreknown before the livery is not merely philological nor merely anti-
foundation of the world-but had only been mani- quarian, but of practical importance, because the
fested to supersede the J ewish Law in the last idea of delivery involves the question of authority,
times. "Ye were redeemed," he writes, " not from which the idea of mere transmission is free.
with corruptible things !rom your vain manner of It is as authorities that Christ and Moses are con-
life delivered by tl1e fathers, but with the precious trasted; not as vehicles, but as sources. Unlike
blood of Christ." The Greek word is a compotmd the scribes, they botlt "spoke with authority",
-patropf!radotos, " delivered by the fathers ". in the name of Almighty God, and as interpreters of
Tyndale translates it accurately, "your vain con- Bis mind. The whole issne beLWeen Judaism and
versation which ye received by the traditions of Christianity turned not on the claim of either
the fathers". But the Authorised Version alters system to be the more venerable or the more
the phrase to" your vain conversation teceived by \Ip-to-dat.e, but on t.b.c Christian claim, so in-
tradition from yotLT fathers ", a significant and tolerable to the unconverted J ew, to offer a more
misleading change; and the Revised Version, perfect representation of the fundamental truth of
though omitting the redundancy which makes the God. The Law was a shadow of good things.
previous translations c\lmbrous, retains the mis- The Gospel, in one sense new, but in a deeper sense
translation, reading, " your vain manner of life older than either Moses or even Abraham, was the
handed down from your fathers". The Jews are substance and fulfilment. They clashed, because

both were presented as matter of divine revelation. it, is conducive to trust in the power of man to
Had they not been Tevealed religions, they could redeem his own fallen nature. Human capacity
have compromised instead of clashing. As it for good or evil has been enormously extended, but
was, the Christian could only maintain bis fortress nothing fresh bas been accomplished during five
by reducing .Moses to the ranks, and the Jew by centuries of humanism to eradicate or even to
executing J esus Christ as a blasphemer, or theo- con trol the evil will. Now that the innate power
logical rebel. of wickedness has been rediscovered on a large
Christianity is a revealed religion. We need. scale through experiences which come home to
not stop at this point to di$cuss the problems and the minds and, it may be l10ped, to the consciences
implications of revelation, so long as we fully of all, and man is once more recognised as part
realise that the religion of the Old and New Testa- beast and parl devil, as well as part rationalist and
ments is not something casually picked up aloug part Social Democrat, the heart may either sink in
the roadside of evolutionary progre..s, but some- despair or else, acknowledging that mao is meant
thing 'given ' by divine act operating on a sp.eclal to be the child of God, !all into the anns of the
plane of its own. In the strangely optimistic transcendent Sav;our. The strength and comfort
atmosphere of naturalism that permeated the close of revealed religion, with its message of salvation
of the last century, this characteristic of Chris- given from outside the vicious human circle, are
tian ity was often regarded as a blameworthy then peculiarly apparent.
eccentricity which ruined the symmetry of its The Bible assumes that religion is a thing given.
mechanism. For the last twenty-five years a less The agents through whom the gift was made are
hopeful view of evolutionary progress has been inspired men, law-givers, prophets, and apostles
prevalent, and many people who have lost their authorised to hand over to the keeping of mankind
faith in the capacity of education or of social the word of God and the means of His grace.
reform to change the radical evil seated in the heart God is not in fact generally depleted as the direct
of man, are glad to adopt a more humble and author of this tradition, though that His is the
dependent attitude towards the advances extended authority by which it was made is beyo11d all
to them by the ruler of the universe. Neither the question postulated. The Hebrew 'fathers ' and
shambles of a civilised nation scientifically bombed, 'elders ' were raised up and commissioned to
raped, and massacred, nor the calculated purpose declare divine truth to God's people so far as they
of tlte blasters, brigands, and butchers who destroy themselves were capable of Llnderstanding it or
their fellow-r:nen were ready to receive it. This teaching delivered, and t hat no t merely in con-
was the old tradir.ion of the ancient covenant. ne:xion with religion, but with instructors and
The new covenant was introduced and sealed by pupils of any kind (Clem. Al. eel. ProP" 27. x, Or.
divine work unprecedented in character and under- in f er. 6. z ad fin.). It may refer equally either t o
taken on a novel plane of action. Adherence to ora) or to written informat ion (Eus. h. e. 3 39 J,
it depended on persona] relations with a historical Dion. Al. apud Eus. h. e. 7 7. I}. But its use is
figure who was both Mau and Saviour, who revealed not conlined to matters o{ fact or to their explana-
God and s~lccted Hi$ own witnesses to testify to tion by rcJjgious teachers; it applies also to the
tlle fact and the significance of His work. What inst itution Of practical observano<:-.s and of dis-
from t he side o{ heaven is described as redemption, ciplinary regulations. Thus the ancient rule that
is called faith in Christ from the standpoint of a bishop must not be translated Irom the see to
mankind. Whichever way it be regarded, it is which he has once been consecrated, but should
God's gift, proclaimed and ministered by the 1emain a faithful spouse to t he diocese to which
apostles whom Christ had chosen for the purpose. he has been wedded, is described as an apostolic
So the faith was indeed once delivered to the tradition (Eus. wt. Const. 3 62. 3) ; the employment
saints, uniquely, because it was a unique and final of the baptismal formula, "in the name of the
revelation ; and the significant '(act of Christ's Father and of t he Son and of the Holy Ghost '', is
resurrection, and t he central t ruth that His death ascribed to the tradition of the Lord (Bas. c. Eutt.
was a sacrificial act, as indicated by the mysteries 3 5, 276E; Greg. Nyss. c. E1m. 3 9 61, PG
of the Last Supper, formed outstanding features of 45 88ro}; and" in the tradition of the mysteries"
t he ' tradition 1 which St. Paul delivered to his Cnr\st called t he bread Body and the wine Blood
converts. These things were not a human dis- (Thdt. Eran. 1 , iv. 26A). Tradition is used by
covery, but a Gospel sent from God through Clement oi Ale..'tandria of the utterances of
ministers on whom woe must fall if they should philosophers and oracles (stro't!l, 5 4. 21. 4}, of
fail t o preach it. the. solemn communication to neophytes of pagan
This conception of tradition was firmly retained mysteries (strom . J. 4, 27. 6), and also of their
by the ecclesiastical writers coDUllonly referred to betrayal to the world by an informer- " Cinyras
under the general t itle of Fathers. In their works the islander from Cyprus ventured to give away'
tlte word pa.radosis or ' tradition regularly means the wanton orgies of Aphrodite froro t he night
the delivery of teaching or the contents of the io the daylight " (protr. 2, 13. 4). He even spealrs
of lhe specific revelation of the Gospel as " the tradition " owing to its prolonged association with
tradition through the Son ", contrasting it with St. Paul and St. John (haer. 3 3 4). Hippolytus
that theistic foundation of faith in God the Father a little later in Rome appeals to the apostles'
which Christians shared with educated Greeks tradition for the truth of the incarnation of our
(strom. 6. 5, 39 4). All thfs strongly reinforces the Lord (c. Noet. 17). Tertullian in Africa scorns the
conclusion that when the Fathers t<J.!.k about idea that the Holy Ghost could ever have per-
tradition they primarily mean w ltat might be mitted different ioterpretabons to be put on the
called, in a modern slang phrase, " delivering the faith which He was preaching by the apostles :
goods". That is not to say that tradition never widespread differences of teaching could never
means tile transmi~ion of teaching, still less that have res11lted in a common faith ; the unity of
it never occurs in contexts which imply that what belief in the various churches must be due " no t
was once authoritatively delivered and declared to error but to tradition" (de praescript. 28).
has since been preserved and handed down in About the same time, in Alexandria, Clement
successive stages of continuity. It docs, however, describes how Christian instructors had preserved
suggest the need for cantion in translation, it the " the true tradition of the blessed teaching "
true implication of the word is not to be obscured right from the apostles, and, sons receiving it
or lost. The idea of proclamation and lhe note of successively from their fathers, had extended to
autl1ority are seldom or never absent when the his own time to plant in the hearts of fresh genera-
word is applied to Christian teaching or institutions. tions the ancestral and apostolic seeds of faith
Accordingly, tradition is repeatedly mentioued (strom. I. I , II. 3). A passage such as this pre-
io connexion with the apostles; authority is pares the way lor an extension of the act of tradi-
claimed for Christian truths on the ground that tion t'rom the apostles, who first delivered the faith
they are an "apostolic tradition " or a " tradition to the primitive disciples, to subsequent teachers,
oi the aposLles or of certain of their number. who with an authority no less assured delivered it
TI1us lrenaeus of Gaul, in the second century, once more to people oi a later age. So we hear
bases his argument on " the tradition which the not only of the apostolic but also of the ecclesiastic
Roman church possesses from the apostles through tradition, still in the same sense of a divine deposit
its foundation and organisation by Peter and committed to souls. Clement, that intensely
Paul" (haer. 3. 3. 2). and commends the churcl1 of liberal and phj1osophically minded Hellenist, con-
Ephesus as " a true witness to the apostles' trasts the ecclesiastic tradition with the opinjons

of human heresies; any one who lipurns the tradi- side of the practice of the Church, to which it falls
tion and darts aside after heretical opinions is to deliver the tradition once again to successive
like the men whom Circe bewitched into beasts; groups of converts, drawn either from the heathen
be is no longer a man of G<>d or faithful to the Lord or from the young in every generation. l3ut. there
(strom. 7 r6, 95 I), It is worth remarking that is anotl1er, more concrete answer, that for most
the return from such deceit consists in listening to practical purposes the tradition is enshrined in the
the Scriptures (ib. z); so thal the ecclesiastic Bible, first in the Old Testament, which witnesses
traditLon is no different in substance from the throughout to Christ for minds that righlly under-
apostolic. Iren;J.eusllad com mer ted on the variety stand it, and then, as t he canon oi the New
of agents and languages by which the Church Testament Scriptures gradually came to be deter-
"preaches, teaches, and traditions 1 " the faith, mined, in" the evangelic and apostolic traditions "
adding that everywhere" the force of the tradition of the New (Greg. Nyss. de ~>ir[. n .fio.)-that is,
is one and the same" (haer. I. IO. 2). And in the Gospels and Epistles. Right down in the
Alhanasius, in the fourth century, sums up by eighth century it was still possible for J obn of
describing " the actual ori&tinal tradition, teaching, Damascus, the systematiser ol Eastern theology,
and faith of the Catholic Church, which the Lord to refer to biblical revelation in general as " the
conferred, the apostles proclaimed, and the fathers divine tradition ", to claim the Bible as the sole
guarded" (ad Serap. I. z8 init.). channel of revelation, and to urge that nobody
W11ere, then, are the contents fl.nd substance of should try to inquire too curiously into matters of
this tradition to be found ? The answer ls given religion tltat fel l outside its venerable limits
~tultc clearly and definitely, <~ond quite consistently, (fid. orth. I. I).
by writer a{ter writer. Tho tradition was delivered Clement of Rome, at the end of the tlrst century,
by the apostles to t he hearts and minds of Chris- and J us tin Martyr, in the middle o( the second,
tians; it is in the safe keeping of the Church. quote the historical, legal, and prophetical books
That may be called the abstn1.ct or theoretical of the Old Testament as uttera.nces of the Holy
answer, and it corresponds well enough with one Ghost (Clem. Rom. ad. Cor. 1. 13. r; Just. apol.
' An apology is due for this barbarism, which is dragged 1:. 44 I , dial. 25. r). In tlle opening years of the
unwillingly into service only in order to roark the fact that the second century the Syrian prophet and bishop,
verb so tr;mslatcd is the cognate of paradosis. To use the
English verb tmde ' in this u.utamiliar sense would suggest Ignatius, had already said that the prophets had
bartering the Gospel .rather than proclaiming il . not only "lived according to Christ Jesus" but
had been "inbreathed by grace" (Mag11. 8. 2). auU1ority of scriptural textS with lhe new pl1rase
Here is the actual word inbreathing or inspira- "as the Scripture has traditioned" (strom. I. zr,
tion applied to the biblical writers. It is repeated 142. -2; ib. 7 :t8, 1:09. 2), and speaks of the spiritual
by Justin: when you hear the prophets read, " knowledge traditioned through the Scriptures ",
" do not regard their phrases merely as falling by which Christ makes a man truly great-minded
from those inbreathed men, but from the divine (strom. 7 x6, xos. x). The St..Tiptures are not to be
Word who moves them" (llfJol. 1 . 36. :t). A few treated with casual eclecticism, nor are the truths
years later than J ustin, Athenagoras, an acute and " conj oined with the inspired words and lraditioncd
vigorous Christian Platonist from Athens, makes by the blessed apostles and teachers " to be
the extraordinary statement that Moses and the deliberately subjected to quibbling, '' opposing the
prophets, "moved by the divine Spirit, l:tttercd divine tradition with human teachings in order to
the message with which they were possessed in a establish tbe heresy" (strom. 7 16, 103. 4 & 5).
state of rapture out of their conscious faculties, On the contrary, the genuine "gnostic "-that is
the Spirit taking charge of them as a fluter breathes to say, the devout and intelligent Christian, the
into his flute" (stbppl. g. 1). This is verbal man o{ real enlightenment-will grow old in the
inspiration with a vengeance. And towards the Scriptures, preserves the apostolic and ecclesiastic
end of the second century Irenaeus expressly orthodoli."Y in his doctrines, and lives according to
attributes to the action of the Holy Ghost the the Gospel; for his life " is nothing else than deeds
exact choice o! words with whieh the Gospel and words conformj ng to tle Lord's tradition"
according to St. Matthew opens : " tbe Holy (i/J. 104. I & z). In. his maintenance of such a.n
Ghost, foreseeing the corruptors and guarding attitude, basing a deep reverence for the Bible
against their deception, says through Matthew'' on the unique character of the tradition which it
(haer. 3 16. 2). As soon, therefore, as the New contained, Clement is not singular. He merely
Testament emerged in a shape substantiall y gives expression in words to the spirit which ani-
recognisable, ihe same authority was promptly mated all the Fathers, who repudiated with horror
ascribed to it as had from lhe first attached to the the idea of possessing any private or secret doctrine.
Hebrew Scriptures. and supported all their arguments w-ith the most
The Bible was associated, and largely identified, painstaking exegesis of the text of Holy Writ.
with the tradition as early as Clement of Alex- Unfortunately, the Bible proved to be common
andria, at the turn of the century. He claims the hunting-ground between the follower of the Gospel
and the wildest theosophist or the most perverse to be readasllterature' '. Their substance was often
misbeliever. Heretics showed that they could be taken down by short-hand writers from lectures or
as painstaking in their use of Scripture as the sermons orally delivered. As might therefore be
saints; their ingenuity sometimes far exceeded the expected, their purpose was not purely e.xplana-
ingenuity of any orthodox teacher in the surprising tory, but aimed at edification; frequently a com-
jnterpretations which l:.hey set upon it. The mentary might be in reality rather a doctrinal or
fact soon became obvious to any intelligent thinker moral treatise, based on the text of a scriptural
that the principle of ' the Bible and the Bible on1y ' book, but dealing with current problems, than an
provides no aut omatically secu re basis for a religion exercise of acad<;:1ruc research. fn other words,
that is to be genuinely Christian. It is both inter- while the great biblical teachers grounded their
esting and important to observe how the difficulty work on a singularly thorough knowledge of the
was met. First, the original doctrine of tradition Scriptures, they never forgot that tl1e task on
by the apostles to the Chureh continued to be the which they were engaged was lhe delivery of a
ultimate basis of Christian thought. The Bible Gospel and a fajth ; it was still a tradition, repro-
was reckoned a part, and the principal part, of ducing, illuminating, and reinforcing the substance
tbe apostolic traditioJl. Secondly, it was firmly of the tradition once lor all delivered.
insisted that although the trailition was ensbrined Thirdly, there survives definite evidence that the
in the Bible, a process of interpretation was meaning of the Bible was consciously sought in
required in order to extract it. Appeal was made, relation to its context in Christian institutions.
not to 't11e Bible simply, but to the Bible rightly If the Bible supplied a critical background for aU
and rationally interpreted. ft is worth obser ving Christian teaching, as in fact it did, it had in turn
that, as t he practical authority o'f the Bible came a background of its own, by referettce to which it
to be more and more fully exploited, its text began could itself be criticised. This second and remoter
to be more thoroughly and systematically ex- background was the continuity of Christian
pounded, and vast commentaries were published practice, or, as we might say nowadays, tile
on separate books or series of books. Such cul tura.l history of Christianity from the most
immense labour could only have been expended primitive times. The Fathers did not ilistiogulsh
on an object reckoned as of immense importance. very clearly between practices which were really
But these coilllllentaries did not treat the Bible primitive and others of somewhat later intro-
simply as a collection of writings "designed duction. They had little or none of the modern
sense of evolutionary development, and ~aw no preached the Gospel, then by God's wlll traditioned
reason for a clean-cut separation in thought it in the Scriptures; Matthew, Peter, Paul, and
between the character of an institution in its John are cited as the authorities behind the four
rudimentary germ and that of the same institution Gospels (haer. lib. g. cap. r). The heretics, how-
l.n a fully developed form . Their expositions of ever-, deny the authority of the Scriptures, call
cultural history are therefore not reliable; they them ambiguous, and say lhat the truth cannot be
always need to be checkc<l. But since they discovered from them by anybody who is ignornnt
recognised in tbe Bible itself something which the of the tradition, wh.ich was not, according to
Church had instituted-at any rnte, before the themselves, delivered in writing, but orally. When
New Testament could begin to shape the thought however, they are confronted with " that tradition
of the Church it bad itself had to be put into shape which comes from the apostles and is preserved
by the Churcl1-il is wholly to their credit that in the churches through the successions of the
they al'<l recognised the need for comparing its priests "-the episcopate is often designated the
witness with that of the other great formative priesthood by the earlier ecclesiastical writers-
contributions of the apostolic and subapostolic they start objecting to tradition and say that they
Church to spiritual order and discipline-that is, themselves know better than either bishop or
in particular, the sacraments, the. creeds, and the apostle. "It comes to this," says Irenaeus;
episcopale. The Bible was the htUesl, the readiest . " they won't agree either with the Scriptures or
and the most authoritative witness, simply because with the tradition" (cap. z). Yet, he continues,
its evidence was ex pressed in words, and littera any honest investigator can observe in every
scripta manet. .But it did l10t stand alone, nor churcl1 the tradition of the apostles; and the
could the Church, in expounding its Bible, reason- orthodox were " ill a position to enumerate those
ably bring the exposition into conflict with the who were appointed bishops it~ the churche._~ by
testimony of its other great primitive heritages. the apostlO ", together with their successors, and
They were all alike regarded as tradition. to prove that their teaching bore no resemblance
The line taken by frenaeus in defendJng ortho- to that of the heretics. He quotes the Roman
doxy against his heretical Gnostic opponents gives S\lccession as the easiest example, and concludes
an instructive illustration both of his argument that " in the self-sanle order and sequence the
from apostolicity and of his practical dependence apostles' tradition in the church and the pro-
on the Bible. The apostles, he contends, first clanlation of the truth have descended to
ourselves" (cap. 3). If controversy should arise on (de praescrlpt. 15, 17) . But in practice, when bolli
some serious que:,-tion, recourse should be had to sides are appealing to the same Scriptures and both
the oldest churches, in which the apostles moved. claim to be rendering a true interpretation of their
" Even i. the apostles had not left us the Scriptures. meaning, how can the common man judge between
ought we not to follow the line of the tradition the conflicting conclusions! He must go to the
which they traditioned to the men to whom they churches of the apostolic succession, because they
cornmilled the churches? The heretics are pure alone possess the creed that expresses the faith to
innovators (cap. 4). Now comes the clim:u. which the Scriptures belong. " Where you plainly
Since the tradition derivecl from the apostles is an fi nd the true Christian creed and faith, there you
established and lasting fact, " let us revert to that will find the truth of the Scriptures and of their
proot which comes from the Scriptures, furnished interpretations and o.f all the Christian traditions "
by those apostles who also wrote the Gospel" (ib. IS, rg, and compare the whole argument of
(cap. 5 1). And he proceeds to vindicate the faith capp. 13 to 21). Tertullian emphasises both the
out of the Bible for the rest of the book. If it is U1e common need for some canon of interpretation,
duty of the Church to teach, it is the privilege of and also the duty of placing Scripture in its right
the Bible to prove. historical context of creed and bishop. In fact
The placid common sense of Irenaeus was firmly he over-emphasises. )Jodern criticism, historical,
convinced that the proper interpreters of the Bible literary, and theological, has gone far to ease and
were " the priests that are in the Church, those sirnpli fy the assimilation of Scriptural teaching,
who have their succession from the apostles, who except for such as procure in$ecurfty by their own
have with their episcopal succ.cssion received the pe~versity; especially over the once rough tillage
sure grace of truth a.ccording to the Father's of the Old Testament, though also thro11gh the
pleasure" (ha&r. 4 26. 2). Tertullian, an ardent softer graz,ing of the New. It also modifies the
flame of cultivated energy from Roman Africa, method of Tertullian's historical appeal. But his
expresses a sinlilar conviction with character- principles were right. Without the kind of safe-
istically augmented vehemence. The heretics, he guards that he demanded, the private interpretation
complains, have the insolence to support their of Scripture leads only to a situation in which every
views out of the Scriptures. They have no right man is for himself and the devil takes the foremost.
to the use of them, for the Scriptures do not belong Clement of Alexandria, who seems to be the first
to them, and they only corrupt and distorl them writer deliberately to identify the Bible with a
divine tradition, also speaks of n non-scriptural earthly sojourn of the Lord" (strom. 6. r5, 125. 3).
tradition parallel wilh Scripture. '' There were A comparison with the open teaching of the
certain matters traditioned unwrittenly" (strom. apostles will illuminate the secret meaning of the
5 ro, 62. r). At first sight this looks like the prophets and the parables. Enough is still le,ft
assertion of an independent source of knowledge, in a figurative style to exercise devout Christian
such as the Gnostics claimed and the Fathers wits. A clue, however, is afiorded. " Isaiah was
repudiated. But a glance at the context, and at commanded to take a new book and write certain
corresponding passages elsewhere in Clement's matters in it, and the Spirit prophesied that
writings, proves the contrary. What he is really through the interpretation of the Holy Writ there
maintaining is lhat the difficulties of the Old would later arrive the sacred knowledge which
Testament were cleared up by the Incarnation was at that time still UJ1Wrillen-since it was not
and the Gospel. As a Latin writer later said, yet known, having been originally spoken only to
vetus ttstamentmn in 1~ovo patet. So Clement those who understood. So through the Saviour's
records that the saints had received mysteries instruction of the apostles the unwritten tradition
which had been hidden until the apostles and oi the written tradition has been passed down to
traditloned by them as from the Lord-" and by ourselves, having been written by the power of
' hidden' is meant hidden in the Old Testament" God on new hearts, corresponding to the newness
(ib. 6r. r). Elsewhere he enlarge$ on the fact that of Isaiah's book" (ib. I3I 4-5). Clement's un-
the meaning of lhe Scriptures is often veiled, and written tradition is not a. source of information
not only in the Old Testament, but also, for C(>mplementary to Holy Writ, but an explanatory
instance. in the parables in which Christ deliber- key to Holy Writ ; and it. consists precisely tn
ately wrapped up rnucb of His teaching; by what Irenaeus and Terhillian had asserted-th~
Christ's direction, therefore, they had to be H.ule of Faith, inscribed on the new hearts of those
interpreted by the apostles in accordance with the
Church's Rule of Faith, which he defines as being clared to the npostl.s, who only much later c"used the written
nan:~tives to be. prer>arcd. The sense is e.~actly parallel to
"the concord and harmony of the Law and the
that of Trcnaem. (hu.er. 4. 26. t) : "when the Ulw i$ re" d by the
prophets with the covenant 1 traditioned at the Jews eve11 to this day, it is like (I myth. for they do not possess
the interpretation oC everything, which is tho human sojoum
' This word might be translated 'Testament'. Bul I of the Son of God. Bul when it is read by Christians it is the
think it reiecs to the Christian revelation in general, which treasutc hidden in the field, but revealed a1\d e.xplained by the
was not re<:orded in writing in our Lord's life-time, but de- cross of Quist,"
baptised in the apostolic churches, that is, in sub- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. But he
stance, what we call to-day theAposUes' Creed. quotes it, not as recorded in the Bible, but a.~ a
So far, in connexion with the unwritten tradition, feature of the wuversal Christian cultus; apart
a good deal has been said about faith and order, or from the witness of the epistle, " the saving faith
the creed and the episcopate. We come now to provides a mystical rebirth " in the name of the
consider deductions drawn from the evidence of three Persons, " and in addition to tl1e divine
Christian cultus. These can be traced in a con- scrip tural records the Catholic Churcl1 of God from
tinuous series of fourth-century theologians. end to end o'f the world sets he> seal on the evidence
Eusebius, bishop of CaeS<trea in Palestine, was the taken from divine Writ, out of her unwritten
father of Church history, and among other volumin- tradition" (Eus. c. Marc, 1 . 1. 36). This ls a
ous undertakings had compiled a pair of immense clear instance of the appeal to primitive practice;
and somewhat rambling works of apologetics. the traditioned cultus is as good e\>idence as the
He d.isowued Arianism, but was at first far from traditioned Scripture, and the one supports the
perceiving the fundamentally pagan character of teaching of the other.
the speculations which it embodied. Bishop Basil, archbishop of another Caesarea, in Cappa-
Marcellus, however, one of the extreme e:b:ponents docia, was the father of Eastern monasticism, as
of the newer school of theology, based on the Benedict was of Westem. He it was who by his
decisions of the Nicene Council, produced a theory efforts a.coomplished as much as any one in recon-
wbicb Eusebius consideted, with justice, to militate ciling conservative theology to the more penetrating
against the reality of the personal existence of doctrine of A thanasius and the Nicene Creed. His
God the Son. The ellott of combatin~ this heresy recognition o! the doctrinal pre"eminence of the
had a notable effect in sharpening the edges of Bible is amply cxprc.'lsed in a passage in which be
Eusebius's own thought, and he wrote some is maintaining the consistency of his own teaching
trenchant, closely reasoned books against Marcellus. with that of previous theological leaders: but, he
One of the arguments which he put forward was continues, " this does not satisfy me, that it is the
based on St. Paul's description of Christ, in the tradition of the fathers : they too followed the
Epislle to the Galatians, as the mediator between sense of Scripture, taking tlleir principles from
God and men, a title that clearly implied His those passages which I have just quoted to you
distinct personality; and he Teinforced the proof from Scripture " (de Spir. sanct. ~6) . Yet he too,
by quoting the formula of baptism in the name of and in the same treatise, makes a great point of
the importance of evidence drawn from cultural question whether Christians should or should not
sources. " Of the subjects of conviction and marry; he quotes various statements of St. Paul
preaching maintained in the Church," he wntes, and of our Lord, which appear on a superficial
" our possession o some is derived from the view to be at variance. He replies that the words
v.-Titten teaching, but our reception of others comes of Scripture are not to be e~lained away, but that
by private transmission .from the apostles' tradi- thought and insight are required to determine the
tion: both these kinds have the same force for force of any particular injunction. "Moreover,"
religion." He goes on to enumerate a wealth of he adds, '' you must employ tradition; everything
instances of " unwritten customs ", including the cannot be found in divine Scripture; the holy
following : making the sign of the cross, turning to apostles traditioned some things in scriptures
the east in prayer, the full text of the consecration and some in tradition" (luzer. 6r. 6). It is very
prayers in the liturgy, the benediction of the sound and sensible advice. If some direction
baptismal water and the oil, and the very use of given in the Bible puzzles you, first usc your
chrism, and finally the actual fol1Jlula of the common sense and try to understand the ci:rcnm-
baptismal creed (de Spir. sanct. 66, 67). None of stances surrounding the problem; compare one
these things, be observes, is prescribed in Scrip- passage of the Bible with another; if more help
ture, but all possess apostolic authority. And is needed, see whether a consideration of early
though we should be less ready than he was to Christian practice throws any htrther light.
ascribe them all witho11t qualification to the actual Chrysostom is of the same mind. Commenting
ordinance of the apostles, he was so far right in on tbe apostle's injunction to "hold fast the
appealing to them as that the same Church which traditions" (U Thess. ii. 15), he remarks: "From
formed the canon of the New Testament 1va,s this it is evident that they did not tradition every-
engaged concurrently in establishing such customs. thing by epistle, but many matters also un-
Further evidence comes Jrorn Epiphani.us, a wrlttenly; but the former and the latter are
vigorou~ though undiscriminating hammer of similarly trustworthy. So let us regard the tradi-
heretics, and Chrysostom, the master and pattern tion of the Church too as trustworthy. It is
of all Biblical commentators belonging rather to tr.adition, seek no iurtlier" (in loc. cit., 532D).
the historical t.hao to the dogmatic school of Later on, his commenl on II Thess. iii. 6 ("not
exposition. F.piphanius is meeting the difficulty according to the tradition which you received from
that the Bible seems to contradict itself on the us ") helps to indicate the kind of subjects which
he thought that the apostle regulated in tltat way. the final and culminating point of God's self-
They were not matters of faith, but of practice. disclosure. They preached the fulftlment of what
" H e means", says Cl:lrysostom, "tradition through the prophets bad only hinted and outlined. The
actions; that is alway-s in the strict sense what he tradition received its definite form from the
means by tradition '' (in we, cit., 538c) . apostles of Jesos Christ.
To sum up briefly the result of U1e present The record of their teaching formed the basis
inquiry, it should be said that the ancient Church of the prirniLi ve {aith, and led to the collection ill to
regarded the Cluistian faith as partly a record of the New Testament of writings believed in a
facts, partly an i11terpretation of those facts in U1e broad -sense to be apostolic. FJ:om tne t ime that
light of experience and of reflection. But the the New Testament $ubstantia!1y was compiled
faith djd not rest on human authority : the facts and accepted, it came inevitably to be considered
were ' gi'len ' and their meaning was interpreted the depository of apostolic authority . Then ques-
by inspiration. Though no one theory of inspira- tions began to arise in tum about its proper
tion had bwn worked out, and not even one meaning, as they had pre-v;ously arisen about the
method of interpretation was universally accepted, interpretation of the Old Testament, and a
nevertheless it would have been asserted by any practical basis of autllority was worked out. Tb.e
one without a fear of contradiction that the old idea was reasserted that the faith rests on the
Christian religion was a revelation made by God divine tradition; the substance of that tradition
to mankind. His agents in the making of the was found in the Scriptures; and it was recognised
revelation were the pro:phetical writers of the Old tl1at principles of Biblical interpretation were
Testament and the <":postles l}f Christ; inasrnnd1 req nired. Tht; \to ice of the Bible could be plainly
as the fonner llad spoken in many respects mysteri- beard only if its text were interpreted broaclly
ously and diffusely, and the latter in essential and rationally, in accordance with the apostolic
matters crisply and clearly, it was the authority creed and the evidence of the historical practice of
of the apostles that was decisive. Both tile Cluistendom. It was the heretics tilat relied
apostles and the prophets, it would have been most on isolated texts. and the Catholics who paid
maintained, had been personaUy commissioned more attention on the whole to scriptural principles.
and tr.tined to teach by God. But the call to the Two presuppositions are implied : first , that Ute
prophets only came in the preparatory stages of Bible docs provide sufficient guidance to spiritual
revelation, while that to tile apostles was given at truth, to the actions and ~;haractcr of God; and
second, that the Christian Church does possess in much of what the Fathers said~ goes far beyond
sufficient inspiration to give a true interpretation any results of which they ever dreamed. When
of the records. )lcither presupposition can be the Bible has been subjected to a critical e:~:arnina
mathematically proved. Both are a.xioms of tion more severe than has been applied to any
spiritual practice. Those who respond to the other body of literary material, the historical facts
Gospel and obey its precepts are the best judges of on which the Gospel rests stand out sharp and clear.
its tntth. 1f Christianity is a delusion, it is at any rate a
One critfcisrn may be made upon the general delusion with an intensely historical foundatiou
sou ndness of t he patristic position, and Christians and its substratum of facts calls aloud for explana-
should be prepared to answer it. Is it not the tion ; the stones cry out of the Wall. lf the
case that the Fathers were argui11g in a circle? n1eani ng and significance assigned to them by
They interpreted the Bible by the tradition, and Christianity are false, no merely negative attit\1de
yet expounded the tradition out of the Bible. will satisfy conscience and reason ; if the Christian
Does not this imply a fundamental irrationality? interpretation is rejected, some other more con-
The sting of the criticism lies cbiefly in its epigram- vincing interpretation must be offered; and as
matic brevity, tltoogb as against the ancient Church yet no alternative explanation satisfactory to the
it has a certain barb. The reply that the Fathers great mass of spiritual men has been produced.
could bave given, had an answer been demancled It simply is the fact that the most radical
of them, is that, in its clear and deCioite form, the Cl'iticism of the Scriptures, so far from destroying
tradition was contained in a comparatively small t.h eir value and authority as spiritual testimony,
part ot the .Bible. Their appeal was really from has only succeCdlld in making their real message
the Bible as. a wl1ole to the Gospel; and titO!!e stand out in ltuninous and rugged strength against
port-ions of the Bible which present the actual the general background of comparative religion.
Gospel are precisely those. sections which had been The truth of God and of His ways wit11 men,
most carefully selected from the mass of current culminating in the revelation of Jesus Christ,
Christian literature, and possessed the strongest towers like a mountain range above the legend,
claim to historical accuracy. In our own day we the poetry, and the history of the Bible story. It
can take our stand with confidence on this line, gives a true bearing, not only amid the many cross
for we work on the basis of a literary and historical valleys and dark thickets of Scripture irself, bllt
criticism which, though its principles arc implicit for the whole pilg~image of earthly life. Here, we
may claim, is what the ancient Church sought and
found in its tradition, set forth im.jncibly in
modern forms- a revelation given by God, em-
bodied in the Bible, and ready for appropriation by
mankind. His word is, more than ever before, a
lantern unto our feet and a light unto our paths,
kindled by Him to whom be .all honour, majesty
and dominion, now and for evermore.

TliiS second lecture has been given the title of
" Callistus 11 , after an early Pope of Rome, about
whom few details are certainly knovvn, but who
makes a ver;y good figurehead for the purpose,
not only because, but in spite, of the fact that
his historical record is defective. For what is
known about him is immensely important to
religion. He not only upheld the faith of Christ
agai)J.st paganism, in the face of persecution.
He also engaged in two serious controversies with
fellow-Christians. "Whether his own conduct of
these disputes was acrimonious, it is impossible
to say. But their importance could easily be
gauged by the ferocity with which his opponents
attacked Callistus, even if we were not ,~!ready
aware that the subjects of debate were f!).e deity
of Christ and the saving power of flis grace in
The itccount of Pope Callistus which has come
do"'m to us was composed by anti-Pope Hippolytus,
who was not only his ecclesiastical rival, and the
sworn foe of his theological and pastoral princi pies,
but also his bitter personal enemy. A good deal
of the story is susplctous, and parts of it are
E 49
demonstrably false. This is not the occasion creditors at their synagogue on the sabbath. A
for trying to separate the tares and the wheat riot followed, and the Je,vs denounced him as a
that spring together {rom this remarkably sour Christian. Carpophorus, not wanting to lose a
field. But the narrative as it stands presents so valuable slave, alleged in evidence before the
vivid a picture of the times and so striking a magistrate that Callistus was not a Cbristian at
portrait of the man that it is worth summarisi~g. all, which was a lie. However, the prisoner was
Even a caricature, if its bril!Jance equals Jts duly found guilty of Christianity, scourged, and
brutality, can tell us a good deal about its subjec:. committed to penal servitude in the terribly un-
Callistus, tl1en, began hls career as the domestla healthy mines of Sardinia, a sort of Devil's lsland
slave of Carpophorus, a Cluistian freedrna1t at to which Christian convicts were regu11.rly de-
Rome. He must have shown sluowdness and ported. Here he stayed for a period whiCh may
ability, for he was entrusted by his master, and have been as long as five years. Not later than
afterwards by a number of other Christians, with the year 193 the Emperor Commodus, son of
considerable sums of money for investment in a Marcus Aurelius, granted the petition of Marcia,
ba.nking business. The unfortunate Callistus lost his Christian concubine, that the confessors in
the money, either through bad luck, or tbrougb tl1e mines should be reprieved. A list was made
rash speculation, or, as Hippolytus asserts, through out by the Pope, on which the name of Callistus
it. His master demanded an account;
failed to appear. Callistus, however, so worked
and the bankrupt fled. This is not suzynsmg, upon the feelings of the officiaLs in Sardinia lbat
in view of the character which Carpophorus they consented to release him without authority,
displayed in t he whole affair. Callistus reached along with~ the rest. This last assertion is wholly
Portus and embarked on a ship; was pursued; incredible. But whatever the t rue circumstances
flung himself into the sea in an attempt at suicide; may have been, Callish1s returned to Rome.
was rescued; suffered the mortification of recap- There he was given by the Church a small monthly
ture by his master; and was sent to the treadmill. payment and was sent to the health-r~ort of
The other creditors then persuaded the reluctant Antium; probably his strength was in real need
Carpophorus to release hiro, which he did with of recruiting after the mines, but Hippolytus
unpleasantly sanctimonious tears. Callist~ next says it was done in order to get rid of him.
seems to have tried to collect some debts owmg to So far from this retirement bringing the saga
himself, but was rash enough to approach je""ish to a conclusion. it proved only the prelude to more

glorious achieveroent, of which the facts are un with the ordinary tcsserae of daily occurrences.
deniable, although his enemy's account of the Cut out the malice of the narrator; underline the
character and motives of Callistus continues to be elements of romance; and what a ' peach ' of a
nourished on a compost of hatred and contempt. story this would make for a Christian Hollywood.
The fonner slave boy was ordained. A new Pope, Think even bow sensatiGnally the 1:eport of it
Zephyrinus, brought him back to Rome, set him would read under the headlines that any com-
over the local clergy, and put him in charge of the petent journalist would draft. A friendless child,
cemetery-apparently the 6rst publjc Christian ill-starred and persecuted, had succeeded through
burial-place, as distinct from the various private sheer force of character and ability to the greatest
cemeteries previously attached to the estates of bishopric in Chrisleodom-or rather, through the
prominent Christians. This cemetery must have grace of Christ he had been saved, perhaps from a
been registered with the secular authorities, and i ls career of fraudulence, and his gifls had been con-
successful establishment should probably be taken secrated to the service of God. He ended his
as a concrete testimony to the capacity of Callistus course by attaining the glory of martyrdom five
for business and organisation rather than as years later.
evidence of his guile. At any rate. he was accepted Something still needs to be added before the
by the Pope-whom Hippolytus calls a fool fer his ecclesiastical background is complete. The
pains-as his confidential adviser, and the position membership of the Roman Churcl1 over which
which he occupied corresponds to that of arch- Callistus presided was not organised like that of
deacon of Rome. On the death of the Pope, io any religious body known to the present day;
217, the slippery and ingratiating Callistus pro- a more instructive parallel might be drawn between
cured his own election to tbe vacancy (Hipp. ref. Christian Rome at this period and early develop-
9 H - 12; ib. IO. 27) . ments in the mediaeval University of Paris. The
This picturesque and eccentric narrative is University itself formed a highly specialised com-
valuable. becA.use it sets out, in its extraordinary munity within the general social order, just like
sequence of events, what was a normal back- the ChrLstians in an ancient pa,gan city. lts
ground to Christian faith and life in Rome at the Masters were grouped in ' nations ', each with its
turn of the second century, when to be a Christian own customs and feasts, the men of common
at all was a perilous and exciting adventure. The race sharing common sociaJ and political activities;
highly cOloured mosaic of Callistus is compounded doubtless their example '"as foDowed in less formal
ways by the junior members of the University. But the most marked analogy lies in the sphere
So, there is reasonable ground for thinking, the of teaching. In the mediaeval University any
Ro01an Christians tended to range themselves Master of Arts had the right t o set up his school
in distinct racial. units. The lower classes, to and teach such pupils as he could attract. If he
which the great majority of early Roman Christians had brllliant gifts, he would soon make a great
belonged, were collected from nearly every nation reputation and exercise a wide influence. Central
under heaven, and few of them habitually spoke control was weak. Insurgent teachers could
l.atin ; what more natural than that immigrants always lead an academic strike and draw tlu~ir
of any particular nationality should cling together, following after them, a1vay fTom the jurisdiction
under clergy of their own speech? It has been of the University-a possibility which Abelard
ve1y plausibly suggested that the reason why the had demonstrated at Paris before ever there was a
Roman Chu{Ch took so deep an interest in the University established. Now in the second century
Quartodeciman controversy, which raged d11ring all roads led to Rome. (n the course of the eighty
the second century over the date and manner of years between A .D. r4o and the episcopate of
observing Easter, was that a group of Asiatic Callistus, Rome is known to have been visited by a
Christians resident in Rome may have been long succession of foreign theologians. in addition
involved, and resented any attempt to deprive it to her native instructors-l'llarcion the impugner
of its native customs. Again, there is an clement of the Old Testament, Valentine the father of
o similarity to Roman ecclesiastical organisation Gnosticism, Justin the apologist, Polycarp the
in the balls and colleges provided by benefactors aged Bishop of Smyrna, Theodotus who denied
for the habitation of students in the University. Christ's deity, Noetus, Praxcas, and Sabellius,
.1\.t any rate, it is clear from St. Paw's reference.~ who confused Christ's Person with that of God the
at the end of his epistle to the Romans, no less Father, lrenaeus lhe evangelical teacher from
than from the evidence of the private cemeteries, Lyons, and Origen. All these except Polycarp,
that Christians at Rome, as in other plac~. often Irenaeus, and Origen came to stay, and were
depended on or attached themselves to certain resident for prolonged periods. teaching in their
families and houses. The persistence of such an several schools. Native talent, like that of Hip-
arrangement could not but be assisted by the polytus, also had its own schools and its own
reverence for tbe family and its head that was so disciples; according to J eromc, Origen once
prominent in Roman legal and social tradition. attended one of Hippolytus's discourses, delivered
In a church, and Hippolytus paid a complimentary resembled less a system of parishes than a cluster
reference to the presence of his already famous of lecture-rooms. The analogy becomes still more
young contemporary. vivid when it is recalled that Hippolytus himself-
Hippolytus expressly uses the academic word for centuries the only native Roman theologian of
'school' for such a centre o influence. After primary importance-together with all but 'four of
falling out with Callistus over questions both theo- the ten foreign teachers enumerated above, and all
logical and disciplinary, and having himself formed but one of the seven who made a prolonged sojourn
a schismatical body which persistect for a number of in Rome, after varying periods of activity turned
yerus, he acc\ISes Calli~tus of 11aving " established their lecture-rooms into scbismatical churches.
a school against the Church", and complains Their ambitions were as personal as their ri11alries,
that " his school persists, preserving ltis customs and their work was more academic than pastoral
and tradition, not distinguishing with whom it in its broader consequences.
ougbl to be in communion, but offering com- The first of the two great controversies in which
nmnion indiscdminately to everybody " . We may Callistus found himself involved was concerned
note the writer's rigorist bitterness in bis reference with the Person of Chdst. The earliest generations
to terms of communion, for he himself had been of Christians had thought of Jesus Christ as God's
excommunicated. His sectarian disappointment Son, His only-begotten, or His Word. But it
also shows up in the querulous complaint that was impossible for the language either of devotion
crowds of disciples manifested their delight in or of thought to rest content with such expressions.
Callistus's teaching by flocking into his school. A sure instinct taught the followers of Christ tbat
He describes the situation exactly as he might, their salvation came fTom God, and that whe~1
had the school in question been at Paris in the no man c~mld help t hem the Lord Himself had
twelfth or tl1irteenth century, and the two pro- stretched forth His own ann to save them;
tagonists been rival :lfasters of Arts competing it was from the first asswned a$ a cardinal principle
for the popularity of the lecture room (Hipp. of Christianity that so great an act as that of re-
r~j. 9 xz. 20; ib. 26, ~3). Though the comparison demption could only be performed by God. Nor
must not be pressed too far, and the existence of could the Christian mind and conscience regard
a solid core of Churchmansbip under the direct Jesus Christ as a subordinate agent in that work.
control of the bishop must not be overlooked, yet On the contrary, to liis peTSQn was directed every
in some ways, it is clear, the Roman Church Christian hope, and on His action depended every
spirilual assurance; absolute conviction prevailed channel o! grace between the Cross and Resurrec.
that Jesus Christ was not only the direct author tion, historically dated early in the first century,
of salvation, but the central pivot in the created and the present life and worship of contemporary
universe and the turning-point of human history. disciples, thus abolishing the barriers of time.
Accordingly, from the beginning ol the second The earliest thought about the Holy SpiriL was
century, when extra-biblical Christian literature chiefly associated with two aspects of experience,
takes its rise, the language oi devotion describes the inspiration of the prophetic revival, which
Christ without hesitation as the God of Christians accompanied the earliest decades of Christia''
(Prestige, God in Patristic Tho1tght, pp. 76ft.}. enthusiasm, and the inspiration of the Scriptures,
In the vocabulary of the intellect, however, the both in the Old and in the New Testament.
ascription of deity to two apparently distinct Because His influence was experienced in a
beings, God the Father and j esus Christ :His manner subjective and internal to the mind of the
Son, Taiscd problems which could not fail to be believer, or hidden tmder the pages of a manuscript,
acutely felt by monotheists so determined as the references to the Holy Spirit in early Christian
early Christians. Their own attacks on current literature often leave the question undecided
pagan polytheism were passionately sustained ; whether H e was regarded as a per:,-onal being, or
their own contemptuous rejection of all philo- represented an abstract spiritu~ force, the un-
sophical attempts to effect a compromise between substantial attribute of some other divine person.
the multiplicity of gods and some single divine The Montanist heresy, however, which broke
principle embodied in them all, brought down out in the middle of the second cevtu:ry, affords
upon the Church most of the persecutions which the fullest evidence that in fact the .action o the
befell it. It was no easy task for them to formulate Paraclete was regarded in the light of a personal,
a pluralistic monotheism. divine intervention, and there is ground fo~
A little later in t he second century a corre- thinking that in some- Adoptionist circles the
sponding attribution of distinct personality began personality o! the Holy Spirit was more clearly
to be applied to the Holy Spirit, as the agent of the conceived and more adequately enunciated than
divine presence in the hearts of faithful men. that of God the Son. 1\or in all the criticisms
He was the bond between tbe ascended Christ delivered in refutation of those heresies does the
in heaven and His followers on earth, thus annihilat- slightest hint occur that orthodox theology was
ing physical separation ; He was also the divine shocked or startled by the most absolute expression
of the personal being of God the Holy Ghost. the only trnly divioe being. The first solution
Indeed, fron1 the beginning, the ftrtnest possible was fatally untrue to Scripture, and its doctrine
line had been drawn in practice between the three of successive appearances, under separate masks,
Persons of the Godhead and all creatures whatso- was suggestive of the theological expedients of
ever, and to the Holy Spirit in particular had been philosophic paganism, which treated all gods as
ascribed the performance of operations which local and partial embodiments of the ultimate
were considered essentially the work of a personal supreme being. The second solution ran com-
deity; before the end of the second century He pletely counter to historical tradition and to
was fully recognised as the agent and giver of Christian instinct, and brought the language of
grace, and the practice had been definitely estab- theology into open conilict with the language of
lished, both in East and West, of referring to devotion.
the three Persons as " the holy triad" (op. cit. Ultimately, theology found that it had something
pp. 8o fi.). to learn from bolh sides. The justification of the
A sternly monotheistic religion. such as Christi- clainl that the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity
anity was, obviously had to find some means, provides a solution of the problem of divine
without undue delay, of reconciling its working personality, whjcb is satisfactory to the human
faith in a holy triad with its monotheistic profes inteJlect as well as to Gospel history and to the
sions. Theoretically a solution could be sought Christian heart, lies precisely in the fact that,
in one of two directions. Either the full ascrip- while opposing what was false in both alternative
tion of deity could be retained wit)'J reference to methods of explanation, it embraces and accounts
each of the tluee names, wbile the personal dis- for the substantial difficulties which the heresies
tinctions were ignored ; the result would then be to unsuccessfully tried to meet. But the doctrine
represent God as a unitary being who revealed of the Trinity. aHhough its fmal statement was
Himself in successive manifestations, undet differ- largely anticipated by the meteoric brilliance of
ent titles, but remained identically the same behind Tertullian's mind, did not receive its complete
every change of outward appearance. Or else and final formulation until the latter part of the
steps could be taken, while preserving three fourth century. Callistus was confronted with a far
distinct individualities, to reduce the second and earlier stage of the controversy. Soon after the
the third by one means or another to subordinate middle of the second century, there had appeared
agents or dependent functions of God the Father, in Rome a cultivated Egyptian named Valentine,


teaching a doctrine which combined important teaching bas recently been under dispute, but the
Christian clements with a number of independent ancient view of his doclrine still appears to be
feature.~. drawn !rom current philosophical and t. he most convincing, tl1at he was an Adoptionist,
theosophical speculation, and worked up into a regarding J esus Christ as a uniquely holy man,
system \'-ith consummate skill and originality. who was so inwrought by the power of the Holy
The central object of this intellectual construction Spirit that he became adopted into the deity,
was to fabricate a moral and metaphysical bridge in much lh.e same way as Marcus Aurelius in X77
between infinite perfection and finite corruption. elevated his son Commodus into a share of the
Valentine therefore interposed between the abso- imperi;1l dignity. Like Valentine, Theodotus ac-
lute deity and the created world a series of thirty quired a certain following, b11t it never attained a
emanations, progressively less divine and more fraction of the influence enjoyed by theValentinians,
closely related to mundane existence. He and most of the adherents of the heretical Theo-
strangely ignored the fact that, though every dotian Church submitted to Pope Zephyrinus.
declension from perfect goodness and power was The attempt to solve the problems of theology by
thll$ reduced to a comparatively narrow interval, rnaking the Saviour something less than trnly God
yet in the agg1egate the chasm between God and had definitely failed.
the existing world of sense remains the same. A movement in the contrary direction was
Thirty successive gaps, though small, and arranged established at Rome about the same time by other
on a graduated scale, can assist the mind no more foreign teachers, named Praxeas and Noetus.
readily than one immense gap to comprehend the The solutions which they ad\'Ocated were based
interaction of two such diverse factors as infinite on the ide11tification of the Father and Son.
spirit and sensuous existence. Valen tine placed God. they implied, was absolute in His revelation
the Saviour, whom the ChUTch worshipped as its as lhe Father, but became finite and subject to
God, below his thirty emanations of divinity. physical limitations in His revelation as the Son ;
The Church had therefore little hesitation in the clothes and trappings were difierent, but
rejecting- him and his solution o( the problem . the same Actor took both parts in tum. This
The next attempt at a solution, and on lines was a much more specious form of h eresy. lts
essentially similar t hough far less complicated, merit was tha.t it recognised redemption as the
was propounded to the Roman Church by the act of God, instead of leaving man, at least by
Byzantine Theodotus. The exact nature of his implication, to accomplish the superhuman task
of saving his own sinful soul. It preserved an ot which the whole substance was "distributed"
authentic ring of evangelical truth. It permitted between the several Persons without variation or
Christi<\ns to retain their plenary faith in Jesus diminution of content. The same godhead, he
Chri~t. But while it emphasised the truth of our taught, is manifested first in t he Father; then in
Lord's claim in t11e Fowth Gospel tbat " I and His Word, or eternal self-expression; and finally-
lhe Father are one ", it failed completely to though lH:.re his thought was less explicit-in the
explain how the Father and the Son were ever in divine Spirit of grace. This doctrhle demanded a
any sense anything else but one, as the New certain measure of philosophy for its comprehension,
Testament consistcnlly represents them to be. and Hippolytus grew rabid when Calli.stus, who
It split on the immovable rock of the historical was no philosopher but an ecclesiastical states-
record, and its shallow and facile philosophy of man, failed to give immediate recognition to its
divine unity could not weat her that shock. A superiority over tb:e crude theories of Sabellius.
tbjr<J. protagonist of this school, Sabellius, wbo was No dOltbt, in fact, Callistus was very properly
destined to lend hJs own name to posterity as the anxious to avoid the creation of a schism between
typical exponent of this type of thought, was the warring lecture-rooms with which the Roman
actually promoting his doctrines at Rome during Church was furnished. It was no more than his
the episcopate of Zephyrinus. Hippolytus at duty tq throw all the weight of his influence into
some date wrote a treatise against Noetus. Ter- the e1lort to preserve the unity, not only of God
tollian in Africa was presently to overwhelm in heaven, but of the Church on earth. So long
Pra.xeas. But for a time, to his horror and as it was possible for him to coun tenance Sabellius,
indignation, Hlppolytus found t11at Zephyrinus, he strove to retain tbe services of so powerful a
acting under the iaflucnco of the detestable Cal- leader for the Ch1.1rch in Rome. He infuriated
listus, was rMdy to tolerate the errors of Sabellius. Hippolytus by telling him that l1is own doctrine
Hippolytus's own solution of the problem, though of God the Father and God the Word sounded like
formulated less adequately than that provided the setting forth of two gods. He induced Zephy-
by t11e profound insight and theological realism rinus to pronounce a compromising formula which
of Tertullian, was on the same lines. and supplied left Sabellius with a lodgement for his speculations
the foundation on which, in subsequent generations, temporarily secure~ I L appears certain from the
tile true explanation was to be sought and found. terl1\s of the records that Callistus's own motive
He conceived of the deity as an organic unity, in clcaJing thus. with both the champions was to
insist on the complete and absolute divinity of vehemently assailed ; and although Terlullian,
JC$us Christ, and so to maintain the fllllest safe- in the treatise which he v.Tote upon the subject,
guard for the doctrine of salvation. The only docs not mention Callistus by name, it is a natural
reply that Hippolytus was led to make was to level inference, bolh irom the language of his criticism
against Callistus the reckless accusation lhat he and from the circumstances of the case, that Cal-
encouraged and shared the specific opinions of lislus was the enen1y on whom he, too, was
Sabellius. The outcome of these disputes was registering his artillery. As a Montanist, no less
!an1cntable. As soon as he becarne Pope, Ca!Jistus than by his own ascetic temper, Tcrtullian was
found llimself obliged by theological necessity to c;ommitted to the cause of monll dgorism. Hip-
excommunicate Sabellius; but so far from being polytus, without needing to embrace Tertullian's
mollified by this action, which he a.ttributed to a heresy, possessed a mind of such tmcompromising
deceitful attempt on the part of Callistus to make b.arsh ness as to assure ills adllerence to the same
himself respectable, Hippolytus promptly went cause.
into schism himseli with his disciples. He was The occasion of this conflict was the issue by
only reconciled to the Church long after the death Callistus of a decree by which the primitive
of Callistus, whcu he himseli in turn lay dying in standards of moral discipline, which by the third
the dreadful mines of Sardinia. century in a steadily expanding Church had
l n dealing with the problem of the godl1ead, proved themselves impracticably severe, were
Hippolytus had not only attacked the san1e relaxed io one particular department. Ca!listus
opponents as Tertullian, but had displayed a determined to throw open the grievou,~ path of
certain affinity with that w<iter's own method public pextance and: the hope ot absolution to
of presenting a solution. They both employed Christians who had fallen into sins of the flesh.
the word ' economy ' to express the" distribution " Hippolytus preferred that such sinners should be
of the godhead, a use vvhich seems to be unique for ever precluded from the grace of absolution,
in Christian literature, and may indicate that they however hardly attained, rather than admit lhat
were in person:\! as well as in theological contact; any measure of earthly repentance should restore
though Hippolyius, unlike Tertullian, was never them to the communion of the elect.
a Montanist. In the other feud which Hippolytus As stated in the Book of Common Prayer, the
conducted with his enemy Callistus, he 'vas again primjtive Church observed " a godly discipline "
attacking a position which Tertullian no less by which Christians, convicted of grave sins,
were put to open penance. Havmg confcs.'>ed tearfully, in the hope that God migllt possibly
their sin to the bishop, they were fonnally enrolled forgive bun after death ; but the Church on earth
in the order of penitents for a specified period, refused to undertake more on his behalf; no
often extending over many years. Debarred from second absolution was possible. So long as
communion and excluded from the common Christians occupied the position of heroic legion-
worship, they submitted themselves to episcopal aries, fighting for their lives with inadequate
exhortation and moral castigation, and sought the protection under burning skies against a world of
bGncRl of the bishop's prayers and the laying on of savage adversaries, the contrast between t he
his hauds. They wore sackcloth a.nd lay ln ashes; Church and secular society was too absolute to
they shed tears, and uttered supplications for permit an act of moral treachery to be regarded
mercy : though their confession had been private, without the most extreme horror. That a genuine
their penance was as public as anything couJd be. soldier of Christ could commit such an act oi
Yet their public humiliation was no more intense treachery twice was positively inconceivable.
than the fervour required of them in private Yet for three classes of spiritual treachery
exercises. They fasted, they gave alms; if un- not cvcn one absolution could be bestowed. The
married, they became celibate, if married, they penitential system was not extended in the se<:ond
separated from their wives. They were forced century to the reconciliation of such as might
to abstain from most kinds of public activity, and commit the sin of apostasy from Christ, or murder,
to live a life of rigorous asceticism. In due course or of sensuality. Not even the appalling severity
their entrl!aties were favourably heard, and their of ]JUblic discipline, voluntarily and sincerely
repentance was accept~d. They were solemnly accepted, was sufficient to a.tot\C for these, or
restored to the membership and communion of the to secure for them absolving grace. But by the
Church. But not even then were their disabilities time of CaDi<l>tus the ChttJch in Rome and else
concluded. They remained subject to special where was no longer like a tiny outpost in the
ascetic discipline for the remainder of tbeir lives ; desert. Persecutions were intem1ittent, and be-
they could neither marry, nor be ordained. And a tween them Christians enjoyed periods oi relative
person who had once been admitted to penance calm and protection. Storm troopers and gladi-
and received absolution, and subsequently lapsed, ators of the falth survived, indeed, but alongside
could never undergo penance for a second time. them and behind them there were others, good
He could be recommended to live hard and Christians enough in times of public or spiJ:itual
pea<:e, but not yet exercised to the heroic pitch. redemption. It was in the kind of atmosphere
The Church became familiarised with the spectacle which he spread lhat a Roman Christian like
of members to whom Christianity meant for the Callistus would have been brought up. The
moment, not so much triumphant trampling on the '' Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching ",
dragon of sin, as fighting desperately in its coils. written by lrenacus towards the close of the second
Accordingly, CallistllS, on b<'COming bishop, so far century as a doctrinal hand-book for intelligent
modified the penitential system as to admit Christians, was lost to Western sight for a
adulterers and fornicators once. and once only, millennium and a haU ; it was only re-discovered,
to its benefits. As a true pastor he was concerned in an Artuenian translalion, in 1904. Here is a
to think not only of the purity of Christian ideals, summary of some part of its contents. The
but also of the practical application of the treasury Word was made flesh in order that sin should be
of grace. It was apparently as much this last and deprived of its power over us through the very
<.rowning enonnity as bis own disappointed am- flesh which it had ruled and dominated; the Lord
bitions of theological leadership which drove the "conquered through Adam that which through
puritanically minded Hippolytus to set up a con- Adam had stricken us down" (3I). The trespass
venticle in opposition to his new bishop. Yet which came by the tree oi lmowledge in the garden
no modern Christian thinker call doubt for one of Eden was undone by the tree of obedience on
moment that CaJlist11S was right, bot.h in clinging Calvary, to which the Son of Man was nailed,
to a doctri11e of Christ which made the preaching thereby putting away the knowledge of evil and
of saJ vation a reality, and in modifying an ex- establishing the knowledge of good (34). Thus
cessively rigorous system of discipline so as to Christ gloriously achieved 911r redempeion. The
encourage rather than repel repentance, and thus Son of God became Son of David and Son of
develop rather than retard the operation of grace. Abtaham, perfecting and summing up human
Th<~ religious background of Latin Christianity nature iu Himself, that He might make us to
in Callistus's generation must not, however, be possess liie. For we were imprisoned by sin,
estimated only by its theological controversies being boro in sinfulness and living undm death.
and its desperate moral struggles. These were But God the Father was very merciful. He sent
occasional and incidental. It had also a much His creative Word, who not only came to ueHver
more equable and ~olid $ide, which may well be us but came to the very place and spot in which
illustrated Jrom the teaching of Irenaeus about we had lost life, and broke tl1e bonds or our fetters.
His light appeared and made the darkness of the 42) . Christianity leads on and up to a final resur-
prison to disappear; He hallowed our birth and rection in t.he world to come, but quite clearly
destroyed death, loosing the fetters in whlch we the fruits of resurrection begin to be borne by t.he
were enchained. He manilested the resurrection, trees of God's planting in thls present world. So a
Himself becoming the first-begotten of the dead, noble contrast can be drawn between t.he Law of
and in Himself He raised up fallen man, lifting Moses and the life of Christian love. Christians
hlm far above the heavens to the right hand of the no longer need the Law to tutor tbern. They
glory o the Father. Tbis our Lord J esus Christ stand in the Father's presence, grown strong in all
trnly fulfilled, when He gloriously achieved our righteo\rSncss and sobriety. They have no more
redomption, tllat He might truly raise us up, and desire to break the commandments, either by taking
set us free unto the Father (37, 38). another man's wiie, or by indulging anger and
He chose the apostles as the witnesses of all His enmity; they do not covet otber men's goods,
good deeds, of Hi,s teaching, of His sufferings, because they have no care at all for earthly
death, resurrection and ascension; and sent. them things but store up heavenly fruits; they count
forth into all the world, showing to mankind the no man enemy, but all men neighbours; they
way of life, to turn them from idols (superstition), need not keep the sabbath idle, for every day they
fornication (sensuality), and covetousness {selfish- do service to God in their bodies which are His
ness). cleansing their souls and bodies by the temple, and in every hour they work righteousness
baptism of water and of the Holy Ghost. By (96).
faith and love and hope they established what That is the 1dnd of thing which the early
the prophets had foretold. the calling of the. Christian u.oder&tood by a state of salvation;
Gentiles according to the mercy which God ex- his idr.al was a profound r eality to him, and in
tended to thern. 111ey counselled them by the most respects he lived astonishingly close to [ts
word of truth to keep their :6esh undefiled unto the fulfilment, He could only hope to do this by ihe
resurrection, and their soul unstained. " For power of divine grace, and tbat lrenaeus knew
such is the state ot those who have believed, since full well. " By the invocation of tbe name of
in them continually abides the Holy Spirit, who Jesus Christ, crucified under Pontius Pilate, there
was given by [Christ] ill baptism and is retained is a separation and division among mankind ;
by the receiver, if he walks in truth and holiness and wheresoever any of those who believe on Him
and righteousness and patient endurance " (4r, shall invoke and call upon Him and do His will1
He is ncar and present , fulfilling the requests anticipated in definite measure here on earth,
of those who with pure hearts call upon Him. but a condition of release and fulfilment for the
Whereby receiving salvation, we continually give soul after death should have set it free from the
thanks to God, who by His gTeat, inscrutable and trials and burdens of the flesh. Such a conception
unsearchable wisdom delivered us, and proclaimed lay at the root of Valent ine's teaching, and at
t he salvation from heaven " (97) . t hat of all the Gnostic systems. I ts force, however,
Thete is a world of dilicrence between t his was obscured in all of t hem, to a greater or less
practical and optimistic Christian view of salvation extent, by tl1eir preo(:cupation, not only wit h
and t he ideas of salvation entertained in pagan salva tion, but with t he problem of creation.
Hellenisllc circles . The dominant Hellenistic On the whole, it is not unfair to say that all the
thought was far from irreligious . I t had derived Gnostics were as deeply interested in cosmology
a passionate desire foT knowledge from the great as in soteriology, and for m ost of them the former
Greek schools, but the intellectualism of Greece interest was by far the more absorbing.
had been profoundly modified, not only through Christianity was at one with the highest pagan
the more vulgar aspirations of simple souls, but faiths in demanding some place in religious
through continual penetration by the mysticism practice for emotion as well as fo~: intelligence, in
of the East. The resultant movements, part upholding the common man's desire for a future
plillosophical and part mystical, took a variety life, in ofiering him salvation from suffering and
of forms, in which the common element was belief also from sin-a point on which Hellenistic re-
in an assurance of immortality to be gained ligion was somewhat defective-and 1n teaching
tluough t)1e light of pe~-sonal illumination-what him, though with incomparably clearer emphasis,
has been called " salvation by knowledge" (Dr. t o worship one God who was the 1tltimate grounil
C. H. Dodd in The St11dy of Theology, p. z36). of all existence, the Father almighty and Creator
At one end of the scale such knowledge might of heaven and earth. The differences, however,
involve no more than an acquaintance with the between the rival faiths were no less extensive.
proper rituals and spells of an unconcealed magic. Christian emotion was directed towards the historic
At the other end, it meant personal communion person of Jesus Christ, true God wd true roan.
with God, or at any rate a mystical absorption Its e.xpression was strictly controUed by reference
into the divine being. Salvation so secured was to the historical narratives, at once tendP.r and
not, as in the Christian Gospel, a spiritual state restrained, of the four Gospels. Extravagances,
such as those in which the Phrygian priests and negative idea of salvation accepted by paganism
their votaries indulged, were sternly discounten was replaced by a Christian positive.
anced. Not even at their worst did Christian Finally, the innumerable manifestations of deity,
ascetics slash themselves with lmives ; the only which paganism tolerated, served to obscure at
blood in which they gloried was the p1ecious blood least as much as to reveal the cb,a,ract& and action
of Christ, shed once for aD, and the blood of martyr of the single being, remote belti.bd them all, after
dom, which Christians were strictly forbidden whom even the best pagans rather dimly groped.
by the Church to court by voluntary selt-assertion ; Moreover, they produced so strong a sense of the
and the typical Christian graces were not ecsta:>y remoteness of the real God that it became un-
and spiritual or sexual excitement, but the peaceful thinkable (or Him to be conceived as caring deeply
fruits of an ordered and disciplined life. about the bustle and drudgery of the human
With regard to future survival, paganism founded ant-heap. There was an enormous spread of
all its aspirations for eternity on depreciation oi fatalism, based on the ironclad superstitious of
temporal existence. The world of sense, and not astrology. And if the physical world, grounded in
the evil in it, was the enemy. Pagan mystics, matter, were really the creation of a divine being,
for the most part, ha.d little idea of sublimating and not the self-subsistent organ of a mechanical
this mortal life or of bridling it in spiritual harness. fate, the pagan mind shrank from attributing so
They prayed to be delivered from the flesh rather imperfect a structure to the creative hand of
than from sin. The body was a prison or a tomb, perfection; it must have been created either
dissociation from which was the soul's one hope. by some lower angel, far ren10ved from the
SalvaHon therefore meant .relief, if possible, from almighty Father, or else by the diabolic enemy;
suffering in this present life, alid release from the the world was either a mistake o a~:t affront.
shame a;~d ]imitation of the. body in the life to ln conhast with all sucl1 speculations, the Christian
come. Christians, on the other hand, regarded Gospel offered a message of salvation from the
the body as the servant and vehicle of the soul, one God aod Father of mankind, who, in spite of
the instrument of a full personality. Salvation Marcion's denial, was the direct Creator of the
to them meant Joyful endurance of unavoidable universe, and who, instead of numerous de-
sufferings on earth, and hereafter no release from generating emanations or a multiplicity of defective
the physical conditioning of human personality, local gods and .goddesses, had one siQgle divine
but ils enlargement and consummation. The Son or Image as the f 1111 expression of llis being
throughout eternity, and the complete revelation based on the retention of a hard core of central
of His deity in terms of human life. Tbis was a conviction, which have enabled it not only to
very clifierent idea of God from anything pro- permit the entry of new thought, but, in the long
pounded in t he speculations of the highest pagan- run, to assimilate the novelty and assign it t o its
ism. It was clear and dcfll1ite where t hey were proper place in the gene.ra1 scheme. Clement and
vague; it was rooted in l1istory, while they were Origen might dally, as some think Ovf'.;rmucb,
floating in im~ative abstraction. While they with the idea of moral and spiritual illumination.
rejected the world, it accepted the world and pro- Bul Athanasius, without dropping that idea,
vided for the fulfilment of its purpose even in deepens it, making it e.xpress a more profoundly
the act of its transformation into new heavens religious sense of the relation between God and
and a new earth. man, and of the power of grace. He was able to
So much can be said withoat prestuning to do this because he depended, not only on the
conceal the fact that in subsequent generations Jatest theological evolution of his immediate
Hellenistic, and particularly Ncoplatonic ideas, predecessors, but on the whole religious depos1 t
C.'<erciscd a very powerful inJluence on the thot1ght transmitted through successive ages, which, how-
of the Church, above all in the intellectual and ever variously interpreted by different teachers,
mystical schools of Alexandria and Syria. But had a definitive record and criterion in the Bible.
one of the most remarkable features of Christianity, The supreme value of the work accomplished
which distinguished it from all the ordinary by such a man as- Callistus was due to his standing
eclectic systems of antiquity, was its capacity to firm, amid the surge oJ speculation and the weedy
al~sorb foreign .influences and apply them to the entanglements of puritan rigorists, on the un-
support and de.fence of its own faith. It picked assa:Uablc ground of an evangelical faith.
them up, tested them, took them to pieces, snipped, Dr. Burkitt, who has gone as far as any recent
slashed a11d refashioned them. Even wnen it crilic in a sympathetic understanding, from the
seemed itself to have been temporarily overlaid strictly Christian standpoint, of ,ratentine and the
by them, it was never transformed by them. other Gnostics, points a vivid contrast between
In the end the sturdy frame of Christianity the Christian and the typically GMstic outlook.
moulded the shape of all its covering garments . In Gnosticism, which was essentially a Hellenistic
There bas always been in Christianity a funda product, " we are dealing in tbe last r esort with
mental consistency a,nd a power of self-reformation, the products of h1,1man fancy, a fanciful world,
' moulded to the heart's desire ', In which the heart for conversion, and to devote their energies
religious imagination was nol tied down to his- to the search of the in teUect !or truth. Aristotle
torical facts preserved in an authoritative Book. in particular enjoyed a self-confident hope in
In tl1ese days I venture to think we are often not the sanily of this present life, and displayed a
sufficiently grateful to the orthodox Catholic rather complacent faith in the unaided power of
theologians who clung so doggedly to the literal human efiort. It is extremely significant that
truth of the Scriptures. . .. The alternative to the ancient Greeks neiUter JoYed nor feared the
fhe Bible was a mere fancy picture of the world gods of Olympus. They could hardly have been
we live in, whereas the Bible dld after all give filled with reverence, but they never even seem to
materials for constructing the course of events have been seized with wonder, at the surprisingly
which led to the Jewish religion and the religious bourgeois behaviour of the deities whom they
ideas that were the intellectual atmosphere of the , nominally worshipped. But as their world grew
world in which Christ and the Apostles moved '' older, they experienced what Dr. Gilbert Murray
(Chmch and Gnosis, pp. 63 f.). The truly signi- l1as described as a failure of nerve (Five Stages of
licant contrast is not between scientific knowledge Greek ReligiOtt, ch. iv), which threw the later
of the solar system or geology, or the glittering Greeks back on their own souls, " upon the
historical vistas revealed by excavation in the pursuit of personal holiness, upon emotions,
Valley of the Kings or Ur o! the Cbaldces, and the mysteries and revelations, upon tl1e comparative
cramped ideas of tlle Church Fathers; but neglect of this transitory a nd imperfect world
between those same ideas, which were for all their for the sake of some dream-wo rld far off, which
limitations derhed from history, ancl t he arbit ra.ry shall subsist without sin or corruption " (ib . ch. i).
reconstruc tion of reality which sprang like a fairy T his feeling for a power oo tside thcmselves and
palace, cloud-capped but unsubstantial, from the greater than man's heart was common to the
imagination of Hellenistic mythology. later schools of Stoics and Epicureans, as wel l as
The contrast between Christian and H ellenistic to the sects which had fallen, directly or indirectly,
ideas of salvation is no more p1oound tb.~n that under Semitic influences. But the kind of saviour
between their respective conceptions of a Saviour. for whose helping hand they groped was very
The. classical Greek philosophers, in lbe main, different fron1 the transcendent Lord God of the
had been blissfully unconscious of their need for Hebrew Bible. For Jack of a better, they looked
one. They were content to neglect the cry of the for a saviour to the divinity in man. The
" soberest philosophers ", including Aril.-totlc him- of a divine providence in the fortunes of imperial
self, had recognised a div-ine element in U1e hwnan Rome, and the presence of a divine genius in the
soul. The common people expressed the same person of its Caesar. It is difficult to imagine
idea when they surrounded rnen of great achieve- Vergil seriously regarding Augustus as a god, but
ments, founders of cities or legal constitutions or he certainly believed that through Augustus peace
philosopl1ic schools, vtith a rarified aura of divinity had been divinely brought to a distracted world,
and paid them an attenuated devotion under the and hoped that, through the continued action of
title of ' heroes '. their favourite, "whatever gods there be" might
vVhen the b;ight spirit of Alexander the Great gtlaran tec the future seeurity of civilisation.
flashed li ke a conquering comet across the eastern Saviours like these had indeed brougb t great
world, only to sink back prematurely like a spent things to pass, such as man might not reasonably
meteor into the dark unknown from whicb it h.ad expect to occur without help and direction from
sprung, a natural instinct, especially among his heaven. They also had the merit of being strictly
oriental subjects, led mankind to think of his historical; they were as real beings as the benefits
career as a divine irruption into the more common- which they conferred were substantial advantages.
place events of history. His successors in the But still the human spirit continued to be
kingdoms which be founded tended more and haunted by the sense that man cannot live by
more to claim the titles and exact the worship due bread alone, that a spiritual basis must be found
to deity; in the unsophisticated East the primitive for civilisation. So men turned to the oriental
conception of kings as embodiments or the nation's mysteries and the Gnostic cults in a desperate
divine rulers had long pr-eser:ved a hold in tJ1e great attempt to satisfy their souls. Rome. and Caesar
empires which Alexander overthrew; the absolute had bought them material s alvation ; for the salva-
powers wielded, and wielded effectively, by ancient tion of their scientific intellects they bad aJmost
oriental, as by modern Teutonic, monarchs ceased to care ; but tbey still had souls to save.
naturally lead to their practical deification by And here the oriental mystery religions brought
superstitious minds which are dependent on them a certain relief, though it was only partial and
for their all. When the Romans came and temporary. They provided food for the imagina-
occupied the places of the Ptolemies and ScJeucids, tion and the emotions of their initiates. But their
even the restrained imagination of western only hope of salvation lay in the uncertain fuhtre
countries was induced to recognise the influence after deaU1, and at bottom the only saviours
whose interest and favour tbey were able to association with Hin1. His blood was an offering
comma.n d were unrealities. Unlike the makers of of living and effective sacrifice- living, because
civilisation, these spi.db,Ial sa.viou1s were un- He was the source oi all true life; effective,
historical, the product, not of theology, but of because it redeemed His disciples from the domina.-
mythology. They had no real health to offer to tion of secondary objects and consecmted them
sick souls that needed positive and immediate and all their powers to the service of their heavenly
restoration. There was some alleviation of spirit Father and Creator: sacdnce, because that blood,
for the superstitious vulgar, but Marcus Aurelius and those whose souls were washed in it and
despaired of the survival of human personality, nuxhll'ed by it, were consciou-sly devoted to God.
Vespasian died uttering a grimly cynical joke In Jesus Christ they found a Saviour who was
about his own incipient deilication, and Hadrian both historical and divine.
with a lovely, sceptical, pathetic lyric to his de- There is a famous graffito, to which attention
parting soul : was called in Dr. Liddon'-:; Bampton Lectures of
l866, in which a human figure with an ass's head
Poor soul, little wanderer, tenderest,
My body's comrad~ and its 1;11cst. is depicted on a cross. On one side stands another
What region now shaU be thy goal, figure, making with uplift.ed hand a gesture of
Pale and stark and naked little soul, devout reverence. Underneath there runs the
No more to play, no more to jest?
legend, " Ale.n menos adores his god ". The
Then came Christianity. Its God had walked picture seems to represent the mockery by some
incarnate on the hills and roads of Palestine. He pagan slave of the religion of a Christian com-
left behind Him hundreds who had seen and panion. But the sting of the caricature lies in
handled Him> who had studied Him and believed the assumption, not that the god only, but that
that they had come to understand Him. No cue His worshipper, was an ass. The cross, which
could doubt His historicity. From Him His was to the Jew a stumblingblock, was to the
followers had learned to overcome evil and suffer- Hellenistic Gentile simple folly. In an age of
ing and disillusionment, not by ignoring them, but facile deification, when tb.e generality of mankind
by rising superior to them. The secret of their was only too ready to elevate to its altars the
powe1 was that they ha<l known Jesus and con- possessors of wealth and p ower, Christians per-
tinued, after His withdrawal from the earthly formed the harder and bolder task of deifying one
scene, in a spiritual and still more intimate who according to all material and temporal stand-
ards was a failure. That was a task no more most unlike the rest, but even in His poverty and
lightly undertaken than it was easily accomplished. suffering His followers assuredly considered Him
Although Christians called H im from the first by more God-like. By His precious death, and
the divine name of Lord, some time elapsed througlt faith io His blood, may all those who
before the instinct Of devotion, which recognised now bear me find lheir own salvation. And
in Christ the v\'isdom of God and the Power of through Him, to God the Father, with the Holy
God, the First-Born of creation and the heavenly Ghost, be all glory and worshlp, now and for
High Priest, could reconcile the rundamcntal evermore.
monotheism of His disciples with the stirring of
their hearts that bade them hail Him as their God.
It was still longer before theology succeeded in
working out a rational statement of all the
implications of Bis deity : some aspects of that
work still wait for satisfactory fuUilment. llut
that the historical figure of Jesus from Nazareth,
though crucified, was His Saviour from heaven, no
Christian ever dreamed of doubting.
It is therefore the more remarkable that when
the bacillus of god-making, as it has been described,
inJected the thoughts of early Christian devoteC$,
so few symptoms of spiritual fever accompanied
the cautious progress of the disease, and that the
Saviour whom they chose to deify was so unlike
the resl of His contemporary divinities. He was
one who did not pretend to save their property
or comforts, for few of them possessed any; nor
their lives, for tltey were proud to lay them down
in martyrdom for His sake. What He saved was
their moral integrity, their religious conviction,
their spiritual vitality. He was a kind of Saviour
ORJGE~. from whom this Lecture takes its title,
has several claims to veneration. He was one of
the greatest teachers ever known in Christendom,
an Abelard without his arrogance, a ~cwroan who
never mislaid his disciples. He was the {Olmder
of biblical science, and, though not absolutely the
iirst great biblical commentator, be fl.rst developed
the principles which ex-position was to follow and
applied the fashion of methodical explanation on
the widest possible scale. He inaugurated the
systematic treatment of theology, by writing a
book which treated of God, the world, and religion
in their several relations. He finally and com-
pletely established lhe principle th at Christianity
is an intelligent religion, by bringing all the strength
and vigour of Greek philosophical insight to bear
on the elucidation of Hebrew religious intuition
and Christian spiritual history. It may seem
astonishing that he has never been canonised, for in
addition to these supreme services to Christianity he
lived a confessor and died, to all intents, a martyr.
The omission, however, is itself a tribute to the fer-
tility and originality of his genius; he received
the posthumous honour of being made a heretic by
Jerome and Justinian- men of large attainments in all his studies, with a precocious Lnterest in the
but unamiable minds-because some of his specu- fundamental meaning of the J3ible. rfis father
lations, suggested in all intellectual humility and LeouJde& made him learn a daily portion of
with touching loyalty to the tradition of the Scripture by heart, presumably a psalm. The
Church, turned out on subsequent examination to boy was profoundly interested, and kept asking
be wttenable. Origen is the greatest of that to be told tl1e inward interpretation of the words,
happily small company o saints, who having behind the obvious and literal sense. Leonides
lived and died in grace, suffered sentence of told him not to bother ltimse.l( with questions too
e.xpulsion from the Church on earth after they deep for his years; but secretly be thanked God
had already entered into the joy of their Lord. for the child's intelligent and devout mind, and
In approaching Origen we pass from West used to stand and look at him as he lay asleep in
to East, exchanging Rome and Sardinia for bed, in an ocstasy of paternal pride. In 203,
Ale.xandria and Palestine. His name Origenes, when Origen was nearly seventeen, persecution
'' child oi Horus ", echoes a det.idedly Egyptian broke out. The cause appears to have been the
note. But the name is no more than an echo, issue of an imperial edict forbidding Christians to
for his family was Christian, his father bore the proselytise. The edict l1ad been preceded by a
t horoughly Hellenic name Leonides, and his own similar prohibition to the Jews, and may J1ave
second name, Adamantius, wa.~ Greek also. The had a merely local force, but hostility towards
names convey no indicat ion of descent , but Christians certainly increased about that t ime in
only of social convention. Origen's nomenclature, Syria and Africa. It bore heavily on the keen
h owever, was extraordinarily appropriate, for and active Christian commtulity in Alexandria .
Adamanti1.1s means " steely " and Horus was the Leonides was arrested. Origen burned t o join
ancient falcon-god identified both with the his father as a martyr. His mother, thinking
Egyptian royal dynasty and with the sun. l f doubtless not only of berscll but of Origen's ~'ix
ever a man proved himself as tough as steel, or small brothers, begged him to be cautious. When
soared above pedestrian labours in royal con- her entreaties (ailed to turn him from his design,
templation of the Sun o! Righteousness, that man she took a stronger line and hid all his clothes,
was Origen. which effectively checked his design to rush out
He was born at Alexandria in or about the year and give himself up to the police; but be WTote
186, and was a child of brilliant promise, forward hls father a letter, urging him strongly to bear
faithful witness to Christ, and adding words attend. Such was the celebrated Clement of
which have deservedly been re<:orded: "Mind Alexandria, a highly educated convert from l\. thens,
you do not change your purpose on account of under whom Origen himself appears to have
us." In times like that, there are more important studied for a. lime be(ore the persecution. The
considerations even than the responsibilities of a chief difference between the Roman and the
famlly. Ale.xanclrian schools seems to have lain in a greater
Fortifled by the sincere 611cour~ement o! his and more unified measure ot episcopal control,
raw, but fa.r from childish progeny, Leonides in the eastern metropolis, than the Roman popes
sttffered execution. Tlie government confiscated had as yet succeeded in imposing over the multi-
all his property, but help was forthcoming from a farious visiting professors who flocked to tl1eir
wealthy benefactress, and Origen threw himself dovecot; it may be remembered that for centuries
with such vigour into his studies that he was soon the Egyptian Church wAs the most highly central-
earning enough as a professional teacher to secure ised in Christendom. But Clement and the other
his own support. So quickly did l1e make a teachers bad withdrawn from Alexandria; so
reputation bolh for educational ability and for far the edict against malring disciples bad proved
Christian orthodoxy-for although he showed effective; and it fell to the youth of seventeen to
extreme tolerance to a,ny honest intellectual effort assume the mantle of Christian philosophy which
he always refused to have 1Jersonal dealings with they had discarded.
heretics, except with the object of converting Origen was immensely successful. Severd.! o
them {rom their errors-that a rl\lmber of heathen lois pupils were themselves martyred, another,
approached him with a request for instruction. many years aftenv.ards, became the bishop of
Alexandria had been the seat o( a famous ' cate- Alexa.ndria. Ne taught as much by his example
chetical school ', which was one reason why the as by his eloquence. He visited the confessors in
persecution had iallen upon it. This school should prison, attended them to the scaffold, gave them
be envisaged rather as a school of thought than as their last kiss of peace. The mob tried to stone
a formal academy. It probably began in much him. His lodgings were picketed with soldie~s,
the same way as the ' lecture-balls ' of Christian though whether to arrest him or to extend the
Rome at the same period; Christians of note, with protection of a government more lenient than lbe
gifts of teaching and ability to attract a foUoY.ing, populace towards so distinguished a figure, is not
opened their doors to any who might care to clear. At any rate, he evadj::d his enemies by a
constant change of dwelling and with the aid of the the springs of 1-Ieltenic rationalism. He asks how
.flock of clisciples who attended his instructions. he could deal with the religious difficulties of
B(~fore long, the bishop formally recl)gnised him heretic: and heathen enquirers if he did not make
as the head of the calecheticaJ school. That he himself familiar with theix: literature; it was the
escaped alive was, and remains, a matter for course followed by Christian leaders at Alexandria
thanksgiving to divine providence. both before and alter himself.
After the persecution, this layman still in his .But he did more. He attended the lectures of
'teens continued to carry on the work oi the school Ammonius Saccas, who can thus claim as his
wit11 undiminished fervour. The .Bible, then as pur>ils in philosophy the two outstanding Greek
always, was the groundwork oi his life and teach- thinkers of the Christian era~Origen himself and,
ing. "Origen lived ill the Bible", says Dr. some years after him, Plotinus. To Ammonius,
Lietzmann in a glowing passage, " t o an extent says Porphyry, Origen owed a great deal of his
which perhap$ no one else has rivalled, except grasp of philosophy, but unlike Ammonius he
Luther" (The Fotmding of the Church Ut~iversat, chose the wrong path; instead of o.bj uring the
p. 417). He even took the unusual step o~ )l',a.rning illegal superstitions of the Gospel, as his tutor had
some Hebrew from a Jewish tutor , in order to done, he gave them fresh support by introducing
investigate personally the problems of the text of Greek ideas into Christianity. So lor a do~en
the Old Testament. But he was no less inde- years Origen laboured as a student, a teacher, and
fatigable in pursuit of secular learning. Porphyry, an ascetic. In course of time he established one
the Neopla.tonist, who met him personally when of his own converts, the future bishop, who .had
Origen was an old man, complained that Origcn st1,1died w;th him Qncler Ammonius, as assistan t
' was always consorting with Plato " and studying director of ihe school, which had outgrown the
the books of later Greek philosophers; academic capacity of any single"handed master. Long
pagans considered that Christians who exercised before this he had been compelled to give up
the rights or rational th<>nght were encroaching se<:ular teaching altogether and confi.oe his efforts
unfairly on the professional preserves of infidelity; to the catechetical school, taking this opportunity
and it is odd that from rather different angles a to purchase himself an annuity of sixpence a day
similar judgement has been passed both by the by the sale of his whole library oi ancient literature.
late Dr. Harnack and by Dr. Karl Barth. Origen This was less than the daily wage o{ an unskilled
himself claimed the ~;dest liberty to drink at all labourer, but it was an1ple for his own needs, for
he lived with extreme simplicity, owning only one supplying him with seven shorthand wri ters, to
coat, walking barefoot, sleeping o n the floor, work in rclays, and an equivalent number of
drinking no wine, eating only what was necessary transcribers, n.ot to mention specialists in penman-
to support life, and after a long day's work sitting' ship. Seldom has the endowment of a scholar
up half the night to study the Scriptures. so well repaid the cost. Books began to pour out
During this period Origen paid a short visit to from the lite.rary workshop so established, under
Arabia at the request of the governor, and another the combined impulse of the author's prodigious
to Rome. But about 215 be was forced by a fresh activity and the patron's splendid munificence.
outbreak of hostility to make a longer absence, Among them " Fin;t. Principles ", as Westcott
which he spent at Caesarea in Palestine, where the remarked with justice, open<.-d a new epocl1 in
bishop received Jilin with kindness and directed Christian speculation, and the early parts of the
him to expound the Scriptures publicly in church. "Commentary on St. John" started a new era
This was a great but not unprecedented honour for in Christian interpretation. Origen's fame and
a layman. When his own bishop heard of it, authority rose to an extraordinary pitch.
however, he took offence and peremptorily sum- At the opening of the twentieth century the
moned Origen back to Alexandria. ihe con- late Lord Salisbury, who as Prime Minister was
sequence of the recall was as Iortunate as it was responsible Jor advising the Crown on appoint-
unforeseen. Origen met a wealthy patron named ments to the English episcopate, took an un-
Ambrose, whom he converted fron1 heresy, prob- favourable note of evils which had accrued to
ably Valentinianism, and by whom in turn he was religt<.m through the excessive divorce, then cover-
induced to engage in a course of authorship which ing two gener<l>tiQns, petween influential Leadership
lasted ior over thirty years, and resulted in a series in the Church and responsible tenure of 1he bishop's
of works incomparable in range and importance, office. A state of 1\0peless indiscipline had .grown
and seldom rivalled in mere volume. This earlier up, largely because so many of the bishops were
and obscurer Ambrose, whose influence and incapacitated [rom leading and so many of the
generosity fairly deserve that the memory of his leaders had been excluded (Tom being made
name should not be altogether absorbed by the bishops. Something oi the same sort oi difficulty
more resplendent celebrity or his namesake of would appear to have threatened at Alexandria in
Milan, not only spurred on Origen to publication, the third century. Origen, though still a. layman,
but provided most amply for the necessary means, was effectively controlling the thought of near-

eastern Christendom. The reason why he had ruling of his judgement was so hot that Origen
never been ordained appears to be that in the l:landed over the charge of the catechetical school
immature enthusiasm of youth he had mutilated and withdrew from Egypt. Excommunicated,
hi,;sel, an act which was taken in practice, as after his departure, in Alexandria, from 232 he
later canonically, to render him ineligible for the made his home at Caesarea, the unchallenged glory
priesthood, and which he afterwards condemned of the Palestinian firmament.
with manifest feelings o( self-reproach. Loyal and Here, with intervals o( travel and of persecution,
humble as he was, and fully as he had hitherto Origen pursued his habits of industry in lecturing,
received the support and encouragement of his \VTiting, and preaching, illuminating the Christian
ecclesiastical superiors, he now found his bishop faith and rebutting heretical misunderstandings,
turning against him, not, we are expressly told, ior the remaining twenty-three years of his life.
on doctrinal grounds (Jerome, ep. 33, but this may Ambrose and the book-producing organisation had
be no more than an in(erence from the general accompanied him to Caesarea, and a share in the
statements of Eusebius), but over questions of dedication of two works was bestowed on that
discipline. loyal benefactor. Origen had already addressed
Origen was invited to undertake a mission in to him a very beautiful little book on prayer and
Greece, and on the way he visited once again his the Lord's prayer, when, some four or five years
friends in Palestine, the bishops ol Caesarea and after the transfer o their operations to Palestine,
Jerusalem. Those prelates, disregarding, for persecution broke out and Ambrose was arrested.
reasons to which no direct clue survives, alike As he had once sent a letter to his !ather in simiLar
the physical Lmpedimcnt and the canonical sub- circwnstances, so now Origen addressed to l 1is
jection which he owed to his own bishop, ordained friend and p<~tron an exhortation to martyrdom,
him to tbe priesthood. He p<oceeded on his dwelling on the bles~edness of endurance, the
journey, stopping at Ephesus and at Athens, which comfort of the presence o.( unseen wi:tncsses to the
was still a centre of intellectual act ivity, and finally contest wl~ich be would be w3ing on behalf of
returned to Alexandria. There the storm burst Christianity, the spiritual benefits and satisfaction
on l1im. His bishop had already, a dozen years of the sacrifice he would be offering to God. the
before, exhibited jealousy of his Caesarean con- providential counsels thus fulfilled, and the power
nection. The resentment which he now showed and !mit of a llfe laid down so gloriously. Arohrose
at the interference with his rjghts and the over- was ultimately released; Origen, who seems to have

been in Cappadocia during part o( the persecution, can imagine something of the effects of imperial
was al,so spared; and the work went on unceasingly. concentration-camps on white-haired professors.
Co=enLaries and occasional treatises flowed He died about four years later, at the age of sixty-
from the workshop. Yet at Lhe age of sixty Origeu nine, at Tyre, where his tomb was slill shown with
was per:.-uaded that its output was still insufficient. reverence bellind the high altar at the end of the
Hitherto he had refused to allow his public sermons thirteenth century, in the church which also con-
to be taken down by the stenogi<~phers; he con- tained the remains of the Emperor Barbarossa.
ftned them to the discourses which he had regu- It appears that Origen was popularly reckoned the
larly J?reparecl with publication in view. But time greater b&ro of the two.
was growing sho1t, and bis long years of study had His power as a teacher can forhmat ely be
brought him immense facility of thought as of measured by the account which is recorded of it
expression. So the self-imposed ban was removed, by a grateful pupil. His school at Caesarca
and still more homilies appeared on still more exercised a magnetic attraction not only over the
books oi the Bible from the dictation of this neighbouring country but on hearers frorn abroad,
who came to hearkeo, to his wisdom from all parts,

wonderful old man, who corresponded with the
Emperor Philip and lhe Roman Pope and a host as the Queen of Sheba came to Solomon. Among
of other people of importance, yet found ltis the earliest of them was a young law student from
greate:.< happiness in teaching young men the Pontus, by name Gregory, afterwards surnamed
love of God and the enthusiasm of Christianity. the Wonderworker owing to the apostolic signs
At last the lire of martyrdom, to which the fire and wonders which he ' n ought in his singularly
in his own breast had always dr~.wn him, came near S\lccessM laboprs as a missionary among his own
enough to scorch at least tbe skirts of his mortal people. Gregory was intending to travel to 13eirut
tabernacle. In the persecution of Oecius Origen io Syria, in order to pursue his studies in juris-
was singled out for special attack. He was flung prudence, and was apparently still :~. heathen,
into prison, chained and tortured, threatened with when a series of providential circrunstances brought
the stake and strained upon the rack; everything him to Palestinian Caesarea, jnst after Origen had
possible was done to pr<)long his torments while set tled there. His sister was married loan official
preserving his liie to undergo them. Decius died of the governor of Caesarea, and he was charged
after a short reign, which was a reign of terror to to escort her to join her husband. Passing by
the Church, in 25r. Origen was released. But we Beirut on his journey, he arrived at Caesarea, only

to fall under Origen's spell and find himself the passivity. His penetrating criticism made them
captive, nol of Roman law, but of the Christian revise all their previous convictions and accept a
G~-pel. He stayed for five years under lhe fresh estimate of all their unconscious conventions.
tuition of the master, at the end of which, on the Then he talked about the magnitude and wonder
eve of returning home and receiving the bishopric, and system of the natural world, and the laws by
he delivered his panegyric on Origen. which God orders and controls its working, till
The object which Orjgen had set hefote him from with the aid of geometry and astronomy he led
the first was the attainment of the good life, the them to contemplate the most sublime mysteries
life in accordance with reason, the genuine of the created universe, in due relation both to
philosophy which brings to its devotees tewo.rds God who made it and to man who studies it,
far greater than any conferred by wealth or by " so that oar minds ", says Gregory, " were filled
success in other professions, such as the army or with rational instead of irrational admiration at
the law. He was affectionate and, says Gregory, the divine ordering of the world."
bewitching. He kindled in the hearts of his pupils The next stage was moral philosophy, which

a burning love, " directed at once towards the was treated not only as an abstract science but as
divine Word, the most lovable object o( all, who a means of forming character. Orjgen talked to
attracts all irresistibly to Himself by His unutter- them wisely, encouragingly, convincingly. But
able beauty, and also towards himself, the friend the most convincing features of his teaching were
and advocate" of Ghrist. Gregory's soul was the ex<UTJple that he set them, "stimula.ting us by
knit to that of Origen as Jonathan's was to David, the acts which he performed more than by the
while the teacher \Vent to work convinciog the theories whjcb. he taught", and the way in whicl\
pupil that Christ is indeed A. and 0, the fLrSl Word he caused them to inspect the springs of their own
in cosmic science and the last Word in rational conduct ; to observe the impulses and afections
personality. Origen set about him, be relates, by the development of wl1ich their minds might be
like a husbandman labouring on an unwrought brought out of confusion and discord into a
and neglected field. Re surveyed, he delved, he condition of sound judgement and moral order;
uprooted. He cleared the ground with Socratic to guard against the ftrSt beginnings of evil and to
enquiries, breaking down preconceptions, until by cultivate the growth of goodness and-what to
a process of " persuasion and constraint " he bad Origen was the same thing under a different name-
brought his disciples into a state of intellectual of reason. He taught them prudence, temperance,

righteousness, and courage, the four Platonic attached themselves to particular schools of
cardinal virtues, with <lli the insight of a p ractical thought, a.nd once they had established their
psychologist, and quite astonished them with rus private intellectual loyalties they could never be
demonstration that these are qualities not only induced to pay any attention to the guidance of
to discuss and analyse but to use and practise. any rival school. OrigEm wan ted the minds of his
No other philosopher whom lhey bad known had pupils to retain a due measure of fluidity and
ever done that for them, and Gregory maintains independence-a very important point in the
quite simply that the reason for Origen's success education of young clergymen or of prospective
was his pupilS' realisation that he himself supplied members of any other profession, ro long as the
the pattern of the noble life of a truly wise man. process leads in the end to acquiring powers of
All tllis time the basis of instruction was Greek judgement and decision. And this he took good
philosophy : they had not reached so far as care to secure, by expert personal criticism of the
Christian theology. The Ch1~rchman was stealing books which he made his pupils read. He taught
all Plato's and Aristotle's honey. He made them them to study all the secular masters but to swear
love the virtue of which their other teachers only by none; and so he brought them to God and the
talked, until they came to see that the whole prophets, to whom at length be permitted them to
object of pursuing virtue is to draw nigh to God form an attachment. He1e, in the Scriptures,
by making oneself like Him, and so to rest in Him. they sometimes found things dark and enigmatical.
There were no restrictions on their reading, But Odgen explained and illumined all tbeir
except that they were told not to waste their time problerns, " as being ltimself a skilful and most
on authors who denied the existence of any God dis.cerning hearer of God " ; he was, remarks
or any providence. A part from such hanen Gregory, of all the contemporarieo whom he had
toilers, they had to study all tbe poets and moralists met or of whom he eve1 heard, tbe only man who
on whom they could lay hands, both Greek and had so profoundly studied the luminous or~cles
foreign, not with the object of exercising their own of God as to be able both to absorb their meaning
undeveloped power o'f criticism, but siroply in into rus own mind and to convey it to others.
orde1 to examine what the recognised authorities He was a true exponent, for the Holy Spirit, the
all had to say. What Ol'igen bad in mind, we are Guide of mankind, wl1o had originally inspired the
informed, was to guard against the danger of prophets, honoured him as He would a frie11d and
premature conclusions. The ordinary philosophers gave him the power to interpret them.

So their education was completed. No enquiry considerable parts qf their contents with more
was closed to them, no knowledge was withheld than one series of expositions. And he laid down
from them. They had the chance to study every explicit principles of interpretation which, though
branch of learning, Gre(:k or foreign, spiritual or capable of serious abuse and requifing large supple-
sociological, human or divine. " We were per- mentation, provided a working solution oi the
mitted ,~;th entire freedom to compass the whole overwhelming problem of apparent contradictions.
round of knowledge and investigate it, to satisfy Qbscllfities, and even immoralities in the Bible,
ourselves with every variety of teaching and to and so opened the Scriptures to rational under-
enjoy the sweets of intellect." To be under the standing; indeed, the interpretative methods
intellectual charge of Origen, says Gregory, was which he applied to the Bible continued tG> fructUy,
like living in a ga.rden where the frujts of the mind ;l.lldsometimes to obstruct, the thought of Western
sprang up without toil to be enjoyed with gladness Christendom for a thousand years.
by the happy occupants; '' he truly was a paradise So far as concerns the te21.-t and contents of. Ue
to us, a fter the likeness of the paradise of God " ; Bible, Origen's work was only rudimentary accord-
to leave him was to re-enact the experience of Adam ing to any modern standard, and such aotual
after the Fall. Few teachers have ever won so conclusions as be propounded were frequently
remarkable a testimonial from their pupils. wrong. Yet that funjtation was of little con-
Didymus the Blind, whom Atbanasins placed sequence t o himself, for he constantly gave atter.
at the head of the catechetical school of Alexandria native explanations of the text, based on the
in the latter half of the fourth century, described varying readings which he found in his different
Origen as the greatest teacher in the Church after manuscripts. His importance for biblical criticism
the apostles; and Jerome, before orthodox tremors lies in the fact tba.t he was aware of the existence
for his own reputation closed the avenues of his of this class of problem, and recorded so many
judgement, quoted the description with approval. instances of texttal variation. The preliminary
Wherein, then, did the unique greatness of his work which he accomplished, or to the need of
achievements consist ? In the first place, in the which he called attention, formed an invaluable
range and importance of his work on the H~ble. foundation for the more or less critical editions
He made invalu<tble pioneer investigations of its which were to 'follow a century later. But lie was
text. He published commentaries or homilies on no thorough-going critic himself. He used every
nearly the whole of tbe two Testaments, covering scrap of material that would serve his turn to

illustrate or reinforce his argument, quoting not the Septuagint version- the text then in regular
only from lhe present canon of Scripture but from use-and the Hebrew original, he prepared a truly
books, such as the " Shepherd " of Hcrmas, which colossal edition of the Old Testament. It was
were finally excluded from it. In the last resort, begun in his early days at Ale.~dria, before he
as wiU be seen in conn!X:tion with his principles of started to publish treatises and commentaries,
interpretation, his authority was not the written and it was continued -.vith gradual elaboration
text, in spite of all the emphasis that he laid on it, over a quarter of a century, both at Alexandria and
but the living word of God which it embodied. at Caesarea, unlil it came to fill no fewer t han fif ty
H e was fully conscious that the authenticity oi volumes. lt was arranged in six columns, whence
certain books was disputed . He knew Lhat it derived its t itle of " Hexapla" : the first con-
Hebrews, J ames, Jude, and second Peter were tained the unvocalised Hebrew, the second a
not received by everybody. But he includes them vocaJised tr-d.nsliteration in Greek characters, the
aU among the spiritual trumpets which will over- remainder presented four Greek versions which
throw the walls of Jericho. Had he been primarily were in circulation, Aquila's, which was extremely
interested in critical problems, he could not have literal; Symmachus's, which was more idiomatic;
shown such inconsistency in his altitude towards the Septuagint; and Theodotion's, which was a
them. In reality; be was determined to devote revision of the Septuagint. For some parts of the
himself to the elucidat ion of the divine message Old Testament Origen even added t o these trans-
contained in Script ure, and, confident that the lations further versions, ot unspecified authority,
message existed and t hat he could uncover it, was which he h ad himseli discovered; thus in the
quite content to leave to others the task, which Psalms there were nine concun-ent columns .
seems at first sight so essential a preliminary, of So vast and complex a work as this could not
settling definitely what the authors of Scriptu re readily be copied except in t he form of sectional
had act11ally said. extracts. The original manuscript was handled
I n one field, however, he produced a really by Jerome in the library at Caesarea towards the
epoch-making piece of research. Stimulated, per- end of the fourth century, but it is not surprising
haps, by appreciation of the problems which that its contents failed to survive, save for frag-
induced MarClon and others to reject the whole mentary quotations. Some further details of its
of the Old Testament outright, as well as by method have been pieserved. The several texts
knowledge of the notorious divergences between were divided up into clauses, arranged so as to
indicate with the utmost possible facility how each as Origen calls Ambrose, to set him on to com-
different version rendered the same Hebrew phrase; posing commentaries arose from their joint observa-
and the text of the Septuagint was marked with tion of the expository ardour of Hippolytus.
obeli and asterisks, calling n.ttention to insertions Hippo!ytus was rather an industrious than an
which did not appear in the Hebrew or to omissions inspired author. He wrote a number of short
for which the Septuagint translators failed to books on pruts of the Bible, and a few more
account. Origen may not have possessed a very extended comment;u-ics; his method of interpreta-
profound sense of the rel(l.tive val ue of bis different tion was sufficiently like t hat adopted by Origen
textual autho1;tie.~; in-deed the purpose o.f t he to make it. probable that his work supplied the
Hexapla i tself ""as comparative rn.fher t llan strictly pattern whicb Origeu detetmined t o follow. But
critical.; his objective seerns to bave been a Origeo far suq)assed him both in the brilliance and
reliable interpretation of the meaning of the Jertility o! his execution and in the range of his
Septuagint, not a critical recension reproducing efforts. Hardly a book of the Bible, except the
what the Hebrew authors had originally written. Apocrypha, failed to be covered in the course of
But the work was an object-lesson not only of his expositions, either in the simpler form of
portentous industry but of essentially sound sermons or in the profounder treatment of a com-
method; and it was a wholly new venture. mentary, or in both. The impression that his
Nothing like it had ever been a ttempted on the powe~s of interpretation made on his contemporary
Bible before, and no subsequent study o the text Gregory has already been quoted. To that testi-
could fail to profit alike by its example and by its mony may be added the verdict of a great modern
actual perfon na.nee. critic; on his hat)dling of the Fou1t h Gospel. I n
A.l tlu:>ugh Origen's earliest commentary, on St. spi te of great faults, diffusiveness, repetition, dis-
] olu1's Gospel, is partly concerned to cri ticise proportion, obscurity, and complete deficiency in
the previous work on the same subject written by historical insight, says Westcott, 1' it abounds in
the Valentinian leader Heracleon, the earliest noble thoughts and subtle criticisms, it grapples
known author of a scriptural commentary, Origen's with great difficulties, it unfolds great ideas";
labours as expositor did not begin until after his above all, in spite of the fantastic speculations in
visit to Rome. I t has been conJeCtured that which it sometimes indulges, ' 'it retains a finn hold
Ambrose was his companion on this tour, and that on the human life of the Lord ". It was due to
the inlpulse which induced hls " task-master '', Origen, more than to any other single master, tbat
one of the most extensive branches of Christian Here Origen scores a great advantage over the
literature, that of biblical interpretatjon, and one heretics whose interpretations he condemns. The
of the principal divisions of Christian thought, that regular tendency of a scbismatical or herclical
of biblical theology, were established for all time temper in all ages, ancient as well as modem, is
in the ceo tre of the activity of the Church. to :fasten on a few impressive texts, from which a
In coming to the consideratjon of Origen's rigi.d interpretation is deduced, and to the scheme
methods of interpretation, certain preliminary and frame of wruch all other indications are con-
assumptions that be made have to be borne in strained to conform. Origen, on the contrary,
mind. The Scriptures, he believed, are the was insistent on adopting a sounder method. He
depository of a divine revelation ; they must there- would not allow his outlook to be narrowed; he
fore be taken as a whole. lf they seem at first required that il should rather be extended. Natur-
sight to be contradictory in their statements, ally, his application of these principles will not
some solution of the apparent contradiction must satisfy a twentieth-century critic. He had no
exist; the ooly problem for the Chrislian reader idea of the almost apocalyptic mental clarification
is to discover where it lies. Another consequence which proceeds from recognition of historical pro-
follows. They contain not merely a revelation, cedure, from realising tl1at the Bible records both
bt1t a revelation made by God. If, therefore, mundane facts and spiritual truths from the limited
their obvious and apparent sense provokes a and shifting standpoint of a series of observers,
conflict with the clear detenninations of reason whose stat ements were in part conditioned by
or with the necessary convictions of morallty, the their outward circumstances no less than by theU:
fact can only be an indication that thei.r 5uperficial o'", variable capacities of insight. He did no
seJJse is not the sense that matters; {or God is more than dally with the fringes of the great and
rational and God is righteous. There must be enlig1)toning conception of progressive revelation.
some deeper k..sson underneath the surface, which But his application o[ hi5 principles is compara-
is the lesson that they are really meant to teach. tively uni.mportanL The vital conldbution wbich
So one passage must be compared with another he nlade to the science of biblical interpretation
passage, and the whole must be criticised in accord- was that he saw so clearly both the real problems
ance with the general. substance of the Gospel and the right principles for their solution. The
~which t11e entire Scriptures exist in order to whole Bible must be aliowed to speak for itself,
illuminate. whatever a single text may seem to say; and it

must be pennitted to speaJc not merely in its own thing, or else it would never have been writen.
behalf, but in the name of the God who inspires it. The only :r:eal q uest:ion to answer is what each
That is why he troubles himself so little about word does actually mean.
mere problems of the text. If God is truly Precluded by the date of his birth from drawing
speaking through the Scriptures, He can make His on the minted wealth of a fully developed Higher
meaning plain just as easily t hrough the Septua- Criticism, Origen had recourse to U1e promissory
gint, or through any given reading in the Septua- notes of allegory, which constituted the higher
gint, as He can through the primitively authentic critical method of his own time. He found it
utter;w.ce of the umranslated and uncontanlinated pract\sed by St. Paul, and quotes the apostle as his
H ebrew prophecy. Origem's position, in fact, is justification. .But be found i t also a regularly
rather like that of any simple Victorian at his accepted practice in aU Hellenistic philosophy from
family prayers, who :firmly believed in the divine the first Stoics onward; " it Is applied to Homer,
inspiration oi the Authorised Version, though for a to the religious traditions, to the ancient rituals,
different reason. The devout British paterfamilias to the whole world " (.Murray, Five Stages of
knew only that the Bible came to him with living Greek Religion, ell. iv). Prophets and priest-s of
force in an English text; he was untroubled by paganism had wrapped up the meaning of their
any consciousness of original authorities. Origeo, message in allegorical forms. When their successors
on the other hand, was fully conversant with the carne to consider the appalling contrast between
existence of archetypal authorities and with the the world as their idealisms pictured it, a system of
changes and chances of h;ansmission. But stiU utter blessedness and ordered perfection, and the
he did not vastly care, Ior if God had inspired the actual experience of the world recorded in liter-ature
original He was quite capable of inspiring an or endured in their contemporary circumstances,
accredited trru.1slatiou, with aU its variations; and they were driven to allegory ' ' almost of necessity,"
if in the form which it had come to assume the text The facts could not be accepted as they stood.
presented any additional difficulties, Origen was They had to be explained as meaning something
perfectly ready to deal with them as he would deal fundamentally different. Origen, with his serene
with the pre-existing stock. He was not afraid conviction of God nnd lris invincible faith in the
of difficu!tie$. A few more or less made little etemal verities of wbich the best things in this world
odd$. H e read the Bible in order to hear God's were only copies and shadows, found not the
Jiving \roice. Every word of the Bible means some- slightest difficulty in applying the current aile-

gorical method to the outward forms of the to the true God s uch characteristics as they would
scriptural revelation. The Bible, he was assured, not credit of the most savage and unrighteous of
could only have one meaning, and that was what- mortal men. Again, that the Bible contains a
soever God in His mysterious providence intended certain amount of figurative writing is generally
it to mean. acknowledged, and it is not difficult to distinguish
Porphyry saw quite plainly that Origen had passages which, if lhey mean anything at aU, can
derived the method from Stoic teachers (ap. Eus. only be interpreted as setting forth some type or
h.e. 6.Ig.8). He attacks the whole procedure, with figure. By what principle are such figures to be
bitterness, as arbitrary and unhistorical. What made to yield their mystery? They contain types:
he does not seem to realise is that Origen was of what truths are these the counterpart?
working not only [rom a thoroughly consistent The solution is reached through recognising that
standpoint, but also in accordance with principles H oly Scripture is endowed with three di-;tinct
clearly conceived and rationally circumscribed. voices, the literal, the moral, and the spiritual.
Origen explains his system of interpretation and the The first of these is capable of being heard by any
reasons for it in the fourth book of " First P rin- sincere believer, simple though he may be. The
ciples " . The historical revelation of Jesus Christ, second is beyond the unaided powers of the simple;
he argues, not only displays the stamp of self- to comprehend it implies some faculty of under-
evideocing authority, confirmed by the conviction standing deeper than that requlrcd for compre-
whicl1 it has carried with converts of many hending a plain statement of fact. .From the
different races ; but by its iul film en t of the general example which Origen gives-St. Paul's assertion
sense of Hebrew prophecy it also authenticates the that the law about not muzzling oxen as they
Old Testament. Yet the Sl:riptures contain much thresh the corn applies equalJy to tbe right of
that is obsc\lre. Tbe Jews reject the argument Christian ministers to recei vc snpport from tho~e
from prophecy because Christ did not fl.tlfil strictly to whom they preach- it would appear that the
and .lilerally every expectation attached to the "moral" interpretation means the extraction from
l\iessiah. The heretics disown the Old Testament some particular instance of a general moral prin-
because they find in it evidence which, taken ciple. The simple are quite capable of under-
literally again, detracts from the moral perfection standing such meanings when they have them
of God. And simple-minded Christians, through pointed out. Accordingly, " most of the inter-
t he same habit of literality, are induced to attribut e pretations in circulation, which arc adapted to the

multi tude and edify those who cannot understand Gospels and apostolic. writings of the New Testa-
the higher meanings, possess something of this ment also. Throughout the Bible, says Origen,
character " . In practice little is beard of this priceless truths are hidden, the value of which can
'' moral" sense of Scripture in Origen's works, not never be exhausted by the most diligent research.
only for the obvious reason that he is usually The deeper the study given to it, the greater \Yill be
en~aged in the attempt to lead his hearers into the rich es brought to light. And to serve as in-
deeper levels of thought, but because in fact any dications to the existence of this buried treasure,
attempt to give a straightforward explanation o.f difficulties and impossibilities are sometimes de-
the literal narraHve, of however- simpl.e a. char- liberately inserted in the Scriptures, fr-om which. uo
acter, was reckoned by him without any further literal sense whatever can be extracted, in order
classification as belonging to this category. that the more enlightened reader may devote
The spiritual or allegorical sense touches pro- l:timself to lhe task of exploration and so may
founder depths. Because the Holy Spirit designed find " a meaning worthy of God " . Aceordingly,
to bury in the words of the Scriptures rich truths since the Saviour bade us " search the Scriptures",
of value to the souls that need enlightenment, this we must carefully investigate how far the literal
sense is to be extracted, not arbitrarily, but by meaning of a passage is true or possible, and use
reference to t he vital doctrines of God and His: only- every efiort, by comparison with relevant passages
begotten Son, of the Incarnation and the dispensa- elsewhere throughout t he entire Bible, to discover
tion of grace, of man and the rest of the spiritual the real sense of what is in the literal sense im-
creation, and of the Fall and evil in general. In possible; so we shall arrive at a true u,nder-
otber words, Onigen is simply saying in a manner standing of tbe whole of revelation, by maki ng a
at once more techn.ieal and more profound, what synthesis between t he genuine l1istory and the
an older generation of Christian thinkers had in- spiritual fruits of allegory.
vari:tbly maintained, that the only key to unlock Do not be misled into depreciation of Origen by
the Scriptures and to liberate their t~ue meaning the perversity of his supposition that God wilfully
was the t~:adition-that body of cenlral Christian hid .His revelation under a field of literalistic
truth which is more or less completely crystallised ant-hills, in order tbat mankind might discover the
out in tbe creeds and in those ancillary doctrines secret treasure by the process of falling over
which the creeds assume or imply . This principle the obstacles. It was fantastic indeed. But the
applies to the prophets, to the Law, and to the obstacles were real, and people WCJe really falling
over them. We in the twentieth century do no logical writers had been either occasional in char-
credit to ourselves if we despise the third century acter or, when designed on a more extended scale,
for not possessing those tools by fhe aid of which had consisted of elaborate refutations of the errors
in our own lifetime we have only just succeeded in of Gnostic speculation. It was mainly either
levelling the ground. Wl:tat Origen achieved was apologetic in character, seek:fng to remove the mis-
of enormous importance. He made it possible conceptions of the ruling classes about the true
for intelligent Christians to believe the Bible, and nature and objects of Christianity, and so to
so for intelligent people to remain Christians. establish a claim for security and toleration ;
What would have happened to Christianity wi thout or else controversial, defending Christianity against
a rationally interpreted Eible to feed its mind and the criticisms of J ews and paga.n$ a,nd the perverse
to control the development of its thought, can obsessions of heretics, and carrying the war into
only be imagined by referring to the disordered the enemy's country in an effort to demonstrate
inteUectual caprices of the crazier Gnostics, or to the moral and spiritual superiority of the Gospel.
the more gross of the superstitions indulged by Otherwise Christian literature had produced little
baptised paganism in mediaeval Italy or Reforma- more than a series of tracts and pamphlets about
tion Scotland. The allegorical method "saved current problems; apart !rom certain works about
the Scriptures for the Church ' ' (Tollinton, Setec to be mentioned, a few collections of memoirs,
tions from the Conmumtarles a11d Ho1niUes of since lost, practically complete the list.
Origet~. p. xxxiv). It enabled the Old Testament To this general review two exceptions must be
to be claimed as Christian lfteratu re as against added. Some a ttempt had been made to draw up
J ewish controversialists, and both Testaments positive cx:planations of Christian teaching, but
to be defended against the destructive critiaism of these were few in number and slight in substance;
educated Hellenists. And by sa,ving the Bible, it their scope and treatment did not extend far beyond
gave security to the l1istorical foundation of the an elaborated version of the elementary truths of
Christian faith and permanence to the evangelical the creed. Their object was practical, and they
standard of Christian values. were liable to speedy supersession. Thus the
All-important as Origen's work was in conncxion deeply interesting little work of Irenaeus. " The
with the Bible, it represents only one side of his Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching", seems
achievement. He is also the father of systematic scarcely to have been noticed after the fourth
theology. Most of the output of previous theo- century and has only been preserved in an Armenian
translation. The second exception is that Clement, that, if Christianity were to succeed in conquering
Origen's predecessor in the catechetical school of the world and moulding its civilisation, it m~ISt
Alexandria, did indeed attempt the composition justify itself to the intel1ect as well as to the
of a connected group of treatises on the Christian heart of mankind. Moreover religion so thoroughly

religion, the plan of which was deliberately imitated absorbed the exercise of every faculty of his own
by his successor in a work which has failed to being, that the mere effort to understand was
survive. But Clement dealt with practical re- transformed from an act of speculative detach-
ligion, touching only incidentally on questions of ment into an energy of spiritual passion that 1.mited
doctrine. Moreover, l1e was an extraordinarily the thinker with the object of his thought. There
diffuse writer, who bad no gilt for orderly presenta- ;s no reason to suppose that Origen was a mystic
tion or clear theoretical statement. Origen was in the strict sense; but he sought to penetrate the
the fust theologian to put out a full and methodical mysteries of the God whom he worshipped by
e:x-position of the whole intellectual framework of exercising all those higher powers of the mind, the
the l::hristian faith. possession of which bestows on human nature its
This was the task accomplished in his " FiiSt only valid claim to be made in the image of God;
Principles ", a monument of Christian speculation and he both believed and experienced that in doing
based on loyal acceptance of apostolic teaching so he was being drawn into ever closer contact
and the evidence of Scripture. It was written with the divine being to whom he owed reason,
during U1e earlier period of his literary activity at redemption, and advancement in the spiritual life.
Alexandria, while he was still a layman, and before Accordingly he embarked on a systematic
be had attained the age of much more than thirty exposition of religious truth, so far as he was able
years. The extraordinary matucity of his U10ught to comprehend that tmth, eroploying the evidence
is shown by the fact that he never l1ad occasion to of Scripture and the powers of human reasoning as
modify in any great degree the views to which his instruruen ts in an attempt to present Christianity
early training and his own reflection had then methodically as the key to all human knowledge
already led him. He wrote for educated readers, and experience. Whatever elements of original
in the language and within the realm of ideas with speculation he introduced, daring at times in
which his educated contemporaries were familiar, substance as they were invariably modest and
not because he felt any contempt for the simple faith tentative in manner, his starting-point was the
of peasants and artisans, but because he realised simple faith of the creed, and his groundwork
was authoritative revelation. His philosophy was the witnes.~ as the New, since both alike, when
therefore never abstract. He was always speaking rightly understood, depict the justice and goodness
of facts and persons which to him, as to any of God. On this historical $Cene God's only-
wholehearted Christian, were intensely vital and begotten Son entered with a visible body and a
objective. In the first Sl'Ction ot his work he human and rational soul. Origen's firm grasp of
discusses the nature of God, as declared in the facts is illustrated by his strong insistence botb on
general principles of a theistic philosophy and as the deity of Christ and on the full integrity of I!is
revealed historically jn the Christian religion ; and human nature. The Incarnation v..-as a divine act
the last end of created mao, wbicb is, through the performed on the field of objective history . In the
ceaseless work of grace, renewed at every stage ill same manner the Holy Spirit bestowed positive
his spiritual struggle and progress, to attain here- and definite ilJurnination on the prophets and has,
after to the vision of " tne holy and blessed life". since Christ's ascension, conveyed to innumerable
But the opportunity of progress involves also the multi tudes of believers a solid revelation of truth ;
possibility of falling !1-Way. The present condition they cannot all render a. clear and logical explana-
of all rational creatures, whether hwnan or on- tion of their intuitions, but they have a firm under-
embodied, is dependent on the degree to which standing of the real meaning of such things as
they have either freely co-operated with the Church membership, worship, redemption and the
opportunities and graces aftorded them, or have moral law, and their apprehension of these and
been guUty of wilful negligence and rebellion. other truths is to be attributed to the historical
'' lt lies with us and with our own actions whethef working of the Holy Spirit. Origen then pro-
we are to be blessed and holy." In the end will ceeds to develop particular features or his geJJeral
come the judgement and the conS11mmation, at argument, bearing on the moral foundation of the
which Origen hopes to see established a fmal, universe and the spiritual progress of 1ational
harmonious unity between God and a creation fully creatures here and hereafter. In the third section
redeemed and restored. he. discusses at length the character and limitations
In the second section he enlarges on the nature of human free will, the solemn implications of
of the universe and its relation to man. The world moral responsibility, and the hope of its issue in an
provides lhe setting for the moral pilgrimage of eternal and universal restoration. The fourth and
mankind, and is the scene of a genuine historical last section of this comprehensive review of tl\e
continuity, of which the Old Testament is as much universe, conceived as a rational and religious
whole, justifif;$ hi$ method and argument by an myth rather -than of )listory. Its effect alike on
explanation. of which some account has already the calm and practical intellect of Irenaeus and
been given, of the right principles on whkb tlte on the brilliant controversial mind of Tertullian
difficulties of biblical interpretation arc to be was one of horror and revulsion. Tertullian roundly
overcome and the true 11leaa1ing of the Scriptlil-es rejected metaphysics as a denial of Christianity :
unveiled. " unhappy Aristotle, who invented dialectics for
This great work, presenting a Christian view of these men to use", an art evasive, destructive aod
the world to the minds of his educated con- contentious, which denied everything and really
temporaries, places Origen firmly in the centre of settled nothing (de praescr. 7).
the long process by which the ancient Church carne The Church was saved from abjuring rationalism
to express its belie.fs in a philosophical theology. by Clement of Alexandria, who pointed out
So far as that process was consciously undertaken, that Greek thought could not properly be con-
it may properly be said to have originated in the demned on hearsay, that even a refutation must be
New restarnent, with St. Paul and St. John. But rationally expressed, and thal a coavincing explana
little was done to develop the tendencies wltich tioo of essential truth was calculated to lead an
they indicated until Valentine, the Gnostic, ad intelligent inquirer towards belief. Philosophy, he
dressed himself to the task on lines which were said, was " the clear image of truth, a gift of God
immediately recognised by sober followers of the to the Greeks " (strom. x. 2, 20. 1); so far from
Gospel as impracticable. It has been strongly drawing people from the faith by the magic of
argued by Dr. Burkitt that the system of Valentine delusive art, it afforded an exercise by which the
was intended as a deliberate Christian philosophy. faith was demonstrated. Again, he claimed, philo-
The emphasis which he laid on its Christian char- sopby " 'M to the Greek n1ind what the Law was to
acter is only convincing so far as it recognises that the Hebrew, a schoolmaster leading to CJrrist.
a Christian element was certainly included; it It was the handmaid of theology, as Hagar the
is difficult to believe that Valentine had an ex- Egyptian was of Saralr, the mother of the child or
clusively or even preponderantly Christian motive. promise. Christ H imself said, '' I am the truth " .
His work certainly gives rise to the opinion that Human philosophy, which was concerned with the
he was more interested in the problem of creation investigation of truth and o( the nature of the
than in the gospel of salvation, and his depiction universe, prepared and trained t he mind for its
of the universal scheme is expressed in terms of Sttbsequent anchorage in the Gospel; it stinrulated
! JO ORlOEN: TB.E CLAiMS OF Rll..l.-lC!01JS lNl'El..LlGENCE J31

the intelligence, and encouraged an attentive with God must mean to advance both in keenness
pursuit of the true philosophy revealed in Chris- of perception and in clearness of understanding.
tianity (ib. I. 5, 28. 3; 32. I - 4) Experience of redemption fiUed Origcn with the
That Origen agreed with these conclusions of desire to enter into the lullness of converse with his
Clement is exbibited in every line that he wrote. Redeemer, and to enjoy the riches of his spiritual
He accepted Hellenic rationalism as a valid instru- inheritance in a mutual fellowship with Him who
ment of enquiry. He thoroughly believed that when on earth had called His disciples His friends.
the rational powers implanted in man by the divine Tile frontier was not closed against the traffic of his
Mind possess as their object a genuine apprehension soul between particular religious events and general
of truth. "But it is not a !air criticism to allege spiritual principles ; his mind ranged freely from
that he ignored the simple Gospel in favour of the God revealed in specific acts of providence,
recondite enquiries and advanced intellectual gym- judgement. and restoration lo the God who bears
nastics. While his mind was most active his heart witness to Himself in the vast sweep of creative
remained simple; the vital evangelical realities life and infinite wisdom, in sustaining cosmic order
are presupposed in the dizzy flight of his speculative and in inspiring rational contemplation. The
imagination ; nor could he have cared so deeply Hebrc,vs recognised God by the evidences of His
about the devil' s prospects of salvation had not purpose, love and power; the Greeks sought Him as
salvation seemed to him the roost important thing the infinite ground of all thought and being; Origen
in U1e life of any rational creature. He loved truth considered it no wrong, but rather an imperative
with all his soul, not because it satisfied a meFely duty, to contemplate Him in both aspects at once.
intellectual curiosity, Qut because its grasp con- So he claimed, with unswervin,g insight, that the
~eyed the infinitely deeper and more mystical theistic r ationalisations of the best Greek thinkers
satisfaction proper to the apprehension of the were fundamentally at one wilh the theistic intui-
sup~;eme Reality, personal, historical, creative, and tions of Moses and the prophets. Even ht>.resy,
redemptive. by which Origen meant an aberration from the
Salvation itself could not be thoroughly appreci- standards of the great masters, whether in philo-
ated until it had as far as possible been understood. sophy or in theology, could be regarded in one
ft was a duty owed to the Redeemer that His aspect with a certain tenderness ; though it was
assistance should be sought to comprehend the a distortion, it was a distortion of the truth
richness of His own grace ; to walk in communion (c. Cels. 3 12).
Origen was the very last of mortals to imagine for later Origenists were so called rather from their
one moment that he was himself infallible, His perverse following of his peculiarities than from a
great. dogmatic construction is fertile with imagina- just appreciation of his greatness. Nor was he the
tion, but in several respects it failed to commend father only of orthodoxy. Arius, whose Titanic
itself lo the cons1dered judgement of later theology heresy, earthbound as it was, shook both CI1urch
-and that, not only in minor details, but in some and Empire to their roots, conslructed the frame-
matters of the deepest moment. None the less, work of his own system with derelict timbers that
in him philosophical theology reached a definite he borrowed from Origen's woodyard, and twisted
watershed. For the litst time a thinker of the in the taking. Ko one who came after Origen
front rank had not only conceived and taught the could remain uninfluenced by him. But it is no
Christian religion from the viewpoint of a single, less true tbat. in spite of every hostile criticism,
consistent scheme, but had also formulated his the theology of the great doctrinal definitions,
system of thought and put it into a book of wllich has determined tho essential faith of
manageable compass. However much that par- Christendom, grew up out of the vast and syste-
ticular system might need to be modified and re- matic discipline wllich Origen imposed.
adjusted, theology had found a fixed channel The Church owes it to Origen, first and foremost,
down which for the the future its upper waters that, whenever Christianity is true to itself, it is a
were destined to flow to irrigate the minds of later rational faith. The whole educated world is in
generations. The thought of Alexandria, which his debt for the preservation of the old Hellenic
dominated most of the East, was based on Orlgen intellectual culture, which he tra.ns[o(med by his
for ceJJtnries. Tbe great Athana.sius, wbo saved genius into the beginnings of a phiwsof>llia pcremtis
Christianity from being pa{;'aniscd in the fourth for Christendom. tf there had been no Odgen,
century, was indirecUy Origen's disciple. The it may be seriously doubted whether the rising
Cappadocian Fathers, who under the influence of forces of obscurantism might not. have blocked the
his tuition worked out the implications of the entrance of Christirulity against tho genius of
doctrine by which Athanasius had saved religion, Augustine; and in that case the occasion might
ve11erated Origen with an enthusiastic devotion. never have arisen for an Anselm or a Thomas
They were alive to his faults, and discarded his Aquinas. A degenerate Christianity might well
errors; but the main foundations of his structure have found its leadership committed exclusively
stood flrm on the original Jines. It is true that to illiberal imitators of Jeromc and illiterate
echoes of Berna.rd.l By the third century the old gave permanent stability to Hellenic rationalism;
philosophy had exhausted its material, and was Origcn, and not the third-rate professors of a dying
degenerating into platitude and superstition . sophistry and nerveless superstition, stood in the
Origen seized on it as God's supreme instrument for true succession from Plato and Aristotle in the
the rational exposition of all truth. He captured it history of pure thought. The other was Plotinus,
ioc Christianity, not as commerce-caider sinks at who formulated, and by formulating saved, the
sjght both hull and cargo of a foreign seafacer, on classical inheritance of Hellenic mysticism. He
the pretext that its victim is engaged in carrying too drew his inspiration from Plato, supplemented
contraband-though that is how Tertullian re- in some measure by Plato's own disciples and the
garded speculation-but as a salvage-master brings Stoics. By developing the strain of mysticism
borne to port an ownerless and abandoned vessel which was exhibited in Plato, and at which RelJcn-
and transfers the argosy with its rich freight to i.stic developments and oriental influence had pre-
those who have the power of using it. The world pared lhe pagan world to cal.ch, he formed a
continued to possess the faculty of philosophic theocentric system of religious discipline which
thought largely because Origen naturalised the fused the surviving scllools of paganism together,
procc.Sses and fruits of philosophic method in the and for a time provided a rival religion to Chris-
enduru1g context of Christianity. The futility of tianity. But two limitations bave to be set on the
Julian's effort in tlle fourth century to revive the relative importance of what Plotinns achieved.
intellectual life of pagttnism proves that, but for The first is that a strongly mysticaJ inilucnce had
Christian salvage, all the freedom of its speculative already been infused into the stream of Christian
w,ngeJ and all the enlargement of the hum:;~.n thought before Plotinus gave any expression
spirit which it had once secured. would have been to his own convictions; the second is that the
jettisoned. ideas of Plotinus himself were only ensured a
In the third century two men, working in inde- permanent survival when pseudo-Dionysius, a
pendence and on ditTcrcnt linl'.s, succeeded in con- mystical Monopbysite who flourished at the end of
serving for lmmanity Lhc benefits of Hellenism. the fifth century and had absorbed the whole
The one was Origen, who, by supplying new and apparatus of Neoplatonisrn, canonised Plotinus by
vital material for the exercise of human reasoning, translating him into the sphere of Christian
practice and expounding him in a Christian
1 ACGOTding to St. Bcmard, to Jeam In order to koow is version. Thus even on the side of mysticism
scandalou5 curtosity-turpicuriO!<ibls "-Gilson, TheMysticaJ
T/Jeoi<Jgy of St. Dentard, p. 64. classical antiqnity could only find a permanent
home in human thought by yielding toll of all
tb,at was best and txuest in its possession to the
conquering faith of Jesus Christ.
Of the two contributions, rational and mystical,
the former was incomparably the more indis-
pensable. Mysticism, in t he strict sense in whlch
the term is applied to Plotinus or to pseudo-
Dionysius, is capable of great extravagance. It is
a specialised form of spiritual discipline applicable
only to a minority of people and wanifesting
charader-istic features of a fairly constant type,
under whatever form of religious creed it happens
to take shelter. Mysticism unsupported by revela- LECTURE IV
tion is like the Indian rope-trick ; it evolves from MARCH 3RD, 1940
the inner self-consciousness and nobody can tell
precisely wber.e, if anywhere, it leads. It certainly
can olain; no private monopoly in personal religion.
\Vhatever its merits for the select souls who find in
it their own particular vocation, there is no real
trace of it ill the Bible; and the loss of i t would
have caused no irreme(j.iable iniliTY to the Christian
e"-'Perience which its inclusion enriched. But
Christianity can never afford to be deprived of
rational thought. The flight from reason marks the
first stage in the sucyender of religion to intellectual
nihilism and vulgar superstition, from which dark
prisons of t he mind may that t rue Light deliver
mankind, through whom to God the Father v:ith the
holy Spirit of Truth be all honour, worship and
adorat ion, now and for evermore.
THE entire Christian religion rests on the postu-
late that God-the true God-is king over the
whole earth. In the last resort, there never can
be more than one ultimate power capable of
commanding the allegiance and devotion of any
section of mankind. That is a law imposed by
the constitution of human nature, which was
created by one God in order to serve one God.
But just as it is true that those who love God keep
His commandments, so it may be accepted as a
practical axiom that the object which men serve
is, to all intents and purposes, the object of their
worship. The essence of idolalry is absorption
in a false devotion; idolatry means the paramount
service either of ends positively bad, or at the best
of secondary claims. \11/hen to idolatry is added
polytheism, distraction of purpose enlarges the
confusion caused by the lowering of aims. If it
is inconceivable that there should be more than
one overriding principle of universal righteousnes.~.
it is impossible to conceive that there should be
more than one absoh1te God.
The task of finally establishing in Christian
thought the uncompromising assumption of
Christian (ailh in the unity of God, fell to whom he thus regarded as a demi-god, altogether
Athanasius, from whom thil; Lecture takes its separate in being from God tlte Father, he re9ived
title. Athanasius was born at Alexandria in the the spiritual errors of paganism. ~ was quickly
last years of the third ceutury, somewhere about pointed out to birn, in his attempt to produce
296 or 298. He received a liberal education in direct simplicity of doctrine by short-circuiting
secular learning, and was thoroughly instructed in the real intellectual problems, he was combining
the Scriptures; his mind was saturated with them. t he mistakes of Jcwish unitarians and pagan
An10ng his teacbers were some whose blood was polytheists. At first Bishop Alexil.tlder was con-
sl1ed in martyrdom during the persf:Jcution~ of 3u. ciliatory. But when Arius t ook advantage o:( the
He was a boy of singular ability and of marked divisions already existing at Alexandria in order
spiritual promise. Bishop Alexander, who suc- to buttress up his own impracticable revision of
ceeded to the see oi Alexandria about 3H, took him the Christian faith, a synod had to be. called at
into his household as companion. secretary, and which he and his associates were deposed from their
later deacon, and there he lived as a son under the ministry for teaching notions that were flagrantly
roof of a kindly and beloved father. The first- incompatible with the Gospel. This happened
fru.its of this privilege were manifested when, at in 3ZI.
the age of little more than twenty-one, Albanasius Arius, however, was not in the least disposed to
published a couple of devout and penetrating bow to the judgement of his peers. Though
apologetic works, in support of Christianity expelled iTom tbe fellowship o( Christians in Egypt,
against tl1e heathenism which was still active he remained obstinate in his attempt to capture
among his surroundings. the machinery of Christendom for t he wholesale
The Church io Alexandria was already distracted cUstribntion of his new and essentially pagan
by schisrnatical disputes when, abo\lt 3.19, Arius, mythology, carrying his intrigues throughout the
the rector of one of the city parishes, propounded East in a determined effort to canvass supporters.
a theological system according lo which Christ He was indeed able to show lhat his ideas were
was neither truly God nor perfectly mao. Though affiliated to teaching current in the school of
he recognised the divine Son as an inferior deity, Origen, though he borrowed without discretion and
he reduced the divine principle embodied in Him perverted his borrowings with a ruthlessly partial
to an impersonal force of divine inspiration; yet and on~sided logic; he appealed in particular,
by allowing worship to be offered to the Christ and with some superficial plaU$ibility, to the
writings of Dionysiv.s, a previous bishop of supporting the efforts of his superior, he bad no
Alexandria, and with more convincing warranl to share in the council's decisions. The Arians
those of the martyr Lucian of Antioch, who appears expected a victory; they seem to have been
to have coloured his Origenism with an infusion of honestly unaware bow thoroughly their teaching
Adoptionist sentiment. Origenism was still a had diverged from Church tradition. But during
force to conjure with : the more orthodox thinkers the preliminary discussions t)1ey found to their
took the entire scheme as the basis of their theo- dismay that, out of the total number of some three
logical teaching, the less balanced adopted particu- hundred bishops, there were fewer than a score on
lar fcatu.res of the system to provide leverage by whose votes they could count. Though they
which to overthrow the remainder. Accordingly, practised every possible evasion, circumstances
not only among men of doubtful professions, btlt were too strong for them. When Eusebius-not
from among the great mass of conservative minds the historian, but the bishop of Nicomedia-who
in Eastern Christendom, Arius obtained a con- led the Ari.an party, presented an unambiguous
siderable volome of sympalhy, and some active statement of his faitl1, he was immediately met
support. Athanasius meantime, continuing to with angry shouts, and his document was torn to
assist his bishop with evangelical insight and a pieces before his eyes. The majority of the bishops
strong grasp of the vital issues involved, was were far from possessing the definite vision of
probably the actual author of a brief encyclical, Atbanasius, but they were sufficiently clear-
circulated from the Church of Alexandria, which sighted to perceive that no concord could be
explained the overwhelming reasons for Arius's framed between the Gospel and Arianism. In the
deposition. end they were induced, under imperial pressure,
Constru1tiue, the ftrst Christian Emperor, was prompted by the wise and illustrious bishop
anxious that peace should be secured in the Church Hosius of Cordova, the principal theological adviser
to serve as a spiritual underpinning for peace in the from the West, to accept the cmcial formula that
realm. When the controversy still spread, he the Son is " of the same substance" with the
adopted the suggestion o summoning a council Father. They did not altogether h"ke the formula;
of bishops f.Tom the whole world to bring the matter they would have pre[erred a phrase taken directly
lo a settlement. Tbey met at Nicaea in 325. from Scriptme. But as Scripture had failed to
Ath<lllasiu.s himself was present, in .attendance on forea:rm itself in set terms against the rise of Arius,
bishop Alexru1der ; but, apart from prompting and and as both tl1e Latin delegates and the good
Origenists of Alexandria were convinced that in Christendon1, and had for generations exercised
nothing less than the ' homoousion ' provided a superior jurisdiction over the whole of Egypt and
really adequate safeguard, and $i.nce also the most Libya.
God-fearing Emperor wished it, tl1ey acquiesced. In the world outside, the slippery Eusebius, a
Anything was better than the horror, once revealed, court prelate ;md a dexterous diplomatic intriguer,
of naked Arianism. E-ven of the professed Arians who generally had the ear of Constantil1e, wa.Sbent
only two withheld their signatures. Their leader, on revenging his humiliation at Nicaea. Restored
tbc supple Eusebius of Nicomedia, was not of the to imperial favour by 329, he started sapping and
two. mining the strongholds of lhe . ricene faith, pro-
Not long afterwards Bishop Alexander died; curing the deposition of leading bishops, often in
Athanasius had little more than turned thirty the teeth of their loyal people, and threatening
years. On his death-bed the bishop called for his Athanasius llimself with retribution i1 he refused
beloved deacon, who happened to be absent. to admit ~o.\rius to communion. Athanasius
Another man of the same name stepped for.ward, answered that be could not give communion to
but the bishop ig.nored him and kept repeating the persons convicted of heresy and excommu.nicated
call. At last, r ealising the situation, the dying by the oecumenical counciJ. Then a letter arrived
bishop uttered the prophetic words : " Atbanasius, from the Emperor with a similar demand, enclosing
yon think you have escaped, but you will not a threat of deposition. Athanasius replied to this
escape." Seven weeks later Athanasius was chosen that no fellowship existed between the Catholic
to succeed him by the unanimous wish of the Church and anti-Christian heresy. No deposition
Christian population oi Alexanchia, which had for followed; the threat presumably had been in-
days refused to leave the chnrch where the electing spired by Eusebius, vhose influence did not yet
bislwps were assembled, but uttered prayers to extend so Car as to secure its execution. Instead
Christ and entreaties to the bishops to give them he organised a long series of civil charges against
as their pastor Athanasius, the good, the pious, the <JJ:chbishop, including one of illegal taxation,
tbe Christian, the ascetic, a true bishop. Elected one of sacrilege, and one of murder. The Arians
thus with the goodwill of most of the clergy and did not stick at trifles.
the enthusiastic approval of the laity, Athanasius Since there was not an atom of truth in any of
spent sevt>,n years of diligent pastoral oversight lhe accusations, A!:hanasius was fully capable of
in his <JJ:chbishopric, which was the second see clearing himself; the business of refuting tbem

involved trouble and distraction rather than serious produced in its box. Athanasius inquired whether
difficulty. The earliest charges were successfully there were anybody present who was personally
liquidated by a personal visit to the Emperor. acquainted with Arsenius ; and a number of eager
But more followed, with the inevitable conse- witnesses acknowledged their f3JJiilia:rity. Straight-
quence, no doubt designed by Euscbius, that way he had Arscnius produced in person, wrapped
Constantine was annoved
with the constant irrita- with a cloak. Athanasius lifted one side of the
tion, to the point at which mental uneasiness pro- covering, and disclosed a hand. After a dramatic
<.Juced the same effect as positive s uspicion; and pause he lifted the other side, and C.'CJlOSed
Athanasius was summoned in 335 to appear before a nother hand. "Will anybody show me," asked
a council to be held at Tyre. Meanwhile Arsenius, A thanasius, "the place .from which Arscnius's
the schismatical bishop whom he was accused of third hand bas been amputated ? " The incidellt
murdering, had been bnoed by Athanasius's provides a vivid illustration of the superstition
enemies to conceal himself in a monastery of his endemic in the meaner sort .of :minds, even among
sect, and a box was handed round containing a the less educated of the clergy ; of the cynicism
human hand, alleged not merely to have been cut with which political prelates played upon vulgar
by Athanasius from the body of the missing man, prejudices ; and of the magnanimity of Athanasius.
but to have been employed by tbe archbishop for F or he not only forgave Arsenius and restored him
the purposes of black magic. Atlla.nasius put a to cotnmunion, but afterwards promoted him to
trusted deacon on Arsenius's tracks. The fugitive an Egyptian bishopric.
was located, but was smuggled out in time to Nevertheless the council at Tyre was heavily
evade capture. A lett~ from the rasc::U monks, and obviously weighted against him by l1ls enemies.
which fell into Atha.o asius's hands and is still Athanasit1s escaped in an open boat, and dis
extant, describes the deacon's search, relates his appeared in his turn. Shortly afterwards the
discovery, and strongly advises that an accusation Emperor was out riding near Constantinople when
now so utterly exploded should be dropped (Ath, he met a group o pedestrians, one of whom insisted
apot. c. A:r. 67). on accosting him. To his astonishment be recog-
Arsenius had been $pirited away to Tyre, where nised Athanasius, who demanded justice. -"lean-
he was recognised and Athanasius informed. In time the members of the council at Tyre had
spite of this, the charge of sorcery was maintained. decreed the archbishop's deposition, as intended,
The council met. The band of Arscnius was and adjourned to Jerusalern. There a letter (rom
t48 ATHA-l'<ASIUS: THE \iNlT'I' OF GOD 119
Constantine reached them, which indicated that him. Constans, the Augustus of Italy, was a
the Emperor had heard enough of their ridiculous strong admirer of the cx;iled archbishop; he was
accusations, and summoned them to his presence. favourably treated, aod by his ascetic life and the
The old charges were promptly dropped, in favour c,'(ample of the monks who accompanied him
of the new and deadly slander that Athanasius supplied to Latin eyes a powerful commendation
had practised treasonable interferences with the of the monastic discipline, wilh results of great
sailing of the corn ships from Egypt to the capital. consequence for t he evangelisation oi heathen
Constantine's powers of endurance were exhausted. populations in the West.
He purchased a r~ite from vexation by sending But lhc Empire, divided politically into t wo
Athana.c;ius int o honourable exile a t Tr~ves on t he spheres under the brothers Coastans and Cou-
Moselle, the court of his eldest son. stantius (their eldest brother, Constantine Il, died
Constantine died in 337. and Athanasius, whose in 340), was in no little dauger of being served by
see had not been filled, was allowed to return to two Churches, between whicl1 all sign of brotherly
Alexandria. But the city was fuU of malcontents, attachment was conspicuously wanting. A joint
Arians, Jews, and pagans; and Constantius, who council of East and West, which met at Sofia
succeeded his father in the eastern division of the (Sardica) in 343. broke into two irreconcilable
Empire, was an Arian sympathiser and a fonder sections; the Westerns, who were in the majority,
patron than ever of the scheming and vindictive upheld the cause of justice and the Nicene creed,
Eusebius. In Lent, 339, anoth er archbishop, while the Eastems withdrew t o 'fhrnce, and
named Gregory. was intruded into Alexandria with fudously ~.natbemaHsed not only Athanasius,
the assistance of the civ:il power, amid hideous bnt also Hosius and the Pope of Rome. Conshtns
scenes of blasphemy and physical violence. detcrrnioed to bridge the fissure in the Church.
Athanasius temained long enough to indite a He put the utmost pressure on his bro~her to
protest and appeal to the universal episcopate, and restore to their sees t he exiled Eastern bishops,
made l1is way to Rome. This time his absence whom the entire West regarded as the innocent
was to last for seven years. In the East the Arian and lawful occupants. Constantius responded by
party made a clean sweep of the orthodox leaders, slackening the persecution hitherto directed
but the West stood firm in its rejection of Arianism, against the orthodox, and summoning Athaoasius
and the Italian bishops entirely exonerated into coi)SUltation. His first two letters failed to
Athanasius of all the accusations brought against remove the exile's natural hesitation; but a third,
so A1'HA..l~ASIUS : Tim UNITY OF GOD 151
wntten after the death of the intruded bishop promises, if not from conviction, at least because
Gregory, and promising Athanasius immediate he had a war on hand with Persia, and wanted
restoration, di.ssolved his doubts. Athanasius left quiet on the home fronl. Albanasius pursued the
Aquileia, where he was staying, bade farewell to active duties of his see, secure of the affection of
Pope Julius at Rome, travelled to Trcves to take his llock, com posing an ru..1Jlanation of the doctrine
bis leave of Constans, thence progressed by rapid of the N icene creed, and arranging all the docu-
stages to the East, and wa...~ received by Constant:ius ments relevant to the old slanders brought against
with assurances of good ;vill, him, in case the truce should be broken and they
Late in 346 he re-entered bis bishopric in a frenzy might yet be needed. But in 35P Constans was
of national rejoicing, which set a permanent rnucdercd in a rebellion, Constantius succeeded to
standard of splendour for future popular displays. the undivided Empire, and the inheritors of Arian
The people, together with the civic allthorities, are leadership began once more to lift up their hom.
said to have streamed out like a second Nile to The inliDinence of a new attack was unmistakable.
meet him a hundred miles. from Ale.xandria. A In 355 a western council held at Milan was coerced
sea of faces gazed from every point of vantage, protestiugly into condemning Athanasius; the
ears \Vere strained to catch the tones of his voice, sentence of his deposition was presented to each
cheers and clapping accompanied his progress. bishop in turn, and those who refused to sign it
The air was frat,'Tant with incense, and the city were condemned to banishment on the spot, the
blazed with illuminations. Such external expres- Emperor being present in person and meeting
sions of zeal were accompanied by a widespread protests with the plain announcement, "I myself
spiritual revival, an outburst of charitable am now appearing for the prosecntioo." In the
generosity, and a fresh impulse to monastic dectica- autumn Constant ius sent his secretary t.o Alexandria
tion. Bishop~> wrote from all quarters to welcome to seize the archbishop's person. The secretary
hjs return, " and in the churches there was a captured a church by assault, but, as the magis-
profound and wonderful peace ". tracy and people withstood his efforts vigorously
Faction might reigu in. the Empire, but for ten for four months, he departed without the more
years there was unity in Egypt. Athanasius, his important capture of the archbishop. By now
clergy, and his people were one in heart and soul ; both bishop Hosius and Pope Liberius bad been
Eusebius the adversary was dead ; Constans was sent into exile; Alexandria's tum had come, and
the archbishop's friend; Constantius kept his the Emperor committed the task which his
Ij>. A1.'HANAS1l!S : THI! UNITV OF COD 1~3

secretary ltad bungled to the more professional of .Ma.Lines and his Church during the occupation
hands of a major-general. of Belgium a quarter of a century ago. The
One evening, early in 356, Alhanasius was pre- Government brutally and licentiously incited the
siding at a service of preparation for Holy Com- lowest dregs of the turbulent heathen populace to
munion at the largest church in Alexandria, when acts of violence against their Christian fellow-
suddenly the doors flew open, and the packed citizens. The cathedral was sacked; men and
congregation saw the entrance occupied by troops. women were assailed with obscenities, beaten,
Athanasius sat down on his throne in the apse, murdered; tombs and private houses were
ordering his deacon to read the 136th Psalm, '' 0 searched and plundered; their owners were sub-
give thanks unto tl1e Lord, for he 1s gracious." jected to fines and banishment. The excCS!;eS of
Verse by verse U1e congregation responded, "For the mob were supported and supplemented by
his mercy endureth for ever." A crowd of clergy nrilitary dragonnades and judicial forays of the
and monks interposed between the archbishop and authorities. An Arian archbisl1op, the famous
the soldiers, who were thrusting their way towards profiteering pork-contractor, George of Constanti-
the chancel; he himseli refused to leave until nople, was intruded by force. The orthodox
the congregation bad made their departure clergy, including over thirty bishops, were expelled.
unmolested; then at last he suffered his faithful '' Constantius bas turned heatheu," cried the
protectors to carry him to safety. From that heathen gangsters, " and the Arians acknowledge
moment, when he vanished in the confusion during our proceedings."
the armed invasion oi the church, nothing was All this time Athanasius was in hiding, some
seen of Athanasius in public for six years. times in Alexandria itself, bttt more often in the
But though the superficial triumph went to desert, loyally and affectionately concealed by the
Arianism, the moral victory belonged to Athanasius. monks of Upper and Lower Egypt, who served as
The enemy seem not to have possessed the nerve his intelligence, carried nis directions to his people,
to treat him as the Nonnans treatecl St. Thomas and distributed h is writings far and wide. Ii'or
Becket in his own cathedral. Nor could they live months after Culloden, in ~746, the fugitive
subjugate either his own spirit or the loyalty of Prince Charles Edward survived the pursuit of
his people ; their ceaseless eflorts to accomplish Butcher Cumberland in the safe keeping of simple
fhis failed as completely as similar attempts to Highland clansmen. Athanasius endured a similar
overcome the moral ascendancy of the archbishop existence for six years under the protection of
ATHANASWS: T.HJl UNrr'l O'li COO rs 5

Egyptian monks and churls, nor was a man found had earned him an aversion from the heathen as
to betray him to the pork-butcher. Though profound as from the Catholics, was promptly
Coosta.ntius was unable to discover the secret of seized and jailed; within a month the mob,
his hiding-places, the " royal-hearted exile " and impatient of legal procrastination, stormed the
"invisible patriarch", continuing to govern his prison and lynched him. And twelve days after
church effectively, had immediate information of the publication of Julian's edict recalling exiled
every event that passed. He followed the develop- bishops to their homes, Alhanasius reappeared in
ment of conservative theology in Syria and Asia Alexandria.
Minor, supporting and encouraging its tum towards He was destined still to undergo two further
acceptance of the Niceoe creed with a series ot banisbments, one due to the belated attempt of
three conciliatory. weighty, and extended doctrinal Julian to revive heathenism, the other to the
publications, which had an immediate effect. addled effort of Valens to restore Arianism. But
Dr. Bright dire~o-ts a bright .ft.ash on the carefully the long fight for the Christian Gospel was practi-
guarded obscurity from which these literary works cally won. At a synod held in Alexandria shortly
proceeded : " the books which be now began to after his return, in 362, Athanasius by his calm
pour f01:th were apparently written in cottages or strength and judicious moderation crowned his
caves, where he sat, like any monk, on a mat of previous work of reconciliation between the creed
palm-leaves, with a bundle of papyrus beside him, and the conservative Origenists. He was ready to
amid the intense light and still ness of the desert" ac_cept the profession of the Gospel in any language
(D.C.B. i. 194). He issued also a stream of that expressed sincerity, and everywhere his
pamphlets, explaining his own conduct, con- charity and patience received their due response,
demning with indignation the inte)lectual incon- council a-fter council affirming the adlterence of
sistency and the mor'.U and religious depravity of its members to the decisions of Nicaea. Julian
Arianism, and, in a single ex~-pcrated attack on could endure the triumph of faith and the baptisms
Constantius for his meanness and persecution, o[ converts for only eight mon'lhs before he ordered
defending the Gospel for once with arguments less Athanasius to quit Egypt. The archbishop once
suited to evangelical than to carnal justice. more went on the run rather than desert his people.
At the end of 36r Constantius died, and Julian As he journeyed 11p the Nile a friend overtook him
succeeded. Two consequences followed. The with the warning that his pursuers were follow-
intruder George, whose oppression and avarice ing hard bellind. Boldly he had the boat turned
t s6 AT!JANA.SIUS' T HE UNlTY OF c;;Qt> 157
round; when the police met and hailed his cra{t perilled by the Arian attack on Athanasius and
and asked how close they were to Athanasius, the doctrine of the Trinity; tor if Christ were not
Athanasius hirosell is said to have replied, " Quite truly God, salvation thTO\tgh His cross rem~ ned a
near," as he glided past in the opposile direction. purely human, subjective, and imperfectly realised
After a withdrawal, this time, of only fifteen months aspiration; and if He were in the strict sense a
he was reinstated in his. see by the new Emperor "second God "-as certain even among those oi
Jovian. On Jovian's untimely death Valens, the substantial orthodox-y somewhat loosely called
last Arhm August us, succeeded in the East, and in Him-then there was an end to a11 faith in one
365 a tina! exilll was decreed for Athanasitts. It controlling ruler oi the universe and one undivided
lasted only four months. Arianism w<~.s pmctic:illy object of worshipful devotion_ His own con-
moribund in the West and was morally discredited temporaries rightly called Athanasius "the
in the East; the people of Alexandria and Egypt Great", and rightly judged that under God it was
clamoured for their beloved bishop ; there was due to him, more than to any other single person,
political uosettlement in the Empire, and its rnler that Christian monotheism was saved from ex-
could ill afford to stir up discontent. Athanasius tinction. His achievement is unique in another
came home, to spend his last seven years in peace and hardly less interesting relation. The problem
and honour, administering devotedly his vast of the Trinity is the one theological question of
responsibility, labouring for reconciliation between absolutely fundamental importance which has ever
discordant factions in the Eastern Church, tolera.n't been pressed to a positive and satisfactory answer.
towards errors which he thought were mainly The controversy over the Person of Christ, at once
technical, boldly rebuking vice in higl1 places. human and eli vi ne,, ended in a closure rather than
He died in 373, full of years, oi reverent esteem, a final formulation in the fiftll and late1 ceatu.ries;
and of spiritual grace. Single-hearled, and some- the great doctrinal determinations on this subjccl
times almost single-handed, he had saved the are more negative than positive; it can be argued
Church from capture by pagan intellectualism. with at least a colour of verisimilitude that the
Indeed, he had done more. :By his tenacity and Middle Ages were virtually Apollinarian and that
vision in preaching one God and one Saviour, he the early l wentieth century was virtually Nestorian.
had preserved from dissolution the unity and Again, the relations between divine power and the
integrity of the Christian faith. human response evoked from each individual soul
Christianity and monotheism alike were im- of man, have never been adequately expressed

except in terms of paradoxical antithesis; grace is o the Gospel won a sv.-ift triumph over the super-
irresistible but man co-operates; both predestina- ficial logic which denied its own premises. 1'he
tion and free-will can be supported {rom Augustine, tn1th was reaffirmed that in Christ God Himself
and alike in the sixteenth and m the nmeteenth was reconciling the world ; and the problem o(
and twentieth centuries the tension between them divine unity remained to vex. the hearts of the
has shown great readines$ either to relaJ.C into mere Christian inteJligenb-ia.
humanism or to fuse into a theophany; the The impact of two other t ypes of heresy was far
R enaissance and Calvin anticipa te Victorian more serious, owing to t he fact that, falling more
Liberalism and 1)r. Karl Barth. But the doctrine obliquely, they delivered glancing blows which
of the Trinity, as it is unique in finding deflnit e lodged between t he plates of genuine CJuistian
expres.~ion in the universal creed, is unique feeling ; for the same reason, alt bough in their
also in having brought to Christendom a final original shapes they encountered violent antagon-
solution of the vital problem '~ith wltich it ism, they tended to recur, and subst antially
deals. affected Christian ways of thought. These two
How is faith in one God to be retained in full types may be summed up under the heads of
harmony v..ith a conviction of the saving deity of Emanationism and Sabellianism, presenting re-
Jesus Christ? The problem was already pressing spectively such views of the divine Persons as to
and 11rgenl in the second century, and even at that make them appear citber successively inferior
early date t he possible different ways of dealing reproductions of the primary divine model, or
wi th it had been noted and ap preciated. The else -fugitive names and trappings which con
Adoptionists cut. t he knot . Christ, they said, cealed the same unchanging identity under
was the flower of the human tree, an earthly transient modes of self-disclosme. Both luese
paragon adopted by divine grace and thus elevated forms of tllought, which like Adoptionism were
to a position of equivalence with God; but no already rampant before the end of the second
more. At this disparagement of the Redeemer the century, were unlike it in that they genuinely
gorge of Christendom rose in protest : Christ was attempted to Cli.'Plain and not to deny the problem
God's Son by nature, in virtue o! what He was \'<ith which they set out to deal. I n the end, the
Himself, not just through what God was pleased principles underlying both were seen to contribute
to make of H im, and Adoptionism, right or wrong, something useful to a rational explanation of what
was certainly not Christianity. So the instinct Christianity meant by the unity of God.
t6o ATHA!:< 1\.SI US : THE UlH"1"Y OF GOD t6t
Sabellianism was at first sight the less damaging divioe Sonship was revealed only a t the incarna-
to the simple Gospel, because it reinforced rather tion ; why suppose that the Person of Jesus
than diminished stress on the idea that redemption Christ embodi.es any new disclosure about the
is a divine act which only God Hio:tself can per- being of God? -surely it is enough to conclude
form. Accordingly it exercised a strong appeal that any novelty involved in the Christian revela-
over the more practical and Jess sophisticated tion relates only to the spb.ere in which God was
minds: tbc commonsensical Callistus finally excom- at work. So they claio:ted that the Father, the
murricated its adherents, but because he equally Son, and the Holy Ghost were all one, the identity
resisted the more academic theories of those whose interchangeable and the personality indistinguish-
thought was shadowed by lhe influence of the able. When God acted as Father He clothed
opposing school, it was possible to level even Hio:tsel{ with the garments of paternity. When
against him a colourable accusation of Sabellianism. the tio:te came to redeem mankind He temporarily
Sabellianism continued for t wo hundred years assumed the habiliments of Sonship. When He
over most of Eastern Christendom to share with chose to speak the lan.guage of inspiration He
Adoptionism the pride of place as principal adopted tbe accents of the Spirit. There was only
theological bogy. Wl1enever any more than usually one reality all the Lime, but lt wore a VaJ:iable
disturbed or reckless theologian wanted mud to appearance, adapted to the particular manner of
fii ng at his opponents, he called them either its presentation, which altered according to the
Sabelliam; or .Paulicians-tl1e latter name was ne~ds and circull)sta.nccs of the moment.
taken fr.om Paul of Samosata, wbo revived the Sabellianism bas been called, not unjustly, Uu~
principles of Adoptionism, or something very like most sensible and evangelical of the great heresies,
them, in the comse of the third century- and if but it was a pedectly sound instinct which led the
he got an openj ng be called t hem Sahellians and Church to reject this Protean scheme of divine
Patilicians, both at once, as Eusebius of Caesarca metamorphosis . The idea at the bottom of it was
and also the semi-Aria,ns of Asia Minor did to thoroughly pagan. It was a favourite device of
.Marcellus. Adoptionism was ha ted because it was heathen deities to parade on the st11.ge of this
so plainly incompatible wit-h the Gospel ; Sabel- mortal world, now condescending to reward the
lianism because it looked so speciously congenial peasant hospitality of Philemon and Baucis with
to the Gospel. God the Son, argued the Sabellians, heavenly blessings, now bestowing on Danae or
is nowhere mentioned in the Old Testament; the 11:uropa favours of a grosser and less easily de-
tensible prodigality .1 The Sabcllians were honest ing principle of deity. Sabellianism in the same
enough. Nobody found occasion to blacken thelr way taught a doctrine of God which in the last
character with accusations oi antinomian la.xity. resort represented H is own nature as one of
It was merely the levity of their conception of the unattended, UJl.responsivc solitude.
High and Holy One that was immoral. It never Yet whatever problems Christianity rai$es, it
seems to have occurred to them that the righteous does at least insist on the social charader of
ruler of the universe is not the fairy prince in personality in the very being of God. Grant
a cosmic masquerade, nor to enquire why, if He that the personality of God must be something
has already used three changes of appearance, He immeasurably deeper tban the personality of
should not on future occasions employ more. man; no mere anthropomorphism will suffice to
But beyond this aspect of their paganism lies describe the infinite creator of mankind. Yet
another, in manifesting which they shared a ii it is true that man is made in God's image, and
limitation common to the best of pagan thought: that we can therefore safely argue from the
they had an insufficient grasp of the implications of highest that we know to the highest that exists,
personality. Hellenism sought to discover the then the argument for the arctic solitariness of
mystery of the universe in scientific unity ; not, divine personality can only be maintained on the
like the Hebrews, in a heart that beat, but in a assumption that man's own dependence on social
passionless and possibly soulless monad to be relations constitutes a vice in his nature a.od a
reached by stripping off the affections and re- hindrance to !tis self-realisation. That is a queer
ducing all variety to uniformity. Plato did indeed doctrine to profess. It is most assuredly not
struggle to resist the pressure of these closing Christi,a n doctrine. Christianity, on the con-
prison walls, earning the welld<.\~erved title of a trary, cl.._jms that man finds his highest activity
pre-Christian saint by Jtis endeavours to esta.bllsb in co-operation, and on the strength of that
moral qualities on the tluone of the universe; but conviction supports its ra.ith in a God who in His
the final outcome of his truly religious spirit was own innermost and etemal being embraces other-
the mysticism of Plotinus and his Neoplatonists, ness as well as self-identity. According to the
who <ejected the p lain man's wodd in order to most primitive Christian philosophy, already cur-
consecrate abstracted isolation into the distingllish- rent before either a creed or a heresy had been
elaborated, God is Life, which implies something
' See The O;;jord Comj>a>tion lo Clilssicail.iteralure, or any
Classical DidiQnary, sub voce. richer and more reproductive than the purely
negative quality of singularity; He is Light, which irnpcTSonator. In spite, therefore, or the teat
means righteousness, and involves not solitude bu t value of Sabellianism as a protest against any form
-a sphere of positive activity; and He is Love, of Cb.ristianised polytheism, to take up the Sabel-
which cannot be conceived e.'C~ept in association lian position involves a double treachery to histori-
with an object on which it may express cal reality. It presupposes first that in one vital
itself. So Sabellianism fails as a Christian respect the Gospels, the foundation documents of
philosophy. Christian evidence, are consistently unreliable;
But its worst defect, and its most obvious, is and secondly that, when God in person came into
its implicit denial of the objectivity of history. the world t o reveal Himself to His elect, He lied
Chri.stia.nlty rests its case on a series of historical lo them by making Himself out quite other than
facts. The Christian creeds contain the minimum of He really was. Any speculative dove which takes
doctrinal explanation and the maximum of factual flight from the ark of Christendom with such a
assertion; in them God is postulated as the string of weights about its neck, is bound to
creator of the existent world, Christ is set forth perish in the waters. The fresh olive leaf of truth
in terms of the Gospel narrative, the Holy Spirit is is not for it to pluck.
demonstrated in the working operations of Chris- The other great contemporary heresy, Emana-
tian grace. 1f its basic facts are only illusions, tionism, evolved, like Sabellianism, out of an
then the Christian faith is illdecd void. Yet attempt to guard the unity of God .1 It started
Sabellian:ism ignored tl1e very plainest facts, which with certain definjto advantages over its rival, in
stud each page of tile New Tes1:arnent. Tllis is that it avoided being involved from the outset in
not a q uestion of assigning allegorical interpreta- any glaring contradiction with the New "l'e.~tament
t ions to selected passages or recalcitrant proof- or with llistory. Tbere W'.l.S noth ing ostensibly
texts, but of common honesty. Nobody can Ullscriptural in holding, as the .Emanationists did.
possibly read through the New Testamen t without either that the divine Son derived His being rom
seeing that from first to last it assumes the ' For tllis reason they arc dcscrib~d in m(lllent books as
existence of an objective distinction between the. Monarchian hcrt..sie~. 'monarchy: iJL patristic langnagc,
being roughly equivalent to monotheism.' The description
the Father and the Son. Cb rist is sent forth into answers well enough, so long as nobody is led to imagine that
the world by God, whose only Son He is; testifies there is anything heretical about acceptance of the word
of God, prays to God, sacrifices Himself to God, monarclly. There is not tt is a perfectly goocl orthodox
term. which the Fathers nse a$ freely as the heretics to express
and reigns with God. There is not a hint anywllere their sense of the sole ultimate authority of one God, to the
tllat the apparent duologue is sustained by a single exclusion or all others.
the Father. or that the Gospels represent Him, at fcctions of things seen and known, by reliance on
least during His life on earth, as occupying a the mathematical conception that all phenomena
position of subordination and dependence. Never- are derived from a primal unit through a process
theless, it is ominously significant that the sources of repetition and manipulation-just as all numbers
of Emanationist theory were entirely pagan. can be explained. by stripping them of their com
'When Valentine adopted the Emanationist view plexity, as combinations of the fundamental
of the univcrso, and re-v/Tote the Christian Gospel integer. The result was a sort of theory of evolu-
in terms of this widely prevalent form of con- tion, but qui te UJ1 h1::c those known either to
temporary thought, it had already a long and T(\Odern biological scienc.e or to the social doctrines
vaded history behind it. His solution was pagan of the nineteenth century. Biological evolution
not only in method but in substance; whether he presupposes not only increasing complexity of
was more of a Christian Modernist or of a pagan structure but enhanced adaptability and func-
eclectic may be open to dispute, but there can be tional augmentation. The Liberal theory of
no doubt of the result, that he cut the Gospel to Progress was not content to assume merely that
tbe shape of his philosophy, regulating the outline one phase of human activity grows out of another,
of his theology by reference to his metaphysical but insisted that each phase of the development
preconceptions, and abandoning or explaining automatically marks one step nearer to perfection
away the evidence of the New Testament and of than the stage before. In the ancient world, on
history. Hippolytus was not speaking without the other hand, devt>lopment was usually regarded
justice when he said that Valentine took his views as a sign of retrogression rather than improvement,
less from the Gospel than from Pythagoras and ami added complexity merely meant accumulated
Plato (ref. 6. 29. T) ; at any rate, Gnosticism followed eviL Not only in their social theory, but in their
schools of t hought which drew their inspiration metaphysics, men looked back to a primordial
from those sources. state of golden simplicity, any departure from whicll
The Gnostics generally were obsessed with two involved loss, not advantage, deterioration, not
main objects : to penetrate through the superficial betterment.
multiplicity of experience to the absolute and It was here that Hellenic and Oriental meta-
unitary principle which was assumed to be its physics most nearly touched: creation was a kind
ultimate ground; and to build up a theory of of generation or reproduction, which implied both
existence to account for the varieties and imper- restriction of quality in the product, and the
certainty of dissolution. The idea that the human Hellenistic religious philosophy fastened on
soul is a divine particle, imprisoned in the body as these speculations. It saw in absolute deity the
in a tomb, from which its only hope of deliverance far-oil but sufficient cause of all elcistence. 1 t
lies in dissociation from the ftesh and reunion fow1d in the principle of development or emanation
with its etherial source, goes back to the teaching what it thought to be a v;ilid explanation of the
of the Orphic btotherhoods. The further notion cramping liruitations, the SQrrow and the sordid-
that the tmiverse was generated by the interplay ness of material and physical existence. AJ1
of determinate and indeterminate, or, as was -things came indeed from God in the last resort,
sometimes said, male and female principles, corre- but did not in any real sense retied His own
sponding to God and Matter, goes back at least to nature; the evil :inherent in them was due to their
Pythagoras, who also sought to explain their own remoteness from theiT source ; the nearer the
interaction by the analogy of numbers. Plato course of evolution approaches to the sensible and
deepened and elaborated these conceptions, while historical world, t11e further it regresses from the
retaining their essential character. God is a unity and purity of God. Philosophically, the
mathematician, he said; in order to make the world doctrine is untenable. Evil cannot come from
He imprinted a cosmic order, compact of forms and God unless it is in Him already, and if so, He is not
numbers, on the elementary and irrational chaos absolute goodness. ~or can it ariSe from His mere
which constituted His material, and to the in- act of creation, unless-as Plato implied-He is
tractable nature of whlch, in so far as it is uncon- not strictly speaking the creator, but only the
trolled by reason, is attributable the permanent organiser o! pre-existing material which is already
clef\lent of evil that haunts human and physic:t l of it~ own nature infected. In that case He is
nature. This universe is itself divine by deriva- not the absohJte author of existence. For this
tion, a second God, begotten and perceptible, reason, the Hellenistic world was filled with super-
seeing that it embodies a world-soul projected by stitions, largely fostered by astrology, both about
God to serve as the active principle of physical the overruling mastery of fate, which limited the
matter. Here then are three Ievell> of el(istenc(l, capacity of divine goodness to express itself in a
in descending order of merit : God, the world-soul, wholly moral order of the universe, and about the
and the physical universe. And the qualities of eternity and independence of matter, which en-
deity are signilicantly transmissible to the lower forced on the creator the use of unworthy raw
levels. materials for His craftSIJlanship. The superiority
qo ATHA..>rAS!US: TtlF. U~TY 01' GOD 171
of fate and the intractability of matter, by restrict- solely from misuse of the moral freedom with
ing God's capacity, served to limit His responsi- which He had endowed His creatures. The world
bility. Something not wholly dissimilar is effected had been created out of nothing, an assertion
by modern philosophies of dialectical materialism which, by precluding all possibility of pre-existent
and emergent evolution. The one represents matter, emphasises the absoluteness of God and
events as bound to follow an ordained sequence of the dependence of every other kind of existence on
action and reaction, in which any conception Himself. And so far was lt from being the charnel-
of absolute morality is overridden by the force of bouse of Orphic imagination.. in wltich divine souls
inherent necessity; the other pictures a divine were being smothered, that the whole ctcation
mder struggling to come. to self-expression, blindly looked :forward to deliverance from the bondage
and incoherently, in a universe that is as yet of corruption ; what God had made He could and
far from the t:ealisation of any ultimate purpose. would redeem.
Sllch theories migb.t appeal to pagan minds, but It mighl look at first sight as if the evolutionary
could not be squared with the Hebrew pre- notions of the Emanationists possessed no single
suppositions of Christianity. Greek rational point of contact with evangelical Christianity.
method, which was required to explain the mean- Nevertheless, they came to exercise a profound
ing of the Old Testament, could not be suffered influence. In their crude shape, they bad tried to
to substitute altogether dillerent materials of deal with tbe problem of creation, and from this
thought for those deposited in revelation. The ground they were barred. In a more refined Iorm,
Church took a strong stand . In contrast to tl1e however, they came to be applied to the problem
pessimistic ~ew of matter, it maintained that God of the being of God Himse.lf, and to the difficulty
had made the world very good, and that the Son of reconciling the existence of a divine Trlnit.y
or Word of God had personally entered it lmder with monotheism ; and here they dominated a
physical conditions without undergoing thereby great part of Christian thought for two centuries,
any sort of defilement. As against fate, it held attaching themselves to the scriptural idea of
stoutly to the reality of human fieedom and to Christ as the Word or Logos of God-that is, the
the transcendent goodness and omnipotence of objective expression of His transcendent being and
God; evil came neither from God's nature nor rational will- and issuing in the doctrine of
from His creative acti~ty. nor again from any Subordinationism.
positive force acting independently of Him, but The essence of this doctrixle may be stated in
two sentences. God the Father, who alone enjoys successively remoter and less perfect than the
a being that is both absolute and underived previous one (ib. 8).
(agenetos and agennetos), is the sole source of Tt is not easy to say exactly w1tat Tertullian
whatsoever deity belongs to His Word and His had chiefly in :nllnd when he spoke of the second
Spirit. The second and third Persons of !:he and third ' Persons ' : actually in the CO\lrse o(
Trinity. inasmuch as theil' being is deri'C'ative, arc discussing the divine unity he refers more often to
su bordinatc to Him in respect of existence. These " the Three ", without adding any noun, than to
propositions represent substantially the position "three Persons". He probably took the term
of Tertnllian, and so far there is nothing heretical over from the Greek ' prosopon ', which simply
in affirming them. Tertullian in fact laid the means ' individual'; he certainly us-es it in the
permanent foundation of the Latin doctrine of same way as the Greek theologians when he
the Trinity. He taught that the being of the represents the psalmist as speaking " in the
Father is reproduced in the being of the Son and person " of Christ or of the Ho1y Ghost (adv. Prax.
the Spirit, and that this functional repetition, u); and it is hard to conceive that ht; meant any-
by which the divin.e unity " organises " or " appor- thing etse by it than ' individual ' in the various
tions " itself for activity, proceeds from a principle passages in which he insists that the several
inherent in the nature of God.l That God is one Persons, though not separable, are " disti net ".
object or substance (substantia) is sufficiently He talks about them as if he conceived them w be
indicated by the fact that His being originates in three expressions of the divine consciousness
the sole Person of tltc Father; the Son is the same (e.g. ib. rz); and although he does not attempt to
Go<.l, expressed Son-wise, and the Spi!:it is the same relate these in the same way as Augustine did Lwo
God again, pre_sented Spirit-wise. Father and Sou centuries later, on the analogy of the three
arc two presentations or aspects (species) of one functions of memo-ry, understanding, and 'Will
undivided object (substantia) (adv. Prax. 13 fin.). combined in a single human mind, yet everything
This is a doctrine of emanation indeed. but is he does say helps to provide a basis for such an
expressly distinguished from the corresponding exposition of t;1e Trinity in terms of strictly
Gnostic doctrine, on the ground that the second personal qualities. On the other hand, it has been
and third Persons are inseparable from the first, vigorously asserted that, because Tertullian was a
unlike the Grwstic emanations, f".ach of whlch is lawyer, his language must be interpreted as purely
For lullcr details, see God h1 Pa~ristic T/IQ.ughl, Chapf~>r V. legal metaphor. On that showing, ' pc<sona'
'7~ ATHANAS!US: THE tic-1!T\' OF GOD 175
simply means t he holder o{ a legal title : the tlu:ee of the un5versc to God, whether as its creator or
l?ersons severally possess a distinct title to Lhe as the source o.f spirit ual life to its rational inhabi-
single spiritual 'substantia' or properly of god- tants. In these circumstances God the Word
head : but what they are in themselves, or what tended to be placed more and more in the position
relation they bear to one another, does nol then of an agent intermediary between God and His
appear. In criticism of this interpretation H is creatures, both in the history of redemption and
enougll to say that, altl~ough some such notion may also in t he more speculative but to the Greek min<l
not have been wholly ahscnt from Tertullian's equally absorbing story oi crealion.
mind, it is nowbere developed; there is extremely This tendency is conspicuous in Origen. It led
little evidence to support the view that this is him into mani[e.5t difficulties in the attempt to
what he meant; and the idea, if it ever existed, r ender a t heologicn.l statemc11t o( his. own religious
did not influence subsequent Latin t heology. convictions ; bad he possessed an intellect as rigid
Terlullian on the whole prefers to employ t,he and an imagination as mechanical as those of
tille Son rather than that of Word with reference Arius, he might have been an Ariao himself.
to the second Person of the Trinity. When Arius was incapable of uttering an apparent con-
'Word ' became the more normal expression, a.s tradiction and revolted from the supposition that
it did with his contemporary Hippolytus and with vast, intricate problems might present more th<tn
Origen, who between them set t he whole tone for one aspect. His two-dimensional mind regarded
Greek theology, the road was opened to a doctrine the di..,;ne mystery of revelation in the flat. fore-
of divine emanation in which the extent and shortened, wiUl.out depth or background, like a
character of the subordination of the second Person diagram in Euclid. Origen belonged to an ent~rely
were mag11ified. ,. Father ' and ' Son ' ~uggest an different type. Hls care(ully guarded spec11labons,
equality of attributes which is absent from the as modest as they were searching, played round
more abstract terms ' Absolute ' and ' Logos'; and about their object, !lashing now on this side,
moreover the focus o! thought was shifting from now ()n that, approaching. witl1drawing, examining,
consideration of the primary facts ol redemption- with beams that did not cast a. single long black
wllich demanded an empba lic assurm1ce that every shadow all in one direction, but produced a
act of the Son was an act o( God, and called forth chequered, yet far more realistic and luminous
phrases such as" the sufferings of God " and" God pattern oi enveloping lights and shades. His mind
crucified "-to discussion of the general relations was broad and comprehensive, That is why he
enjoys the honour, shared only with a few of the the prim1tive Greek and more sophisticated Gnostic
greatest thinkers, of having inspired the views of habit of portraying creation as an act of generation.
cliametrically opposite schools in the next few Origen made no such confusion. But he may well
generations : some grovelled in llis shadows, others have bad the more refmed Platonic conception of
gloried in his lights. a divine world-soul in his mind wJ1en he came to
Origen makes the most positive statements of set down his own idea of the relations between the
the absolute deity of God the Word. On the second and third Persons of the Trinity, and the
other hand, wbile he maintains unbre<lched the Father from whom their divine being was trans-
walJ of separation between the divLne 'l'rinlty and mitted. His contrasting statements are too well
all other existent beings or objects, he is over- balanced, and the different aspects of his thought
whelmll1gly impressed \vith the significance of the supplement one another too fully, to make it at
derivation o( the godhead from its sources [n the all easy to convict him of any real detraction from
Father. In his day the importance had not yet the plenary substance of divinity enjoyed by the
been fully comprehended of the difference between Word and Spirit ot God. But the limitations which
derivation and inferiority. Deity is not an in- he suggested setting on their dignity and functions
heritance transmitted to successive holders, and are colossal. He graded them in a hierarchy.
progressively diminished at each transfer by the He suggested that perhaps the activities of the
subtraction of enormous death-duties. Yet that Word should be thought to be confined to rational
is exactly how current Emanationist theory had souls, and of the Spirit only to the sa.ints. And
trained pbilosop1ters to think of it. Origen was their derivation from the Fl).ther, contrasted with
far too great to fall into so crude an error. He the paternal immedi(l.cy a,nd independence, sub-
actually laid down the lines of the Ln vestigation, jects them to an illimitable subordination; He
which .Ath;masius completed, into the aU -important who gives everythll1g is incomparably greater than
theological distinction between ' God unbegotten ', He who is dependent on another for evcrythll1g He
a phrase applicable only to the Father, and ' God has or is.
uncreated ', which describes all three Persons This exaggerated emphasis on the consequences
equally; the two terms had been grossly confused, of the mere fact of transmission, wh.ich o.n later
owing partly to their verbal similarity in Greek- reflection was seen to ha11e no direct bearing wllat-
like homoousios and homoiousios they only differed ever on the quality oi that which is transmitted,
by the addition of a single letter~d partly to \Vas aimed at nothing but the highly necessary duty
of preserving uncompromised the absolute and d6 decret. 26). The truth is that God is one, not
transcendent uniqueness of the divine being. It because one divine Person is more important t11an
impressed so deeply on the theological conscious- the others, whether as being their source or on any
ness of Christendom the necessity of looking for the other ground ; nor because deity is something
origin of divine being in tile Father, that lhe lesson tha.t can be transmitted entire from hand to ha.nd,
never needed repetition, e'Ven when the extreme like a purse of gold, or fro1,11 owner to owner, like a
subordinationist inferences drawn by Arius ha<l I'lot of land-deity means something that God is,
bee11 rejected. But Origen's teaching fai led to rather than something that H e l1as: but because
achieve a final or satisfactory Trinitar irut doctrine, all three Persons are distinct expressions of a
as any system was bound t o fail which stressed the single divine reality. B ven in t he attempt to
objective existence of three Persons and placed vindicate wvinc \lnity, a great deal more attention
their point of unity only at one end o a line of had been paid to the reasons why God i$ saJd to be
transmission. The unity, to be real, must extend three than to the reasons why He is said to be one.
all along the line; in other words, it cannot be The balance needed redressing.
effected by the fact of transmission alone. On This task fell to the hand of Athanasius. No-
Origen's principles it was very difiicult to avoid body did more than he did to defend tbe definition
falling into one or other of two wsastrous pitfalls. of" the Great Council ", as he called it, o{ Nicaea,
Either the effort to maintain the ultimate un ity by which had laid down the thesis lhat whatever be
magnifying tbe transcendence of the transmitting the djvinc stuff o{ which the Father consists, God
source, might lead to depreciation of lhe degree of the Son consists of t he same stuff. He defended
authentic deity tra~1smitted, and so to denial that that crucial word homoousion, wltkh E'.xpressed
the otl1er Persons were in any full sense God : the Son's equality with the Father as touchillg H is
that is llH: conclusion t o which Arius came. Or godhead, with al l the resources of his nature.-witl1
dse, i:f this tendency wer e resisted and a firm grasp tongue and pen, brain and body, at home or in
retained of the equality o{ the three Persons, no exile, before emperor, bishop, monk or peasant.
amount of assertion that their equality was trans- In the same way, as soon as the tluestion began to
mitted could by itsell save people from thinking of be seriously raised, it was Athanasius who insisted
the three Persons as three separate Gods-a view that the Holy Spirit, if He is God at all, must be
against which Dlonysiu.~ of Rome had to protest God in just the same sense as the Father and the
shortly after Origen's death (quoted by Athanasius Son; the cult of demi-gods is a paga.Jl, not a
tSo ATHANASJ US: Tl:l.E UNrnt OJ GOD t8t

Christian diversion. Athanasius accordingly wrote same: etymologically, the Latin substantia is an
a thorough and considered treatment of the deity exact translation of the Greek hypostasis. But
of God the Holy Ghost and of the reasons for though so close in meaning, tbe terms are not
believing it, which was the first of its kind, if we identical, and this was recognised when it came to
except Origen's ~ketch ln " First Principles ", that setting out the Latin faith in the Greek language;
any one had set to paper; he was the Ji.rsl to devote ' unius substantiae ' was translated by ' homo-
so much attention to this article of the creed since ousion.' The reason js important. ' Substance '
the fanatical Moo taoist revivalists had made it the means an object consisting of some particular
pivot of their enthusiasm in the second century. stuff; it has an inward reference to the nature of
Nevertheless, to assert the equality of the three the thing in itself, expressing what logicians call a
Persons is a very different thing, as history had connotation. 'Object' means a substance marked
proved, from showing in what sense Christianity off as an individual specimen by reason of its dis-
can interpret tbe affirmation. to which it is tinction from all other objects; it bears an out-
absolutely bound, that the three are one God. ward reference to a reaUty independent of other
The theolo,rical greatness of Athanasius is revealed, indi-v;duals, and expresses what logicians call a
more than by anyil1ing else, by the fact that be denotation.
understood the need to find a direct and inclusive The fact of the different shades of meaning
explanation of Christian monotheism, and that attaching to the words object and substance is so
he not only grasped the necessity, but fulfilled the crucial, and supplies so absolutely tbe key to what
obligation. lhe theologians of the fourth and ftfth centuries
He set out with two premises, t11e acknowledge- mea< n t by thcir doctrine of the Trinity, that every
ment that every Person by Himself is a distinct effort is demanded in order to malte it clear. How
objective being, and the assertion of the Nicene exactly can you answer the question, ' What is a
creed tl1at the Son is of one substance with the thing? ' 1n principle, there are. two possible
Father. The introduction ofthe term 'substance' answers. Take a s an instance the building in
into the creed had almost certainly been suggested which we are at present assen1bled, and ask your-
by the Latin members of the Council. Now in selves what is it. One answer is as follows: It is
Greek, both the word hypostasis, which was the St. Mary's Church, an edifice situated in Oxford
strict expression [or a distinct ' object', and High Street, and castly recognisable by it.c: external
the word ousia or' substance, mean \erv much the features ; it is not All Souls', nor is it Brasenose,
ATIIA."'AS!US: THE Ul'llTY 01" GOD t8J

nor is it the Radcliffe Ca.mera, but it lit>.s between Now when the Council of Nicaea wanted to
them and arrests attention by rather stubbornly assert the equality of the divine Persons, it used
obstructing wheeled traffic in that neighbourhood; the term that bore the inward reference. Though
here it stands out, a distinct and concrete fact. Father and Son are not one but two objects as
Thal sort of answer tells you how to recognise St . seen in relation to each other-the name.~ denote
Mary's ii you are looking (or it. But it does not distinct presentations of the divine being-yet their
suggest any kind of reason why you ~hould want to ' sub~-tance ' is identical; i you analyse the mean-
look for it. It gives you the distinct and COilCrete ing connoted by the word Cod, in whatever con-
fact, but not the distinctive and significant fact. nection, you arrive in every case at exactly the
You may weU enquire still further, What is St. same result, whether yon are thinking of the
Mary's Church? Then you ma.y get an answer of Father or of the Son or of the Spirit. That is the
the second type : It is a building of ecclesiastical point at which the creed was directed : the word
design, with great tower and lofty windows, with God connotes precisely the same truth when you
an altar and a pulpit and seats for the Vice- speak of God the Father as it does 1vhen you speak
chancellor and proctors; it is not a shop, nor a of God the Son.
lodging-house, but a place consecrated to t)le wor- It connotes the same truth. So much the
ship of Almighty God and specially appropriated Council affirmed. J3ut Athanasius went further.
to the religious uses of the University. It is still It must imply, 11e perceived, not only the same
a ' thing,' still the same unique thing; but your truth about God, but the same actual God, the
two kinds of answer to the question, what is it, same being. H you contemplate the Father, who
have produced two very different kinds o explana- is one distinct presentation of the deity, yo u obtain
tion. The first defines it from the standJ)Oint of a mental view of the one tme God. If you con"
its ' otherness ', with a n outward reference to the template the Son or the Spirit, you obtain a view
clmrch as what the Greek theologians called an of the same God; lhough the presentation is
' objecl ' or objective thing, showing that it must different, the reality is identical. " God," said
not be con{used with other objects. The $econd Athanasius, "is not synthetic; " hence it Is untrue
defines it by its own particular character and func- to say that the Son resembles ' the F'ather; a
tion, with an inward reference to the church as thing can only resemble something other than
being what the Creek theologians called a ' sub- itself; but the Son is identical with the Father.
stance ' or signi.ficalll thing. Thus though tltere are in Cod three Objects to be
recognised, there is but one simple Being to be grope towards our object, i11 thinking of Rim as a
apprehended. Christians stoutly deny that they being in whom all the highest qua.lities of lnJman
believe- in three Gods. But they no less definitely personality are i.nfin.itely enhanced and magnilied.
affirm both that the i nfini le God is in a true sense Again, if we are right in our conviction of the
three, and that in another true sense He is one. possibility of knowing God and holding communion
This is the great doctrine of Identity of Substance, with Him, it would be strange indeed if we were
which Athanasius first developed and 1lis successors wrong in claiming some knowledge, not only o!
elaborated. Him but about Him. In so far as He reveals
Two criticisms can be made with a certa~n
Himself to in tuition He reveals Himself also to
justice on all such efforts to ghe intellectual ex- understanding.
pression to the infinite and inexpressible. The In both cases the knowledge is manifestly in-
first is that both the method aod the result are, complete. But in both cases God reveals enough
and must be, paradoxical. How can the finite for the practical purposes oi Christian life on earth.
human mind sum up and describe the nature o{ the We do not know as weare known, but we know with
personal being of Almighty God? It cannot , and sufficient fullness and sufficient certainty to assure
no reasonable theologian supposes that it can. us with whom we are dealing and how we are meant
T he utmost that it can achieve in this direction lo respond. So, paradoxical as the attempt to
is to sketch out a picture in earthly metapl10rs and delineate Him may be, it is not. presumptuous ;
phrases, in the hope that they may convey some God gives us our brains to use. And further, be it
sort of parabolic representation consistent with admitted that t he conclusion to which theology
the information which mankind J>Ossesses. For be has been led is enigmatical, nevertheless the
it remembered that there is a certain stock oi in- enigma is neither pure contradiction nor pure
formation available, i1 there be any truth in tho perplexity. When we say that God is one and that
Cltristian religion. We know something about God is also three, much is gained by the realisation
human personality; we have seen it raised to the that the unity and the triplicity are statements o
highest degree of perfection in Jesus Cltrist; and different aspects of the infinite depth of the truth ;
we have good reason for thinking this the point at the theological definition helps towards tbe dim
which creation approaches nearest to the image of b eginning of a definite perception that the
God. In trying to picture the personality of E ternal, who is so far greater than the measure of
God we cannot be working on wrong lines, as we man's mind, possesses positive chamcteristics
which can be glimpsed even though they cannot be of extreme Subordinationists like Arius. They
calculated. The tentative and fumbling human both sought, consciously or unconsciously, to
definition calls attention to something which, establish pagan ideas under a Christian guise.
though strictly indefinable, is a trne fact. When the former denied the distinct reality of
The second criticism is that all such higher flights Jesus Christ, it ripped up U1e solid platform of
of Christian speculation conduct to regions far New Testament history. Such a course lends
remote from the simple consciousneS of common direct encouragement to credulity. It suggests
people. The same may be said of any philosophical that apparent facts are not really facts. It exalts
construction, yet philosophy is not thereby con- spiritual apparitions and religious hallucinations
demned. But there is a deeper answer. Can it above sober e>.l'erience of plain events. It forms
be maintained that sophisticated opinion has no parl of the recurrent tendency to identify the
influence on general conduct, when Europe is at supernatural with the irrational and to seek
war and the world in arms by force of ideologies? religious consolation in the easy lap of super-
Animated by theory, men are killing and being stition. When the latter drove a wedge between
killed, and U1e practical <letails of dally life the Fallier and the Son, and reduced Christ to the
are being transformed for millions of mankind. level of a creature, it both separated the world we
It is true that the theological doctrines for which live in from the world in which God dwells and
Athanasius contended have not the same im- reigns, and also taught mankind to look for
mediat e bearing on the behaviour of the mass of salvation to sources other than the Lord of heaven
men as the political doctrines of Communism or of and earth. This line of thotlgbt drives J)eople t o
Blood and Soil. But they COJltrol religious think- rely on human and earth-bound expedients and
ing, and so involve indirect consequences of tGJ minimise the need of divine. grace. It foste~:s
vital importance to pritctical religion ; for if the idolatrous worship of creatures, by which men
Christian teachers fail to keep a true balance and substitute the merits of imaginary saints and the
sane judgement in the instruction which they efficacy of fictitious relics Cor access to the ordi-
impart, the religion of the common people is apt nances o( the love of God and direct communion
to take, sooner or later, some very undesirable with Him. And it is akin to every form of poly-
turns. theism that plays off the divine justice against
Consider in this light tbe histrionic hypothesis the divine mercy. If doctrines like these had
of thr Sabellians and the materialistic mythology triumphed, Christianity would have been left
188 Al'HJ\1\ASil:>S ; THE l.."~lTY 01> COD rllg

without any reguJated theological compass, to form to Latin thinkers, but it was unfamiliar in the
indicate its true course and to recall il from the East; it is probable that the exile of Athanasius in
recurrent aberrations of the tides of intellectual the West was providential in uniting valuable
fashion . Athana.5ius did not merely save the strains of thought which had been geographically
Nicene creed. He saved Cluistianity. divorced, as was, indisputably, the later exile o~
There is a certain amount t.o be learned both Hilary in Asia Minor. There is another point of
f.rom Sabellianism and from Subordinationism . interest in the displacement of tbe 'rectilinear' by
The Sabellians had a right instinct behind their the ' circular ' conception. The former suggests
refusal to place the God of redemption any lower no sort of reason why the number of the divine
ln the scale than the God of creation, or to separate Persons should conclude at three, or indeed at any
them :into c!lfferent Gods. They were wrong in other terminus; the process of emanation might
making the distinction between tl1em into a tran- go on to thirty places as with Valentine, or for
sient illusion; illusion and transience are not the ever. The ' circular ' conception is more con-
attributes of God. The Subordinationists again gruous with the assertion of finality .1.
were so far right when they maintained that the As against the Sabellians, Athanasius insisted
being of the Spirit and the Son must be derived that the personal di.stinctions in the Godhead,
from the sole uJtirnate being of the Father. They whicl1 have been revealed in tempoial history, are
erred in representing derivation as equivalent to ' Tho actual number three is fixed by revelation. P erhaps
derogation. They assumed, like the pagan Greeks, the best speculative reason !bat can be adduced for it is ba$ed
that the further tbe substance of c,le it y was trans- on tltG assumption that God's dealings with the universe
.eflect somethin~ofHis n~turc. There are three relations which
mitted, the less completely it retained the qualities seem able to subsist between God nnd lhe w.orl<l as fie hns
of its source; in this their rectilinear concoption made it-complete independence (' transc~n<lence '); contact
of derivation and their quantitative notion of the 11b exira (' creation '); and contact ab t'nlr11 (' ip1manence ').
(The difference between the last two is somethiilg like thnl
divine being led them astray. In truth, the pro- between guiding another's footsteps and JJUiding one's own :
cess has to be imagined not as the transmission of it might be illustrated, though witlt obvious limitations, by
the differences between civilisation and nature,' environ-
disintegrating stuff away from a fL"ed point, but
ment and heredity, f'<hu:ation ond mental development,)
as the timeless and unceasing passage of a personal Obviously Cod's relations to the. universe must include all
being through a circular course which ends where tl~e three mentioned. ncl it is exH~mely difficult to conceivE~
it began and beglns again where it ended. Some of any fnrthor une. Tl1erc is much in tlte history of th~"l~gy
to support some sort oi association ol lhese three respect tve
such ideas had already occurred in ;~ rudiJnentary relations with tile attivtiy of the thr"e wveral Persons.
1<)0 A"tR!\NASTl1S; THE UNITV OF GOD 191

permanent and authentic features oi the peisonality Son wise, and Spiritwise; tbis illustrates Lhe truth
of the God who has revealed them. As against that personality can live and act only in social
Arius, he maintained U1at howsoever God reveals relationship. But He is always one God; and
Himsell, it is tbe sell-same God who is revealed. this confirms Him as the ultimate ground of all
H ence come the two sides of the Catholic doctrine. existence and the sole object oflegitimateallegiance
Each Person is a genuine hypostasis. This term, and worship. To Him, one God in three Per~ns.
owing to the derivation of Western theological be all might and majesty, all worship autl adoration,
lang uage from the Latin, is conunonly translated now and for evermore .
.Person, but it doe.s not mea.\1 an individual person
in the ordinary sense. Its real purport is to
describe tha t which. ' starl(is u-v to ' pre.o:osure, that
wh.ich possesses a firm crust, and so an object in
the concrete, something which is not a mere
attribute or abstraction, but bas a being of its
own, and can josUe with. other objects without
losing its identity. Applied to God, it expresses
the idea of a solid and sell-supported presentation
of the divine reality. All the qualities which
modem speech il$SOciates with personality, how-
ever, s uch as consciousness and will, are atLdbuted
in Greelc theology to the complen1entary term of the
definition ; they belong to lhe divine substance,
the single being of God, and to the several ' Persons'
only by virtue of their embodiment and presenta-
tion of that unique being. The entire dit'fcrcncc
between the Persons is one not of content but of
manner. Nothing whatever exists to differentiate
between the Father, the Son, and the Spirit except
the difference of aspect with wbicl1 each presents
the whole reality of God. God exists Fatherwise,
APRIL 28TH, I940

THlS Lect11re takes its title 'from Apollinaris,
who was, to parody an Arian catchword, '' a
heresiarch but not as one of the heresiarchs " .
In other words, although he founded a school of
theology which in a vital respect was inconsistent
wiU1 the Gospel, and though he further broke away
from his fellow-Churchmen and instituted a sect
of his own, there was another side to him which
deserves far greater credit than it usually receives,
and even for his errors there is some excuse. Apart
from his one peculiar tenet, his teaching was clear
and strong and good. It probably exercised a
very powerful and wholly beneficent influence on
Christian thought. And when he went astray, he
did so not, like Arius, by weaving every pre-
existent strand of heresy into one vast system of
theological depravity, but partly through misi n-
terpretation of language that had hitherto been
commonly employed without 1morthodox inten-
tion, partly through ill-considered zeal for certain
genuine aspects of evangelical truth.
It i.~ interesting to note his rise to notoriety
through the eyes of a contemporary ecclesiastical
statesman, who w~ himself a deeply inJluential
theologian-Basil of Caesarea. Basil was one of
the principal leaders of rbe Cappadocian school, reproduce in a garbled form the teaching of fid.
by whom the old Conservative party which pre- sec. part. IS- l9) and accused Basil of holding
dominated in the Eastem Church was brought, similal' views. Instead of saying that God is
under the in$piration of Athanasius, to accept the manifested Fathenvise in the Father and Sonwise
definition and U1e implications of the Nicene in the Son, the statement a.-;serted that the Father
Creed. As a young man at the university of Himself actually is the Son in a paternal form, and
Albens he had been the most brilliam feUow- the Son actually is the Father in a filial form.
student of the future Emperor Julian. He was an This was to destroy all reality in the personal
ascetic, the organiser of Eastem monasticism, and distinctions of tbe Godhead, and was never taught
a great founder of orphanages Md hospitals. In either by Apollinaris or by Basil. But the calumny
370 he was elected, not without some unpleasant against Basil was supported by the accusation ~hat
wire-pulling, aJ] uudertaken from the highest be bad corresponded with Apollinaris, and Basil
motives, to the key position of Archbishop of was very mucl1 put out.
Caesart-a in the central part of eastern Asia ~Minor. The attacks continued. In the course of the
He suffered bornbly from inrugestion. On one next three years Basil protested that be had never
occasion, being threatened by a hostile magistrate till then heard of any charge being brought against
with physical torture, he welcomed the proposal Apollinaris; that Apollinaris suffered from a fatal
as a possible cure fol' his liver. He was a great fluency; that he had read some, not many, of
man and a great ecclesiastic. l\pollinaris first ,Apollinaris's books and had also heard some
occurs in Basil's episcopal correspondence in 373, extracts from others; that he rud not know who
the year in which Athanasius died. Basil had was the real a uthor of the impugned quotations jn
fallen out with a very old friend, Eustace of their colllplete form; and that although twenty
Sebaste, who l1ad aJwaJ>'S been heretically inclined years, or more than that, or twenty-five years
and was now lapsing into the latest form of previously, when they were both laymen, be had
Arianism . This frieud began to circulate bitter sent to Apollinaris a friendly gieetiog, the letter
and persisten L attacks on Basil, which were no less had not discussed theology. (At that time Basil
damaging because they were aimed inrurectiy; he would bavc been an undergraduate at Athens, and
claimed to have discovered some writings of aged twenty-one or little more; Apollinaris was
Apollinaris which were thoroughly Sabellian (in about fifteen years older and apparently all'eady a
fact, the document that he quotes appears to priesl.) Finally, be had never regarded Apolliuaris
wlth hostility, indeed he had certain ,grounds for Christians will return to the observance of the
respecting him, without thinking him immune entire Jewish Law and worship God in Jerusalem;
from criticism on some points. But he bad tbirdJy, his novel expositions of the Incatnation
gathered that Apollinaris was the most prolilic are turning everybody aside from old-fashioned
o all writers and he was far from having read his orthodoxy to controversial inquiries into verbal
whole output. The reasons he gives for this trifles, and are therefore a great nuisance. 1n
neglect of important movements of though,t are another letter of Lhe same period Basil repeats
magnificently characteristic of a great ecclesiastic. these three complaints, though with some expres-
For one thing, he was much too busy; for another, sion of doubt whether the documents on which the
he "had not much patience with the modern charge of Sabcllianism rested were authentic, and
school 11 ; for a third, his bad health made it adds a plain st'atement of the conduct that really
difficult for him to devote proper attention even troubled him- namely that Apollinaris, " whom
to the study of the Bible (ep. 244. 3) 1 had expected to find a comrade-in-arms for the
Up till this time, Basil's correspondence shows defence of the truth " , was creating a schism, con-
hun as considerably more annoyed by the attacks secrating bishops who possessed neither flock nor
upon himself than agitated by serious suspicions clergy and sending them into other dioceses in a
of Apollinaris. But in 377 he writes to Rome for delibe~ate attempt to divide and seduce Christians.
assistance in settling the disputes wl1ich were It is perfectly clear that Basil had never taken his
rending the East, and one of the three persons theological aberrations seriously until Apollin~s
for whose suppression he pleads is Apollinaris. himself proclaimed their magnitude by breaking
The basis of the offence is that owing to his fatal the peace of the Church and setting up conventicles.
fluency, which makes him ready to support any Until Apollinaris W<lS sLxty, he had the reputation
speculation, Apollinaris fills the civilised world not ot a hcre..-iarch, but of an intensely learned and
with treatises, causing confusion tc the brethren respectable theological teacher. ll is in the light
in defiance of the caution u ttered by the autl1or of or that fact that his career has to be studied .
Ecdesiastes against makillg many books, More Apollinaris had a father of the same name, born
specifically, he bases his Trinitarian doctrine on at Alexandria, a schoolmaster by profession, who
human premises instead of scriptural proofs; settled at Laodicea-not tJ1e town in Asia Minor of
secondly, he teaches (what appears to be a travesty which the Christian inhabitants were neither hot
of Millenarianism) that in the resurrection nor cold, to whom the Epistle to the Ephesians
conjecturally and the seventh letter of the arms of the e.xtremest sect of Arianism. ha<l begun
Apocalypse certainly were addressed , but the his career as an associate of Arius at Alexandria,
sea-porl in northern Syria, now known as Latakia, been deposed from the priesthood for his defence
and under that name breathing the incense not of the heresy, and been explicitly denied recogni-
of theology but of tobacco. Here he married, tion by the orthodox Council of Sardica only three
was orl.lalned priest, and begot his famous son years before the present event. There could
about the same time as Constantine is said manifestly be no communion between him and
to bave issued the Edict of Milan, extending Athanasius. ApolHnaris, however, who by now
the toleration of the law to Christianity. One was clearly a priest, received .Athanaslus io com-
interesting story has been preserved about [he munion and was ejected by his own bishop in
early days o the younger Apollinaris. When consequence. The sentence does not seem t.o have
he was about twenty both he and his father were affected him as it might in less troubled and
temporarily excommunicated for attending the confused times. It is possible that he endured a
public recital by a heathen lecturer of an ode in period of exi.le, since he is said later by Epiphanius
honour of Dionysus. The lecturer was his tutor, to have undergone exile for the faith at some point
but young Apollinaris had already been admitted in Jlis life. Or he may simply have continued to
to the order of Readers, and though lay Christians minis ter quietly to his own orthodox congregation.
could attend without incurring anytl1ing more In either case, his lecturing and writing would
serious than an episcopal censure, such conduct seem to have proceeded with unabated intensity.
was considered scandalous in members of the The fticodshil) with Athanasius was maintained,
clergy. The incident is chiefly valuable as and bore fruit irl the l'egular inten;h<mge or letters
illustrating the broad basis on which, under his whic:h l1ave, most uufmtunately, failed to survive.
father's care, the young cleric was being educated. We do, however, know that Athanasius sent to
He was again excommunicated by another bishop Apollinaris a copy of his letter to Epictetus, bishop
a doz-en years later, in 346, but for a reason wholly of Corinth, in which a variety of rather wild
creditable to his orthodoxy. Athanasius stopped speculative opinions about the person of Christ
at Laodicea on his way back to Alexandria from are rebutted ; and that Apollinaris hearttly
exile in the \Vest. The bishop of Laodicea, approved of its teaching. Dr. Haven (Apollin-
George by name, who wavered through life between ariatlism, pp. l03 ff.) has put forward good reasons
Arian and Conservative opinions, and ended in the for dating this episode about 360. A polhnaris
seems to have been consecrated bishop about this scheme both of Basil's theological development :u1d
time, presumably for the Catholic congregations of his movements during 362, as well as into the
of his native city, for he is entitled bishop in the Trinitarian dochine of Apollinaris. for the assump-
record of his seniling formal representatives to the tion of its forgery to retain much plausibility.
council of Alexandria held by Athanasius in 362, Whatever may be the true explanation of the
in the first twelvemonth of Julian's reign. To this silence in which they were shrouded, the letters
same period must be assigned the four fan10us arc best taken as genuine : and, if genuine, the.y
and controverted letters in which Basil asked, and show that it was Apollinaris who called 'Basil's
Apollinari$ gave, advice. on the doctrine of the a:ttention to the value of tbe synodical letter of
Trinity. The last of the four was certainly written Alexandria, and led his .rather faltering mind
in 362. Their authenticity has been derried. The onward from ' Semi-Arian ' Conservatism to a.
only reason for rejecting them, however, is that full appreciation of the Nicene faith. If Apol-
Basil forgot or concealed their existence during linaris had never scored another theological suc-
the controversy which opened eleven years later, cess, this one alone would entitle him to grateful
when the only letter that he admitted having sent remembrance ; for the importance of Basil's
to Apollinaris was a much earlier communication, adhesion to Nicaea was momentous.
and, unlike the present correspondence, did not During the same year, 362, Apollinaris and his
deal with matters of theology. father were the heroes of one of the most fantastic
It seems unlikely, butis not increilible, that Basil literary exploits ever undertaken. The Emperor
could really have forgotten these more recent Julian anticipated the policy of some present-day
letters; when a man is in his forties and is literally autocrats by striking at the independent influence
wearing himself to death with busincss, as Basil of Christianity through the control of education.
was, his memory is apt to develop gaps which He issued an ccUct which, though not directly
would othcmvise be unaccountable. On the other enforcing Gov(!rnment prQpaganda, practicaJly
hand, if he was concealing them and his enemies excluded Christians from the schools, whether as
had got wind of them or published them, his teachers or as pupils. It was monstrous, he
position would have been rendered infinitely more declared, that men should teach one thing while
embarrassing. Nevertheless, that is precisely the they believed another. Therefore for the future
risk which he appears to have been running. the teaching of the pagan classics, which con-
The correspondence fits too accurately into the tinued in the fourlh as in previous centuries to
~"1 A POW-I:!.'AJHS : DlVJN~ IRRlJP"flON 205

supply the entire material of an ordinary liberal teuch and the early historical narratives of the
education, w:lS to be restricted to those who Old Testament into heroic verse, Homcrically
possessed a sincere conviction of the religious apportioned into twenty-four books; and from
truths acknowledged in tile works of Homer, the rest constructed Euripidean tragedies, Menan-
Demosthenes, and the rest, and were moreover drine comedies, and Pindaric odes. The Gospels
willing to employ those classics not merely as and pisUes of the New Testament they repro-
illustrations of literary and logical method, but duced in the form of Platonic dialogu.es. l t is
as vehicles of instruction about the gods. Christian pOssible that they had already composed the bulk
teachers could either give up criticising the of these transcriptions for use in the ordinary
religious views of classical authors, or give up coun;e of their e<lucational work, and that Julian's
teaching. Christian parents could either send e<lict only gave their eocerprise its final and
their children to pagan schoolmasters, or not send triumphant justification ; the one year for which
them to school at all. This was a subtle but the edict remained in force seems all too short
tremendous blow; yet the fluent authorship of even for acurso.ry treatment of the various themes.
Apollinaris, and the facility that enabled him to But at any rate, furnished wilb munitions at once
put his pen to any task, were equal to the so copious, so literary, and so orthodox, they
occas10n. continued both to teach, (U)d to teach Christianity
Both he aud his father were teachers of long - and also to obey the strict terms of the law.
experience. They now collaborated in producing A version of the Psalter in hexameter verse, which
a library of textbooks, of which the form was has come down to us under Apollinaris's name,
classical an.d the substance Christian, thus circum- may be a relic, and if so is the only relic, of this
venting Julian's edict. The father wrote a unprecedented activity, though it was more
grammar-book " on a C11Tisti:tn rnodel ", which probably made at a later pol"iod in Apollinaris's
has attracted gratuitous ridicule. from some who life. It is not great poetry. But it attains a
think it odd that Christian syntax should exhibit more respectable standard than the interminable
stylistic peculiarities of its own, and have not and ill-scanned prosings of Gregory of Nazianzus,
perceived that what was meant is a handbook Basil's friend and ally, the other ou tstandins
In which the illustrations were taken from speci- Greek Christian versifier of the age.
mens of Christian instead of pagan literature. When Julian perished in the Persian campaign
Between them father and son turned the Penta- of 363 Christian grammars and epics lost their
o6 1\POLL!NARIS: l)IVJ~ll UUtU!'TION >o7
special utility. His successor, .Tovian, spent part fragments survive of au his other voluminous
of the autumn of bis eight months' reign at prose publications.
Antioch, only about forty miles from Laoclicea, To emphasise the vastness of the loss it is only
and the proximity of so firmly Chri~lian and necessary to mention some of the subjects on which
orthodox an Emperor was probably the cause Apollinaris is knov.n to have written. He pro-
which led Apollinaris to address to rum an intensely duced a large number of commentaries-on the
religious confession of faith in the incarnation of Psalms and the Proverbs, on all the major Prophets
our Lord, elearly and powerfully expressed, which and some of the minor, on at least two Gospels and
exercised no little influence on subsequent Christian three Pauline Epistles; these were brief but
thought. Indeed, it is probable that Apollinaris pithy, probably giving the beads of his lectures on
may have been at Antioch himself, and given a those subjects. They are all lost, though frag-
copy of 1t to Athanasius. who also was present in ments indicate U1at they struck out a fresh line
Antioch at the time. If Athana.sius took home of exposition, laying stress on the practical
and filed among his papers a copy of the con- religious teaching of the Bible. He wrote a large
fession, which condemns some of the same errors apologet1c work in thirty volwnes against Porphyry,
as Atbaoasius himself had criticised in the letter which was regarded as a most important defence of
to Epictetus of Corinth, the fact might explain Christianity against the Neoplatouic pagan revival.
how the letter of Apollinnris to Javian came to be He issued controversial books in criticism of the
attributed to the archbishov of Alexandria; and views of Origeu (Socrates h. e. 6. 13). doubtless
this first confusion of authorship may well have attaclring his theories or pre-l~xis.tence and. ~he
~mggested to the followers of Apollina ris their resunection, as well as his excessive allegonsmg
s ubsequent device of circulating Apollinaria n docu- and sllborclinationism; of .Ma.rcellus, the Nicene
ments under the respectable names of Athanasius confessor, whose speculations on tbe Trinity led
himself, o! Gregory the Wonderworker, the pupil dangerous!y ncar to the Sabel Jianism of which
of Origen, and of Pope Julius of Rome, who died in Apollinaris himself wa.s falsely accused; of the
352. Whatever the origin of the fraud, historians school of :\faccdonius, which denied the deity of the
and theologians have reason enough to rejoice in Holy Ghost (Sozornen fl. e. 6. 22) ; or E unornius,
its success, tor it has availed to preserve for who evolved the most far-reaching and most
posterity some brief but priceless works of a great systematic scheme of doctrine that Arianism ever
Christian writer and thinker, when nothing but produced; and of Diodore of Tarsus, who was still
208 1\I'UJ..L,INi\TUS: DiVlNE IRL{lJP'T'ION o9
a priest at Antioch till after Apollinaris went into had persisted since the deposition of bishop Eustace
schism. This last dispute was crucial. lts subject by ti).e ATiau party over forty years before, and
was the Person of Christ, and it was presumably had defeated every eflort of Athanasius and Basil
tlus confi.ict o! lhe two men, who must have known to compose them. There were two rival Catholic
one artother quite well, that crystallised lhe opinions bishops of the town, each asserting independent
of each. Diodore developed a theology of the grounds for representing the lawful succes.~ion from
Incarnation whicb, though refreshingly realistic Eustace. Athanasius and the West had recognised
in its analysis of Christ's human nature, tended to Paulinus. Basil tried to induce the Roman see to
harden the two aspects of Ris Person into two recognise ~leletius. Suddenly, about 375, we h<'.ar
separate individuals, and so paved the way to the oi yet a. third bishop, Vitalis. whom Epipllanius.
Nestorian controversies of the next century. the hammer of heretics from Cyprus, tried un-
Apollinaris created a theory of His manhood wlricb successfully to reconcile with Paulinus. Jerome,
maximised the redemptive action of God in Christ a year or two later, writes plaintively to Rome for
by detracting from the complete reality of His an " apostolic " decision to be made between the
humanity. Except for the most fragmentary th ree, so that he rnay know with which, if any. of
~leanings, no thing of all tbis once abundant harvest them he ought to be in commtrnion. The exact
has survived. sequence of events is difficult to disentangle in
Apollinaris's lapse il1to positive l1eresy did not detail, and the task need not detain us now. But
take place till be was over si.A"ly. Till tl1en he the fact which :;(.!ems beyond doubt is that Apol-
retained his reputation as a light of theol6gy and linaris bad broken with the Church, won over
a pillar of orthodoxy, indefatigable alike in writing Vitalis, a priest belonglng to the Melotian party,
and in lecturing. How long be had extended his to his own doctrine of tbe Incarnation. aml con-
operations from Laodicea to Anti@ch cannot be secrated him as a schismatica.l bishop for Antioch.
stated witll any assurance, but certainly he was RumOurs, more substantial than those retailed
lecturing at Antioch in 373 or 374, when J erome by Basil's Arian accusers, b.ad already begun to
attended his course on the Bible, delivered in circulate in the East, to the effec t that extremely
that city. It seems likely that the occasion was unsound Christological teaching wa~ gaining
exceptional, f01 we hear nothing up to tltis time currency. Epiphanius attacked it in his
of any intervention by Apollinaris in the factions "Ancoratus '', written in 374 S hortly after-
of that ecclesiastically di~tracted place, which wards. on visiting Antioch, he found things even

worse than he bad feared. Vitalis was not only oecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381:. He
obstinately schismatical, but active in disseminat- organised his sect, with the assistance of Vilalis.
ing the new opinions; and be rejected all entreaties He employed his old facility to compose sacred
that he would abandon his heresies. Worst of songs, which men chanted at their work and at
all, it came out that t he real author of them was their entertainments, and women carolled at the
the venerated Apollinaris. Epiphanius docs not .Loom; whatever t he occasion which they served,
often betray much sympathy or kindness for those t heir subject was always the praise and glory of
who1n he considered to be in error . But he writes God. He wrote a thorough treatise in vinclication
of Apollinaris with deep and fe~ling unhappiness. of his doctrine, of which the contents are known
He was sincerely distressed and shocked . Apol- onLy through the quotations made from il in the
linaris, beloved not only of hin1sell but of blessed criticism published by Basil's you11ger brother,
Athanasius and all orthodox Christians, the para- Gregory of Nyssa. Within a few years more the
gon of secular learning, the most respected fallen star of theology was extinguished in the
champion of orthodox faith, had adopted beliefs grave.
contrary to lhe reality of the I ncarnation, under- Because so much of the literary work of Apol-
mining th.e Gospel of man's complete redemption- linaris was deliberately destroyed, it is difficult to
he refused to believe it. His disciples were mis- estimate the true extent of his influence ; the
representing him ; they must have misu nderstood reckoning can only be conjectural for the most
the true meaning of his words, owing to the part. One thing, however, is clear, that he was
proftmdity of his thought. not m erely a great teacher but a great thinker.
But Epiphanius had to convince himself at last. The Church remembe-red him only as the fmmder
Apollinaris, though there is no reason to suppose of a heresy. It was a slloTt and ;). peculiarly
that he ever accepted the extreme speculations w1grateful memory that so recalled hitn. No
favoured by some of J1is more ardent foll owers, ancient heretic ever made a comparable contribu-
was indubitably a heretic. Little need be said, tion to the task of thinking out the implications
little indeed is known, about his later days. He of the Christian faith . He saw clearly where
was condemned at Rome, on Basil's denunciation others were only groping in the twilight : to
though not for schism, as Basil had requested, but' appreciate that fact it is only necessary to compare
for false teaching. Shortly aftenvards, in 379. him \'lith Basil as an interpreter of the truths for
he was condemned at Antioch, and again at the which Athanasius had fought his life-long batlle.

Though Basil accepts the Athanasian doctrine wandering and diffuse men of letter!>. So some of
of a single identical divine substance, he never them arc; but so is not ApoUinaris. He spent a
seems fully to grasp its importance as a powerful life-hme in teaching, yet he could concentrate the
lever of thought, far less as the golden key to essence o{ his thought into a few sharp and powerful
human comprehension of the my.;tery of God's paragraphs. Nobody can prove lo demonstration
revealed nature. But with Apollinaris it is central ]tow deeply he afiected his immecliate contem-
and luminous. And Apollinaris clid more than see poraries. But it is a fair conjecture tbat the
clearly; he saw all round a problem, noting tl1e silent and unxequited influence of Apollinaris,
difficulties to be met and forestalling objections exercised from his Synan sea-port, accnunts for
with some pregnant observation of his own. much Lhat followed, both positively and nega-
Even his heresy, certain and defmite as it was, tively. On llte latter side, while professional
displays the merits as well as the defects of a philosophers doubtless profited by reading the
pioneering exploration; its fault lay far less in elaborate theological exercises directed against
any conscious denial of a truth than in jts inability Eunomius by .Basil and his brother Gregory of
to push further than a limited distance into the Nyssa, and proletarian hearts were warmed by the
heart of a truth. We shall return t o his special orthodox r hetoric of their friend Gregory of
Christological doctrine later. The point with t\azianzus, the intelligent working clergy must
which we are now concerned, and which bas bee!\ have gained (rom the sinewy thought and stabbing
far too generally overlooked. is that no one else sentences of Apollinaris a much more conquering
ever produced so pithy, balanced, fertile, religious, assl!1'ance o the bankrupt cy of Arianism. On U\e
and scriptural a statement of the. Catholic doctrine positive side, apart from his peculiar view about
of God. Nowhere in patristic literature is there th<:! n1anhood of the f{edeeJu er , which was neither
any document Lo compare with his " Detailed strikingly obtruded nor specially noticeable to the
Confession" (Kala Meros Pistis) for terse ex'Pr~ wadvised in a. book like the " Detailed Con-
sion, penetrating thought , under.tanding of the fession '', his success in making plain the meaning
truth, and grasp of the reasons why the falsehoods of Athanasius's teaching and in bringing out the
are wrong. It is only about four thousand five power, both religions and int<>llectual, o! the
hundred words in length, and it contains all fOt1fth Nicene faith, can hardly have been less serviceable
century theology in a nutshell. in ltis own generation than it is to any who study
People sometimes think that the Fathers are il to-day. Work like his, with its concise and
nervous presentation of Christian doctrine io a create him. In Christ, mankind bas either been
systematic context, goes far to account for the redeemed and restored by God, or has not been
serenely unseli-conscious orthodoxy of men like redeemed at all. If, as St. Paul says, a Christian
Joh.u Chrysostom, the preacher of Antioch, who is a new creation (II Cor . v. 17), something has
was turning monk j1,1st about the same time as been done to him that only the Creator can do.
i\pullinaris was turnillg heretic. With such assist- F rom Christ, and from no other source, come
anc~. the Church not only co11quered paganism, spiritual life and power and the mastery of sin,
whether acknowledged in Julian or baptised in and these are gifts of God's giving. " Death
A rius, but was bmught Loa positive understanding had to be conquered by God ; and it has been "
o.f its own th eological mlnd. (ep. ad Dionys. 12). As he reflected on the portrait
When we come t o investigate the Christology of of the Redeemer presented in the Bible, and
Apollinaris, i t is necessary to remember that we pictured Christ's tender humanity employed as
no longer possess the treatise in which he embodied the vehicle of spiritual forces, with healing virtue
his final views and his mature sell-vindication emanating out of Him and conquering deeds of
against his critics. We also have to bear in mind might proceeding from His action, he could not
that those critics read into hls words a great deal tolerate the thought of any divorce between God
more Ulan he iutended to express-this is a the Son in hea.ven and the son of God on earth.
demonslr'able fact-and that he was unjustly The New Testament knows nothing of two Sons.
credited with theories with which some o f his 1L tells us of one Mediator, who is botl1 true Cod
foll owerS embroidered his pattern, but which and true man.
he never manufactured. Nevertheless, enough But in the teaching of Diodore at Antioch
remains in the fonn of briei, but complete treatises Apollinaris found a tendency only too apparent
to explain the true meaning of the fragmen ts which t o think and speak of Christ almost a.c; if He were
his enemies quoted against him, and to show with two separate persons. Something of the kind i$
tolerable certainty just w11at he taught and just bound to happen whenever attention is particularly
how far his intentions carried him from the central dravm to the reality of Christ's hw11an experience.
stream of evangelical conviction. As part of a balanced view. statements of this kind
In his fundamental thesis Apollinaris takes had appeared far back ill theological history,
his stand at the very heart of that conviction. alongside complementary assertions that the In-
As God alone created man, ro God alone can re- carnation was a direct activity of God. Thus

Hippolytus remarks that the Word of God was nature oi Christ, which no J>erious theolog.(an
present on earth incarnate, "assuming the man wished to deny, b11t few at that tin1e demanded so
that was born of the virgin" (on Elkanah and frequent occasion to stress.
Hannah, Crag. 3); Clement of Alexandria refers When this emphasis on the distinct characters
to " that man wjth whom the Word indwelt '' o the mdwelling God and the inhabited man be-
(paui. 3 T, L. 5): and Origen speaks of "the man came exaggerated, and ~tn excessive con trast
with whom He clothed Himself " (de orat. 26. 4). seemed to be drawn between the divine being who
All these phrases are typical of what is called was Son of God " by nature" and the human
Antiochcne theology, though they were all uttered being, more or less loosely attached to Him, who
nearly a century before a specifically Antiochene was only son of God '' by grace ", Apollinaris
s~h,ool was established, a11d by people of a very thought the time had come to revolt. He pro-
dtfferent outlook from Diodore's. The separating tested against the whole mythology of the bo
tendency had been emphasised by Eustace of Sons and of salvation through an inspired man.
Antioch, wbo was deposed, not for unorthodoxy, That was not tlte Gospel which he had shared with
but for his uncompromising adhel'etlce to the the blessed bishop Athanasius, and if official
Nicene creed, only a few years after the holding Cluistianity had nothing better than that to teach,
of ihe great co1mcil. E ustace constantly talked he was done with official Christianity. There is
of " the man " with whom Christ was united, no reason to suppose that he was con,;cious, until
calling him also repeatedly "the shrine" in whom the :final crisis broke, of any departure from the
Christ " tabernacled ", maintaining that it was accustomed doctrine of Christendom. He used
Ute shrine alone. ancl not the "Son by nature"
that was crucilied. All this language is generally
~upposed to be peculiarly ' Antiochene ', though
l the familiar lanhruage in which the .Bible a.nd the
Church had always referred to the Tncamation.
Nobody had ever felt tl1e need to think out
1t can all be paralleled verbally in Athanasius exactly what that language involved. But now,
(e.g. de i ncam. 8, zo; or. c. Ar. ;2.. 70). The real under the pressure of Diodore's antitheses, he
fact is $imply that, from the time of Eustace- disco;vered that ttLe need to think tlJC problem
and earlier still if \Ve include the Adoptionist out was very great indeed. As he progressed in
Paul of Sa.mosata and the dubiously orthodox his effort, he came to see veJ.y clearly that the
martyr Lucian-theologians at Antioch laid a meaning which he himself read into the familiar
Special emphasis on tbe reality of the human phrases was far remote from what Diodorc seemed

to understand by them. The whole Church also sense of the word ' flesh' as equivalent to 'man '
saw, a good deal less clearly, but with quite .as (or. c. Ar. 3 30), and proceeds to attribute to the
strong a conviction, that the explanation which ' flesh' of Christ not only physical but also mental
he gave of the mystery o[ Cluist cut right across activities {jb. 34, 53). The general view was
the lines on which Christendom had accustomed
itself to think about that matter. How far
orthodox thought was right in concluding that
' expressed quite clearly by )Jarcellus, an older
contemporary of Athanasius, who wrote : " He
bec.ame man without sin by assumption of the
Apollinaris, with his different line of approach, whole nature of man, that is, of a rational and
had been attempting from U1e first to express intelligent soul and of human flesh " (ap. Epipb.
something really different in substance, is open to !Mer. 72. :rz. z).
discussion. A good deal might be said for the view Occasionally Athanasius speaks of God the
that the two sides were employing simil.ar tenns Son assuming a body, instead of flesh, but the
with diHerent mental associations, and that Apol- meaning is the san1e. Thu.~ he remarks in his
linaris drew down attacks upon himself, iu the earliest work that " the Word of God takes to
first instance, not so much because his fundamental Himself a body, and behaves as a man among
ideas were judged false, as because th e un- men, and assumes the sensible faculties of all men "
familirui ty of theil expression prevented them (de i11carn. 15). 1t is pettinent to observe that
f rom being understood. At any rate, it is quite Eustace of Antioch more than once in his few
plain that in certain respects his meaning entirely remaining literary fragments reie.rs to Christ's
escaped the comprehension of the two contemporary human nature as Ilis 'body (apucl Thdt. Eran.
Gregories. 57.0, 236c}, and that Diodore ooes the same (c.
He started from the fruniliar words of St. John Synus. frag. 2). AJter the question had been
that " the Word became flesh ". By ' liesh ' tl1e direcUy raised at Corinth,, io~ty yea.rs later,
Bible repeatedly designates human nature in its Atbru1asius approved the statement tha.t " the
fulness, and the Fathers followed the same usage, body possessed by the Saviour did not lack either
Diodore among the rest (c. Sy1u~s. frag. 5). lt soul or sense or intelligence; it is impossible,
occurred to none of them that their hearers when the Lord for our sake became man, that His
could be brought to imagine thereby that Christ hody shoul<l ha~e lacked intelligence; in the
was lacking in a genuine human mind and soul. Word HimseU salvation was effected not of the
Athanasius expressly comments on this scriptural body only, but also of the soul" (1om. ad Ant. 7}.
n o A POl..T.fNI\JUS : DrVUffi ITUW.P'TION 22<

As he observed again in his actual reply to Corinth, body, uncreatcd God ma.niiested throngb a created
i1 the Incarnation were a technical fiction-a envelope (de 1tt1io1te 6); " God the Word's single
thing imputed, a mere lcdgcrtran!;aclion-otLr personality (physis] incarnate, and worshipped
salvation would be equally unreal ; but this is together with His flesh in a single worship "
not the case ; the Saviour became man in fact (ad ]ov. x). There are no two Sons : "He that
and truth, and tbc salvation o( the whole man was was born of the Virgin l'iiary is tlle Son of God
thus effected; our salvation is no myth, and and true God by nature, not by grace and com-
extends not to the body only; the whole man, munication " (ib. 2).
body and soul, received salvation in the Woni Yet in saying this Apollinaris was certainly no
Himself (ad E-ficl. 7). :Uonophysite. In fact, he revives an old simile,
We know defirutely that Apollinaris approved that had been introduced by Origen to illustrate
of the letter which contained this last statement. the closeness of the union of the two natures in
Therefore it must be concluded that at least down Christ, and employs it rather to emphasise their
to that date his own special theory eitl1er had not permanent distinction. Origcn had J1kened the
yet been formulated to himself, or was not in- human solli of Christ to a lump of iron and His
tended to deny what Athanasius affirmed. Wl1at godhead to fire. The objective divine tire had come
then exactly did he hjmsel say about Christ? t o rest in that soul, which, being kindled by cease-
In the first place, be insisted 1nost strongly that less contact witll the fire, had been penetrated
Christ was one person and not two. Any theory and changed into tire it.self, just as, said Origcn,
which suggested that tlle historical f'\g11re of you '"ill fino has haJ)pened to an incandesc~n t
the Redeemer was that of a good man only united lu.mp of iron if you a.re rash enollgh to touch it
to the divine Son through being the .recipient of (de p1i11c. z. 6. 6). Apollinn.ris adopts t his illus
divine grace anrl the subjecl of divine inspiration. tration, bot alters t.hc application. It is true that
he repudia.ted. '.the prophets were also good the fire peJJet.atcS the iron a.nd makes it act Like
men, and had been made the vehicles of revelation ftre, but still, he explains, the iron retains its own
by divine operation; but they had not redeemed character too. So with the body of Christ;
tlle world, nor could any inspired human being though it renders divine activities for those who
save mankind from sin. To do that, the Saviour are able to touch it-the reference is presumably
must Him~clf be both man and God; He was, in to ilie miracles of tactual healing recorded in the
fact. " invisible God transti.g\lroo with a visible Gospels-yet its own characler is not changed.
Just as man possesses soul and body in unity, so, justification. When the Gregories alleged this
and far more so, does Christ possess deity together error, they were quite certainly not quoting the
with His body and retains the two permanent and words of A.pollinaris, but introducing their own
uncon(used (!rag. 128 & 129). Apollinaris alters interpretations of what he had said ; and in
the whole point of the illustration, so that from making thelr inferences they had been completely
his time it becomes a theological commorlplace misled. Dr. Raven, indeed, is. ready to allow
in n~futation of Monophysitism. Later writers t hat Apollinads may have asserted a" potentiality
use it l;>oth in the original form, quoting the iron o incarnation " as an eternal characteristic of the
as an example of something th at both cuts of it~ natu re of God the Son (op. cit . p . 2r5). Since God
own nature and burns from its incandescence; became incamate, the potentiality can oever
and in sru1dry variations, of whicl1 the most have been abseot; but, speaking for myseli, I
interesting is the citation from Genesis of the Bush cannot see the fain test evidence that Apollina ris
that Moses saw, which burned with fire and yet laid any special stress on it, nor tha.t such emphasis
was not consumed. Always it is employed to created the misunderstanding into which his
show that Christ's human nature was distinct critics fell. Tbc truth seems to be simply that
and real; in that sense the incandescent iron is certain or his disciples developed doctrines o( the
actually quoted by Theodoret, the last champion kind which the Gregories condemned ; that Apol-
of Antiochcne theology (Eran. 2, p. n6), and the linaris explicitly and repeatedly repudiated them;
Burning Bush by no less a pe.rson than Nestorius that the Gregories nevertheless cotwinccd them-
(BttZIIIIi' P.P :228, 229, 234-Sl selves that those doctrines were derived from
Nevertheless, both Gregory of Nazianzus a nd A pollinaris; that they t houg,!lt they bad d iscovered
Gregory of Nyssa ftatly assert that Apolli!laris them lurking in his doctrine of the Heavenly
attributed to t he Saviour a pre-existent humanity, Man (wltich was not, however, his, but St. Paul's):
which belonged to H is divine nature and was and that they then dragged triumphantly into the
brought down with Him from heaven at the incarna- light of day heresies which they themselves alone
tion (references in Lietzmann's text of Apollinaris, had planted in the pages of their victim.
under fragments 1.65, and 32, 53). Attempts What Apollinaris says about the Heavenly
have been made to substantiate or re-interpret Man is quite normal and orthodox. Go<l and
this accusation, but, as Dr. Raven rightly claims manhood had been united. Therefore inasmuch
(Apollinariamsm pp. r85 ff., 21:2 ff.). without as God had become incarnate the two elements
zo 4 ArOI.J.INATilS: DIYJ~r:: UUUJPT!ON ns
together are properly called man; and inasmuch and the 111an from heaven. They arc expressly
as the manhood bad been rleified the two elements quoted in justification of the practice of applying
together are also properly calle<.l God (jrag. I47 the name either of God or of man indiflcn;ntly
puts this point with the utmost clarity). ibis to the united natures of the Saviour. "The body
inte.rchauge of names is discussed in the de tmione. has come to share the name of the uncrcated and
There are, says Apollinaris. two sides to the In- the title of God" (de tin. 2). " When He is called
carnation, a human birth and a lleavenly descent; servant in respect of the body, let no one deny
and it thctclore has to be admitted that " the Lord, His nature as Lord; . . . and again, when He is
even in re.~pect of the body, was a holy offspring proclaimed as the heavenly .Man come down from
from the outset "; the body was holy because heaven, let no one deny the conjunction of the body
it was always God's body (de 1m. r). Both the from earth with the godhead" (ill. 4). There
Gregories quote the words " from the outset ", could not be plainer evidence that the question
and both take them to n1ean " from the beginning involved in the interchange of names is purely
of all things". But they are clearly wrong. one of words and titles. Cnrist is called the
Apollinaris obviously means that Mary's offspring heavenly Man because He came from heaven in
was holy in respect of His manhood, no less than order to become man. The Son of Man is said to
in respect o His deity, from the instant of His have ~le.<;cended because in the act of becoming
conception in the womb ; the whole context i~ Son of )fan Christ did descend. There is not a
decisive that this is the Jight sense. But with this hint of a\lY ptc-exi~>iins heavenly manhood im-
first misinterpretation lirmly plan ted, the Gregories plicit in the divine nature of God the Son. On.the
proceed to instal a second. According to Apol- contrary, t he convel'Se o.f.. the heavenly descent is
linat:is, they say, Christ was endued with hnma.n stated later in the treatise (ib. r4), where Apo]-
natu~e before He came down from heaven. linari~ notes that Christ H.imseJf is affirmed in the
What Apollinaris actually stated was something Bible to have been exalted at the Ascension
quite different. Among other passages of Scrip (Phil. ii. 9}, though in fact it was His manhood
ture to whlcll la~ refers are the statement of St. only which was capable of any exaltation. He
john (ill. 13) that no one .had ascended into no more means lo assert that the manhood came
heaven except the Son of :\'fan who came clown down from heaven at the incarnation than he docs
from l1eaven, and the argument of St. Paul that the deity was exalted at the Ascension. And
(I Cor. xv. 45 ff.) that Christ is the Second Adam in the first letter to Dionysius he argues ovt the

whole matter at length, utterly repudiating what ship between two Sons, God and a man, inside
his critics had imputed to him, and stoutly re- the single personality of the Saviour. He was
affirming his own position. " 1'he holy Scripture$ convinced that Christ was one and not two, and
teach us to conceive as belonging to one Lord both be could not see how two separate minds and wills
tbe descent {rom heaven and the birth on earth " and principles of action could co-exist in a single
(ad' DiMys. r. 5). "Since tbe custom of Scripture living being. Nor did he discern any necessity
is both to regard the whole as God and to regard why they should. His idea of human nature was
the whole as man, let us too follow the divine that of a material and sentient body directed and
pl1rases and not divide the indivisible (ib. r o). controlled by an immaterial and rational con-
His heresy did nellie in tJ1is quarter, but in the sciousness. So long as Christ assumed the sentient
single afiirmation that the divine spirit of God the body and provided a. controlling consciousness,
Son was substituted in the Redeemer for a human although that consciousness was wholly divine, he
mind. When Apollinaris said that God took thought that aU the essential condit ions of a human
flesh, or, as he very often expressed it, God took a existence l1ad been fulfilled. So he writes (frag.
body, he meant exactly what he said and no more. I 07) : "'11le .flesh is not self-determined. lt is
St. John, he points out, stated that the Word wholly subject to an el\.'ternal principle which
became flesh, bot he did not add " and soul ", determines and governs it, of whatever sort that
because the divine activity occupies in the Saviour may be. Nor is it by itself a complete organism
the place of the soul and human mind (frag. e). (i .e. actual and concrete living being], but has to be
" Christ, together with soul and body, has God !or compounded so as to become a complete organism.
spirit, that is to say, miud " (/mg. 25). " Christ It came together into upion with the ruling
is not a man, but like man, because He is not principle and was compounded with the heavenly
of one substa.nce with mankind in respect to the ruling prioci.pk Tt was appropriated to that in
highest directing principle of His existence" respect of its own passible .faculty, and received
(!rag. 45); " 1.he directing principle in the con- the divine principle, which was appropriated to
stitution oi the God-man is divine spirit" (frag . tne flesh in respect of the active faculty. Hence
32). a single organism is formed out of that which is
Two broad reasons seem to have led Apollinaris determined and that which determines it." ln
to this e."traordinary conclusion. The first was other words, body without soul is an abstraction
his opposition to the notion of a working partner- which cannot Cl(ist; when a soul is united to it,

the two together compose a single living being, moral. ApoUinaris regarded the human mind as
in which the soul directs and the body is directed. fatally (;(lfl\lpted through subservience to the
In the Redeemer, the part played in other men by flesh, and therefore incapable of acting as the
the soul was played by tl1c divine spirit, and no instrument of human redemption. A new type
other directing principle was needed. Indeed, of mind, incapable of such subservience, had
there was no room for any other. " Two principles therefore to be grafted into the stock of human
of mind and volition cannot reside coincidently, or fiesh in order to redeem mankind. The soul's
the one will contend against the other '' (frag. development, he says (frag. 134), from the moment
2). The idea of two minds in Christ, one divine of its origin is bound up with tbc progress of the
and one human, is absurd ; " there cannot co- body to which it is attached; ' apparently he
ex1st two minds with opposing wills in one and the l I cannot but think Dr Raven's conclusion (A#Jiinari-
same subject" (/rag. 150). Assume that man is a..ism p. 172), lbal Olis statement implies traducianism, is
founded oo a n1iscon~ption o( lhe meaning of 'sympbyia ',
composed of three elements, and that the Lord too
rn the present pns.~age it is slaiN! rhat U1e normal human
is man : then He also will be composed of the soul is united by ' S)'luphyia' with the body, but that in !be
same three elements; but remember that He is Saviour the divine spirit was not thus ympllycs' with
the body. Injrv.g. 155 it is stattod, on the contrary, that U1~
the heavenly Man and life-giving spirit (/rag. 89) . holy flesh was symphyes' with the deity. In the latt.er
Hence the elements that compose Him are not caM the question ol traducianism obviously does not arise.
all exactly equivalent tc> those which compose us The literal sense, 'bom together' or 'growing toget h~r ',
must be accepted, without any i.n{CJW~CCJ! o.s to whence or why
earthy men; the spiril that He possesses is not soul and body begin their mutually involved r..are<Jr. Ftng.
just like our earthy spirits (frag. go). If He 134 says th;ct the divin<J ~pirtt in Christ did not begin or ilo-
possessed a spirit equivt\.lcnt to ours, in addition vel<,>p its .existence tlrough its nnion wit h the ficsJ; frttg. rss
says that the flesh diil begin nnil develop it existence in
to H is own divino spirit, that would give H im a union with the deity, i.e., the deity w"s tho mould on which
!QIJ.rtlt constituent, and He wm~ld be. ;, not a man, t he fiesh was formed. just as in an eledrolytir. bath the silver
but a man-god" (frag . 91)-a sort of monster. is deposited on the surface o( tllo o.lr{'n<iy formed vessel which
is being plated. T llis explanation fits in axaolly wit.h .-\pol~
Apollinaris clearly denied the human mind of lin~ris's gener<~ol view 0f the nuaptation of tho fle.<hly envelope
Christ primarily because he could not find a place to the embodied deity. There would appear, tbon, to be
in his psychological scheme into which he could one secondary implication inv<llved in the word ' ~ymphyia '
-that the relation Is one of dependence, and that soul ~nd
fit it. Psychology, in ancient times at least, was botly are nol only growo togtther but muturuly conditioned
ever the parent of heresy. in their growth; this impliC~Ltion is elear in the applicatiotl
His second principal reason for his heresy was made in ]rag. :t55 ' Symphyin ' is similarly used of the
230 APOLT.INARlS: OlVf~B l R1HJ1'T[QN ~3'

means that the soul's moral development is actually "The Word became flesh without assuming a
conditioned by subjection to its physical envelope; human mind; a human mind is subject to change
but in Christ "God is not conditioned in develop- and is the cap l-ive o( filthy imaginations; but }[e
ment by the body" (ib.), because, of course, He was a divine mind, changeless and heavenly"
brought into union with it a consciousness already (ep. ad Diocaes. 2, written about 375 when Apol-
fully developed and " oot subject to mutation " . linaris was on the poinl of a ruplure with the
The incarnate consciousness of God the Son is Church). "Every man is a part of the world, and
thus clearly conceived as wholly unconditioned no part of the world takes away the sin of the
by the terms of His incarnation : He takes His world, under which the world itseli lies ; but
physical envelope and orders its progTess under Christ does take it away, therefore Christ is not a
the complete control of the indwelling deity, man " (a1UI.cc-ph. 2). " God incarnate in human
by this means securing its entire conformity to iiesh retains His own activity pure; He is a mind
God and producing a human being- if we could unvanqu:ished by sensible and physical passions,
agree with Apollinaris that the result was in any and governs U1e flesh and il~ physical impulses
true sense a human being-both free from sin and Godwise and without sin " (fill. sec. pari. 30) .
capable of acting as the vehicle of redeeming grace Apollinaris, it might be said, is so keen to make
to mankind. Union with a human mind could certain of the redeeming activity of God that
not have brought about this blessed consequence. he will not give the flesh a chance to fLnd redemp-
tion under a soul o( its own; the deity has got the
in lerrclatiOil of th~ Redecrn<\r'$ twQ natures in Greg. Nyss. flesh in Chancery and means to keep it there.
c. EIII!Oil<, 3 3 66 (Migno 45 705C). And oecause the flesh is given 110 chance, and the
NQr can r a(;cept lk Raven's a priori ~rg\Jrnent (op. c-it.
p. I7<) that Apollinaiis always held an essentially trichoto- soul is left out of t.he business altogether. this
mi:lti<: theory "I human ndurc. I think his normal view is theory denies the Gospel and t he Church was right
d~fin.itcly dichOlomistic, ami am not swc that the trichotomy to condemn it. Consider what redemption h>ts
of some of the fragments was not either merely assumed
for the purpos.~ of a.rgumcnt with tricl1otomi~tic r.riticisms
come to mean if the theories of Apollinaris are
made against Wm, or, at any rate, mcely forced upon him stated baldly. Of the two parts of human nature.
in the course of controven~y. The ' nous ' of Jul. sec. pari. the sentient flesh and the directing soul, the
30 seeiJ\s equivalent to the ' psyche' of <Ia r111ione r2, and both
alike appear to mean ' ratioMl personal consciousness' in
former is treated like an automaton. In the person
contrast with the sentient 11"-"h; and a human ' psyche in of the Redeemer, the flesh is incapable of making
Christ is denied de unioM u, J.u<ljF<rg. 2. either any response to divine leading, or any
resistance to temptation; it is forcibly saved this possession be gained? Apparently, through
under the iron band of the divine spirit, as a back- " the holy flesh, which was conditioned in its
ward and uncultured people might be forcibly growth by the deity, and causes deity to be im-
civilised by a foreign dictatorship of totalitarian planted io those who partake of it " . And again,
ruthlessness and all-embracing scope. In the "His flesh quickens us through the deity embodied
persons of those whom Christ carne to save, who in it . . . it saves us, and we are saved by partaking
know the reality of tbe moral struggle and the of it as of food" (/rag. rr6) . l::!ere are plain
power of temptation. how can the saving strength statements of the scb<:me of salvation which is in
we need be imparted t o us by a Sa.viour who fact required by Apollinaris's whole doctrine of the
not only ls sinless-that in any case He must be- Saviour: it could have been deduced logicaJiy
but never was even really tempted, and therefore from hi~ theory of the person Qf Christ, but we can
never really conquered sin on the stricken battle- feel much more confidence and satisfaction in
field of tbe human heart? We are not super- having it declared expressly in his own words.
soulless Trilbies, and we cannot be saved through Our souls then are conditioned by the flesh in
the hypnotic efforts even of the most powerful which they are embedded. In a state of nature
and beneficent divine Svengali-for that is what they develop sinfully, because the flesh is corrupt.
Apollinarianism amounts to; it had no Gospel In a state of grace they can be restored, still
whereby man can hope to rise to the heights of through the flesh to which they are subject,
those capacities which God designed human nature beca\tse. the Jlesh of man is restored when the
to sustain. power of Christ's :flesh is implanted in it. .1\pol-
Turn to the other itern in the partnership, the linaris has left no scope for direct action of tbc
IlUma.n soul. Apollinw!s allowed that our souls Saviour on the souts of men; the only link between
are liable to sin; that is one reason why the the divine spirit of the Saviour and the spirits of
Saviour, in his view, could not employ a human mankind is a redeemed flesh. What an extra-
soul as an instrument of redemption. How then ordinary theory this is I And what an amazing
are those souls to be saved? Christ, he says reversal it demands of the proper relations between
(jrag . 155), is both a heavenly :Mind a.n d holy soul and body. No longer does the soul act as
Flesh , that we can partake of the former is implied the directing principle, the seLf-determining factor,
in the apostolic claim to " possess the mind of the helmsman of the complex human personality.
Christ " (! Cor. ii. 16). By what means then can Instead it is condemned to be tied like Ulysses
to the mast, while the vigorous impulses of :re- in sorest need of redemption (ib. n). Gregory
newed and redirected physical senses, closed of Nyssa, dealing with a theory similar to that of
to the song of tbe Sirens by the application of Apollinaris, evokes an image not from Genesis
divine wax, carry it over the waves of this trouble- but from St. Luke. The Good Shepherd came to
some world into the harbour of eternal life. seek and to save that which was lost, and carried
Salvation is only to be won when the human soul home on His shoulders not the fleece only, but the
is stto.k in quiescent passivity. What a perfect entire sheep! (c. E1mom. :z {Vl.llgo). I75. Migne
travesty this makes alike of human life and of 45 545C) .
divine salvation ! We have to no te that this scathing sarcasm was
There can be no true salvation of human beings directed not against Apollinaris but against E1mo-
from within, through the regener-ation of their mius, the latest exponent of a fully developed
own na tore, when the Saviour Himself has no Arian system. It is a strange 1act that Apol-
genuine human experience. If the power of Christ's linaris proclaimed a theory already maintained
life is to be tbe means pf re-creating our lives, by by the Arians and apparently put out in the
implanting in our impaired and shattered human first instance by Arius himself. Not much notice
nature the virtue of a perfect and integrated had been taken of it. The battle with Arianism
humanity, then that life of His must be fully had been {ought on the question whether the
human. We moral cripples cannot be made whole Saviour were truly God; if H e were not that, it
through a cripple more absolute than ourselves. made little odds that an abbreviated deity should
The two Gregories were entirely right on that point. be united to a truncated hwnanity. It seems
The elder, of Naziamms, with clear insight and absolutely beyond belief th.a t Apollinaris, rnagni-
splendid rhetoric put the matter into three Creek Jicent ad11ocate as he was of the Nicene doctrine
words : " not assumed means not healed " ; a of God, should have borrowed his Christology
half-human Saviour is only useful for a bali- from Arius. The overwhelming probability is
faUcn Adam (ep. ror. 7). Indeed, the mind of that he developed it independently. Taken in
man needed redemption even more than his body, their contexts, the Arian and .A.pollinarian Chris-
lor it was the mind which first consented to tempta- tologies e.:<hibit entirely different aims. Arius,
tion and fell: Adam's mind received the command- conceiving God the Son as a created spirit, a sort
ment of God and broke it, the mind therefore it of cosmic demigod, could well regard Him as but
was which transgressed, and consequently stood little removed in character from a finite human
soul. To unite such a spirit to a human body Redeemer's action and lhe degree to which His
involved little intellectual strain. His purpose true glory could actually be revealed through
lt1 so doing is alleged to have lleen ~hat, by at-ttibnt- tbe incarnate life; in other words, Christ bad to
ing all Christ's bwnan utterances to the semi- look like a human being and for the most part
divine spirit, he might emphasise his own belief confine Himself to means such as ordinary men
in the finite character of God the Son. The object might be expected to have at tbcir command.
o! Apollinaris was quite other. He was entirely Tbe limitation does not .imply that He became
convinced that Christ is true God, in the same really human, by subjecting Himself to real
sense that th e Fathe> is God. In his Christotogy human coru:litions and acquiring a real human
he was trying to express the kind of man that God constitution. Thus while Arius denied Him a
would be il God became man. He insists that soul in order t{) fasten a creatmely nature upon
manhood means, essentially, the union of dir<X:ling Him, Apollinaris denied Him a soul in order to
consciousness with a physical envelope and instru- avoid any possibility of making Uim a creature.
ment. He was clear enough about the necessity It is a queer paradox that two such devious courses
that the sentient body sh0uld be conditioned in should have cmssed at this one point on their
its progress by the mind with which it is united. respective routes.
What he failed to apprehend is the converse truth, Nor should Apollinaris himself be judged too
that a genuinely human consciousness, even in the harshly, although both his heretical theory and
Redeemer, must itself be in some sense conditioned b,is schismatical action have to be condemned.
by the physical vehicle with which it is associated. He was pushed into error in attempting to contend,
Human experience arises from the interaction as a pione,er of thought, with difficulties t hat were
of a Illind, thus limjted. witb physical organs of experienced, only too acutely, in both the main
sense and perception. Apollinaris admitted that schools of orthodoxy in his ow11 generation. At
the divine spirit, in becoming incarnate, under- Alexandria, Athanasius bad been trying to explain
went son1e limitation ; but he refused to allow the fact of our Lord's ignorance, plainly recorded
that it became in any way conditioned by the in the Gospels. He drew a finn theoretical
flesh; the procc~s of self-limitation resulted not distinction between two spheres of consciousness
in a man. but only io t he Son of Man Ura.g. 124). in Christ; what Christ dld not know as man, He
The inference to be drawn is that the limitation most assuredly knew as ~d. But Athanasius
in his view, extended only to the scope of tbe' also held tenaciously, and rightly, to the conviction
238 Al'OLJ.IN'ARIS ; DIVrN"E lJUtuPTTON ":!9
that, in everything which Christ either said or did of substaoce between our flesh and Christ's flesh.
on earth, He was not to be regarded as a merely Bt1t unfortunately Diodore's invaluable insistence
human actor, but as Cod i.ocarnate. He will not on the full mental and moral integrity of the
allow that Christ spoke sometimes in a purely Saviour was combined with a fatal inability,
human, sometimes in a purely divine capacity, as which Athanasius did not share, to think of Him
if His principles of action alternated; Christ was as a single person ; his tendency towards the
both God and man, and His deeds on earth were erection of J esus and Christ into a business partner-
both divine and human at the same time (ad Serap. ship illustrates the recurring difficulty of the
4 q, quoted in note appended to Lecture VII). extreme school of Antiochcne Christology. It is
Yet, although Atbanasius was clear about his true that the Council of Chalcedon in 4SI and
fundamental convictions, he did not develop any Pope Leo the Great settled the controversy
far-reaching application of them; and in practice, with a two-nature doctrine. But certain other
he was so thoroughly preoccupied with the thought t hings are also true about that Council and Pope.
of God in Christ reconciling the world to Himself Their success was only negative; they defined
that he retained little interest in Christ as a dl$- what was false but provided no positive and con-
tinctive human being, and disregarded the import- vincing rationalisation of the right faith. Their
ance of His human consciousness. definition was hailed by .Nestorius, whom they
At Antioch, on t he other hand, Dlotlore was condemned, as the triumph of his own belief.
already grea~ing tl1e slipway down which Nes- And they al ienated the loyalty of one half of
torianism was to be launched in the next century. eastern Christendom, which continued to cling
Eustace had pointed the way towards ti1e Chris- with pathetic, if not very clear-sighted convlcdon
tology of the two Natures, by claiming that t o the effort to express the doctrine of Christ's
Christ's soul was of the same stuff as the souls Person in terms of unity instead ()f multiplicity.
of all mankind, and His body was of the same stuff The problem o{ the Trinity had been solved as soon
as their bodies, just as Fiis deity was of the same as theolof,rians ceased to concentrate on the many
stuff as God's (ap. Thdt. Eran. 1 , p . 56); and and gave their attention to tbe one. The problem
Diodore followed exprt.'ssly in his tracks (on of Cluistology was not more likely to be brought to
psalm lx.x. 23). This line of thought was quite a satisfactory solution until theologians adopted
in keeping with the principles of Athanasius, the same method in treating of it as they had in
and Apollinaris repeated the expression of unity treating of the Trinity.

It is the supreme merit of Apollinaris thal he able to read books; and Diodore, his next-door
plotted the right course by irtsisting on the neighbour, was utterly committed to the explora-
unity of Christ's Person. In doing this, he was tion of the two Natures in an aggravated and
cutting across the Jines into which the whole antithetical abstraction. Theology, like other
thought of bis day was falling. The tendency branches of human activity, has its tragedies, of
everywhere was to fix attention on the deity of which the story of Apollinaris affords a singularly
Christ and His humanity separately, and perhaps poignant instance.
it was necessary that this should be done before For, in the main, Apollinaris was magnificently
a properly synthetic view was possible. If so, right. jesus Christ was God and was doing God's
the effect of Chalcedon, with its negative treatment work; and the fact that He did it is more important
of the subject, was to postpone indefrnitely the than the question how. The Incarnation was
full attainment of an established synthesis. But more than a revelation of God, more than a revela-
if it be true that Apollinaris made his effort out tion of the perfection of man; it was a new
of due season, before the times were ripe for success, creative act of God, which set the final crown
his UJltimeliness may well have been one of the on the long series of events by which His purpose
chief causes of his falling into heresy. It is for the world had been expressed in human history.
hazardous, in our present state of knowledge, To put the matter in a different form, divine !evela-
and may very probably never prove practicable, tion had always had for its object not so much the
to assign definite chronological order and dat ing disclos.ure of a vision as the achievement of a
to his surviving works. Eut it certainly is the practical effect ; in Christ tbe effect was to unite
case that much of what he says about Chrlstojogy God and man in one person, and thereby to
is not incompatible with an orthodox explanation. :initiate a new spiritual series or redeemed men .
If it were possible to ideo tify such statements Apollinaris devoted his Ufe and even sacrificed
with his earlier writings, it might not be too much his orthodoxy to the effort of defending this central
to assert that a sympathetic and understanding and vital truth of the Gospel. He was no pagan-
coUaboration with other theologians of his own hearted logician, no speculator in intellectual
intellectual calibre could have saved him from $tacks and shares, no llierophant of mystical
heresy and contributed vastly to the welfare of obstinacy. He expounded with clearer penetration
theology. But Athanasius was drawing near to than any one before him tbe precise form of doctrine
death; Basil was too great an ecclesiastic to be necessary in his day, and indeed for all time, to
24-2 AI'OL.LINARIS ~ DNINE llutUP'f!ON 243
seL forth the true and absolute deity of God the or ' irrupted ' wilh acts which appear to intrude on
Son; and be first saw the greatness of the need a prevailing sequence, only because they sjgnify
for such a doctrine of Christ's incarnation as should the start of a new sequence. Thus the emergence
proclaim the truth of that deity in the sphere of in nature of sentient life, embodied in material
Christ's redemptive work and under the human vehicles, is an obvious point of departure, which
fonn of His humiliation. Apollinaris in sober can only be observed by science, but cannot be
fact conferred Jar greater advantages on theology explained by any quality inherent in the older
by his splendid orthodoxy than he caused damage and lower material sequence. The emergence of
by his tragic heresy. morally and rationally sell-determining creatures
It has been pointed out more than once that the marks another stage of progress, another new level
nearest that the pagan Greeks ever came to a of creation. The higher level is superimposed
theory of divine purpose for the world was when on the old, and the events that J1appen on this
the Stoics conceived of recurrent cycles of progress, higher level convey a fuller disclosure of the
" a Plan run off over and over again, like an ultimate purpose of God.
eternally repeated gramophone record " (Bevan, On just the same principle the great over-ruling
Later Greek RcUgion p. xxxvii). This di;;mal acts of providence in human history, which tbe
prospect was destroyed by Christianity. " Chris- prophets recognised as constituting special and
tian Theology cons tructed a synthesis which for distinctive signs of divine activity, possessing a
tbe first time attempted to give a definite mean- unique character and mea.ning, betoken the intro-
ing to the whole course of human events " (Bury, duction of a higher strain into the pedigree of
quoted by Cree~. The Divi1:ity of f cSfi.S Christ events; the fuJness of tl1e times being come, God
p. ro6). The meaning of revelation, from Abrii,.- crosses the old series of events with fresh a,pplica-
ham to St. Jolm the Divine, is God's disclosure of tions of creative method, so causing a sudden
flis miod through the medium of historical and defmite and vertical Jvmp iu the spiritual
events, and the prophets' most characteristic quality of the product. The stream of history
function is simply to recognise the character and continues as before, but within it can be descried
to interpret the significance of those events to new forces at work, God approaching His creation
God's people. The operation of God's laws under- in a fresh manner and revealing Himself to man-
lies all nature and all history, but at certain points kind by unprecedented means-not contradicting
bolh in nature and in history He has ' intervened ' nor discontinuing but transcending the former

ways of working. It is as futile to ask why God or deported fwm the active government of His
did not reveal Himself hdly and finally from the world. Their value lies in the true sense which
outset of the creation, as it ts to enquire why He t hey convey of the expansion of divine action by a
did not anticipate the conclusion of the whole fresh method, testifying to a profounrler revelation
course of evolution and create a ready-made and a more powerful iuuption. They serve to
universe. The only answer is that H,e did neither. distinguish the unique cha1acter of the deeds
The creation of the physical universe proceeds by that God did when, for instance, He called Abra-
way of an age-long evolutionary process, the even ham from his kindred to become a pilgrim, or
flow of which is marked at intervals by the oc- rescued the tribes of Israel out of Egypland forged
currence of insunnountable and unpredictable them into a nation, or purged His elect people
discontinuities, where the level rises abruptly through the agency of Assyrian and Babylonian
as the divine action is lifted to a higher, more oppressors, or utilised a restored worship after the
specialised, and more selective pl'<l.ne of operation. Exile to instil new spiritual ideals. God was moving
Just so on the 11istorical, tbat is to say, on the towards an ever closer contact with His world
moral and spiritual levels of the scale, events at and with mankind.
certain points suddenly take a sharp, unforeseen Wnen God the Son became man, the contact
turn and acquire an unexpectedly deeper meaning, was completed. Christ was both maker of the
to be accounted for only by the comin~ into play world and part of it. He was both in the world
of new forces. Where God mines, the riches of and beyond it. " 'Wberea~ an Isaial1 stands
each vein are inexhaustible, but that does not himself as penitent with the sinful nal:ion over
preclude Him from opening up fresh veins of even against the holiness of the ;Lord of Hosts, Jesus
more precious metal. Christ is fou11d to stand on t1'1e other side of the
The point at whicll God breaks fresh ground chasm-or rathet . stranger still, He is bn both sides
and lilts His action to a higher plane, is variously at once: 'the friend of publicans and sinners',
described. It is sometimes said to mark the dis- yet also ' the holy one of God ' " (Creed, Tlt.e
tinction between natural and revealed religion. Divit1ity of]estts Christ, p. I39) He revealed the
Sometimes it is called the irruption of God into the Creator through the perfection of the creature,
stream of history. Either description is liable to once more lilting the plane of God's creative
misinterpretation, for He is always and everywhere action, so that it reached its highest and final
revealed in His works. and can never be rusticated level. He conBtituted Himself the primary unit
from which a new spiritual series of re-born
men should run. Those whom He had made had
sinned. He re-made human nature, not merely
in His own image but in His own person, so that
men should be regenerated by the precious power
of His divinely human life, and through being
made His members should become true sons of
God. It was an act as genuinely creative, and
as essentially divine, as the creation of the world.
" 0 fresh creation and divinely ineffable com-
mixture", cried Apollinaris (jrag. ro); "God and
flesh have fomted one personality". For so
profound a realisation of the stark evangelical LECTURE VI
truth, Christians can well afford to cast a veil
MAY 5TH, 1940
of charity even over the grave imperfection of
his witness to the Son of Man, through whom
to God the Father, with the Holy Ghost, be all
might, majesty, and dominion, now and for ever-
WHEN we turn from Apollinaris to Nestorius,
from whom this Lecture takes its title, we are
passing from a singularly Christian and religious
heretic, whose individual errors were discarded
within a short space of years by most of his
disciples, and whose positive contribution to
theology was of deep importance and widespread
influence, to the still more remarkable phenomenon
of a beresiarch who in the most explicit terms
repudiated the heresy of which he was accused;
of a teacher deposed for doctrinal innovations who
nevertheless had not added a single original
ptinciple to the common stock of ideas ; of a
party leader who believed that the views which
ultimately triumphed in the course of controversy
were identical with his own, but who, f01: all
t hat, was personally outcast and became the cause
of the most extensive schism originating in ancient
The truth underlying these paradoxes, which has
been re-discovered only in the last half-century
from age-long mists of misunderstanding and
misrepresentation, is that Nestorius was con-
denmed not for his convictions but from two quite
different causes. His fall was due, ftrst, to the
2; 9

unorthodox character of the inferences believed appointed canonically enough, but without
by others, though not by himself, to be inevitably imperial consultation; as a consequence he spent
involved in the theology o'f the extreme Antiochene most of his remaining years in exile, and was said
school of which he was the representative; by some to have been finally strangled by members
secondly, to resentment at the ecclesiastical of the rival party. The four successors to this
truculence embodied in b.is person and his see, unfortunate were all Arians, covering the period
the upstart bishopric of Constantinople. We from about 337 to 38o. Three of them were
shall return to the theological question later : men of great distinction, courtiers or men of the
the personal history of Nestorius is best world, ministers less of Cluist than of the Arianising
understood in relation to the story of the imperial policy, and unrelenting antagonists of
bishopric. Athanasius and all his mends. They were-
Constantinople had been built by Constantine Eusebius {late of Nicomedia, not the historian),
to be his imperial capilal, the New Rome as it Constantine's court chaplain and ecclesiastical
was frequently called, almost exactly a century adviser; Macedonius, wbose violence and arro-
before Nestorius came to occupy its ecclesiastical gance lost him the imperial favour of Constantius
throne. lts bishop at that stage wa.s not even a after eighteen troubled years, but earned him the
metropolitan, Jet alone a patriarch; be enjoyed leisure in his subsequent retirement to elaborate
no ecclesiastical j \lrisdiction over any part of the an Ori!,>inal heresy against the deity of God the
Church except his own small diocese, and was Holy Ghost; and Eudoxius, who co-operated
himself subject, technically at least. to the local enthusiastically with the Emperor Valens ill
metropolitan of the province of Thrace, It was persecuting Catholics and promoting the extremer
as if no Archbishop of Canterbury were in existence forms of Arian intellectualism. The fourth,
and the .Bishop of London were subject to the Demophilus, is chiefly noteworthy for having at
superintendence of some undistinguished pontiff one period acted as episcOJ)a.'J gaoler to the exiled
at Tilbury or Gravesend. Such a state of affairs Pope Liberius.
could hardly be expected to persist beyond the Neither the character and conduc;;l of such
lifetime of the existing occupant of the see, over persons, nor their Erastia.o compliance with civil
whose venerable head more than ninety years l1ad policy at the most desperate cost to evangelical
already rolled. On his demise, at the mature liberty, was calculated to commend the influence
age of ninety-eight, an orthodox successor was of their see to those who had to bear the burden


of the battle for tbe Gospel-least of all to the ruler of the Church in a period that demanded
mlnd of Alexandria. Alexandria had been the consolidation rather than leadership.
greatest see in eastern Christendom for generations The standing of the lwo sees is indicated by two
before New Rome was founded. and had been the contemporary events. The Emperor Theodosius
foremost champion in the whole world for the bad proclaimed in 380, as h.is official yardstick of
creed of Nicaea, contending for the Christian faith orthodoxy, the standards o! religion taught by
against a tide of troubles throughout the forty the Popes of Rome and of Alexandria: but at the
years for which Constantinople bad been per- Council a canon was passed by whlch the see of
secuting it. Accordingly, on the accession of the Constantinople was accorded a pre-eminence of
Catholic Emperor Theodosius the Great in 379, honour immediately after Old Rome, and before
when Basil's old friend Gregory of Nazianzus was all other sees in Christendom. J3olh incidents
brought to Constantinople to take provisional te:;tify to the logic of facts, though in a different
charge, pending the election of a Catholic to the ;vay. The jmperial decree gave recognition to the
see, care was taken to exchange pledges of friend- fact that the holders of the great sees o( Rome
shlp with Peter, the successor of Atbanasius in and Alexandria were the principal champions of
Egypt. Peter, however, viewed with alarm the ot:t}JOdox Christian faith; in an unstable and
astonishing rise of Gregory's influence, and !nixed perverse world they had proved themselves fo\lnda-
hlmself up with an e..xtraordina.ry plot tO intrude tion rocks of truth. The conciliar canon, passed
a candldate of his own into the bishopric of by the friends and disciples of the Cappadocian
Constantinople. The scheme failed as ignomi- t eachers, who formed the gl'ea.t majority of the
niously as it deserved. At ~he Council of Con- synod, and certainly not without the Emperor's
stantinople in 38I Gregory was solemnly installed approval, similarly recognised tbat, apart from all
as bishop. It could do no more than mitigate the questions of ancient history or of exisLing law, the
rebuff suffered by Alexaodria that he resigned a ecclesiastical importance o( the imperial capital
few weeks later, and was succeeded on the Em- was inevitable; the facto its past inflttence having
peror's nomination by Nectarlus, a respectable, been cast on the side o heresy with such success,
elderly, tolerant, theologically blameless, and at afforded all the greater hope that, under an ortho-
the moment still unba.ptiscd official of the civil dox Emperor, its future influence won ld be power-
governmenl. Like someothcrsof his type, in all ages nil for the Gospel. The Eastern bishops were for
of ecclesiastical history, he proved an aclmirable the most part blind to the dangers, both moral
and practical, which would follow too close a would decline any vocation that circumstances
dependence of tbe imperial Church on the imperial might bestow lo interfere wi lb Cotlstantinople for
government. Constantinople's good.
However, two limitations on the power of For a time relations between the great prelates
Constantinople have to be recorded. First, the continued in amicable co-operation, until another
primacy bestowed upon it was one of dignity alone, vacancy occurred in the Byzantine see. The
not of jurisdiction; it lad to wait another seventy Eastern Emperor at this time was Arcadius, anc.l
years before acquiring Ionnal rights even over the Alexandrian bishop Theophilus, an active and
closely neighbouring and practically dependent judicious administrator with a passion for church-
churches. Secondly, Old Rome, which had no building, who retained the respect o{ Synesius
Erastian leanings, firmly refused to recognise even but whose head was turned by power ; be became
this qualified access of ecclesiastical state in the an unscrupulous controversialist and an ambitious
rival capital. The Roman Popes themselves had and despotic intriguer. This person had a can-
always skilfully absorbed the advantages while didate of his own once more, wl10m he pressed
1ejecting the en1barrassments or their secular upon the government, but tbe government not
situation; their power had in fact been acquired merely made its own choice, but to the disgust of
mainly through residence in the civic headquarters Theophilus compelled llim personally to consecrate
of empire and civilisation, but they had always the accepted rival. The sequel is particularly
claimed to Test its exercise on \he more religious important for our purpose, because it presents a
g1ound that they represented the primatial close parallel to the case of Nestorius thirty years
authority of tbe apostolic martyrs, Peter and Paul. later. The choice had falle.n on the ascetic and
In the year 38I the Papacy was i11. no mood to eloquent preacher of Antiach, John ChTysostom,
accept the elevation of New Rome to patriarchal who had !or the last twelve years been holding
dignity for reasons o'f an admittedly political Syria spell- bound with his practical and biblical
character, nor in any mind to attribute to the exhortations. To part him from his Antiochenes
untried successors of Euscbius and Eudoxius a it was necessary forthc government to l~idnap him
discretion and independence such as il was and convey him under guard by forced stages for
accustomed to display in its owu dealings with eight hundred miles to Constantinople for his
secular authority. And with such a lead from its consecration, which took place early in 398. He
Western ally, it was unlikely that Alexandria soon became as much the idol of tbe populace on
the Bosphorus as he bad been on the Orontes. charger. John Chrysostom's enemies rightly
But his ardent righteousness was somewhat stiff considered )aim unbending, a man "without
with puritanical rigour and his zeal was not accom- knees " ; and as he would not bend he was ruth-
panied with tact. Instead of diffusing peace like lessly and tumultuously broken. After an epis-
his competent and politic predecessor, he stirred copate of sbc years, in some ways extraordinarily
up enmity among the ablest of his own clergy; fruitful, he was forced into a no less fruit111
and his efforts to refl.lrm his neighbours' churches banishment, and died or downright ill-usage three
-which, though fully precedentcd and indeed years later. AlCl.<a.ndria., which had signally failed
expected of every great prelate, had no strictly in its. attempts to control the appointment of
legal basis-showed him unconciliatory and prelates to the see of Constantinople, had shown its
exasperating. power by helphlg materially towards his deposition.
The crisis of his fate was precipitated by a A feeble stop-g-ap followed Clrrysostom on the
combination of two forces. A discord arose with episcopal throne for one year; on his death he was
Theoplillus, which the astute Alexandrian well in tum replaced by Atticus, one of the clergy of the
knew how to turn to his own profit and Chrysos- capital, a capable and vigorous man, not without
tom's disadvantage; and with amazing clumsiness virtues, who had been prominent among Chrysos-
Chrysostom went out of his way to give irre- tom's opponents and had a sensible head for
mediable offence to the all-powerful Empress. statesmanship. During his episcopate peace
This masterful lady had at :first been strongly reigned between the great Eastern sees, and order
attracted to Lhe archbishop; his denunciations of prevailed throughout tl1c Eastern Church:
the sins of society were piquant, and bht>lr asperity Antioch, wl)ere the endemic schism had been 6rst
was offset by a taste for religious pageantry. reduced to local proportions .and then at lasl
Unfortunately he would not admit any obligation extinguished, co-operated with Alexandria and
upon an archbishop to save royal faces as well as Constanth1oplc in the guidance and control of
to rebuke royal vices. In a public comment on Eastern Christendom. TheopJ1ilus of Alexandria
her luxury he referred to the Empress as Jezebel, died in 412; his nephew and successor, Cyril, after
and some time later, after a patched-up peace, be opening his episcopate with some local display of
delivered a furious sermon agaiTL~t l1er spirit-ual dictatorial violence, appeared to gather prudence
arrogance, in which she was described as a new with experience ; lle never concealed his belief
Herodias, dancing for John the Bapti:;t's head on a that Chrysostom's deposition had been justified,
s8 NESTORltJS: REDEEAllilJ H1JMA."\'1TV 259
but since lbal belief was shared by A tticus it Of the three great forces capable of bringtng
created no obstacle to their harmonious action. pressure to bear on the archbisbop of Constanti-
The moral of these twenty uneventful years is that, nople, namely the Court, the Pope of Alexandria.,
while prudent and orthodox bishops preside over and the Pope of Rome, the power of the Court was
great sees, not even their individual possession of subject to moral limitations, and a combination
great strength of character need bring them of the two Popes was able to produce a decisive
occasion either for interference oc for resentment result. In Chrysostom's case, the Court and
with one another, but saints and reformers ought Alexandria achieved a rather hard-f<mght victory
not- to be made archbislwps unless they are also against the righteous cause; ht t bat of Nestorius
men of sense and jud,gemeot. Rome and Alexandria toge~her prevailed over a
Wl1en Atticus died, in 426, considerable paro reluctant Court. The Church had once more
chial rivalries attended the choice of a new arch gained a real voice in the imperial capitaJ, and
bishop. At the end of the next year, when the raised it in creditable independence of its imperial
death o( his short-lived successor created another protector.
vacancy, the Emperor Theodosius II decided Nestorius was in some ways ru..taordinarily like,
once again to go outside the local clergy and to in others extremely unlike Chrysostom. He was
introduce another eloquent a.<;ectic from Antioch. a monk, as Chrysostom was until his health broke
So, in 428, Ncstorius was consecrated archbishop down. He had been born within the patriarchate
of Constantinople. His rule lasted for only three of Antioch and t rained under the influence of its
years, his subsequent exi]e for twenty; he was great teachers. He was a master of pulpit oratory,
accused not of tyranny and tr(~ason but of heresy; which he employed, like Chrysostom, to expound
in procuring his downfall the see of Alexandria the Scriptures to the people. He was de,out,
was acting in co-operation not with the royal earnest, able, and diligent. On th e other band,
family but with the see of Rome, which had he possesse<l a {ar deeper intellectual and specula
supported Cllfysostom ~ but in most other respects tive interest rn theology; his was not at all the
the precedents set thirty years before were ouly too type of mind to postpone truth of thought to truth
exacUy followed by the parties principally con- of conduct; and he ltad more than a touch of
cerned. It is interesting to observe that since the that brilliant diaJectical inquisitiveness which so
downfall of Arianism the rigid control exercised by intensely irritates the moralists and statesmen
the palace over Church affairs had been relaxed. against the intellectuals, the Bernards against the

Abelards. Even as a pr~acher he was argumen- started to demolish a private chapel in which the
tative; and it may fairly be said that he died local Arians conducted their worship; the ovmers
arguing. His strength lay in a critical logic; in desperation set it on fire, and a serious con-
his weakness was an almost total lack oi construc- flagration ensued. From that time the archbishop
tive imagination. Of the details of his life hardly was kno.,.,-n as " Firebrand " both in heretical
anything is known except for the three years quarters and an10ng his own followers. It was an
during which he swam through the searchlight oi omen of his future conduct. He Llarried with
controversy, and most of his numerous writings relentless energy every party or section that
were burnt. But by a romance of literary preser- maintained independent views, both within and
vation a S)'Tiac manuscript of his Jast, long work of without his own legal sphere of inBuence, and
seli-explanation and self-defence, "The Bazaar of raised up adversaries among the best of his own
Heracleidcs " , originally written in Greek and later clergy. At the end of the year, probably as part
translated, was re-discovered in Kurdistan at the of a campaign against lhe surviving followers of
enu oi last century; it has been identified as being Apollinaris, he undertook a sermon warfare against
unquestionably his, and has been re-translated into the use of the title Theolokos, or J.1other of God,
modern European languages. From this inter- for the Virgin .M.ary-a title authorised by two
minable but invaluable work we are able to learn hundred years of prescription and hallowed
l1is own version both oi his teaching and of his by popular devotion. Ordinary Cllurcbpeople
condemnation, and to gather details of his latest assumed, by an inference a.~ nanual as it was in
views on tl1e ecclesiastical history of his day. Iaci. mistaken, that he regarded the Redeemer as
Aiter his installation Nestorius lost no time in an inspired man, and meant to deny that He was
making known bi:;; general policy. He reg<w:ded truly God. Actually, Nestorius only meant that
himself as a new broom and intended to make an the godhead pre-existed before the Incarnation
uncompl-om1Slng sweep. On the day of his con- and was, in its own nature, u!laffected by that or
secration he publicly demanded from the Emperor any other event in lhe temporal sphere. One of
a free hand in suppressing here.~y. promising him his own clergy took up the challenge. 1'he
in return for such service to the Kingdom of heaven pulpits eclJoed to the fray. Cyril at Alexandria
the full aid of the spiritual arm in vanquishing the remonstrated; tl1e Roman Pope, to whom Nes-
Empire's temporal foes. His persecuting temper torius sent copies of his sermons, began to make
was manifested in practice within the week. He enquiries. Once more, it was only too evident,
Constantinople was disturbing the peaoe of Rome and were now refugees at Constantinople,
Christendom. should not be received into communion.
If Neslorius had been wise, which l1e was nut, As a matter o( tactics, these letters were a fatal
he might have rellected on the different attito.des mistake. They not only corroborated the evidenoe
assumed by Rome towards Chrysostom and of the sermons which Nestorius himself had sent
Apollinaris. Rome had supporLed Chrysostom, to Rome, from which lhe deduction was already
whose errors had been practical and had sprung being drawn that he really was heretical, but also
from rigorist zeal. But in dealing with Apollinaris showed a reprehensible te11deocy to question the
Rome had gone mren beyond the request r:01wcyecl doctrinal decisions of the Roman see in tl1c case
in l3a.sil 's letter of accusation, and condemned the of other heretics. The writer must have appeared
offender not for bis illegalities but for ltis false to the Pope, who knew and cared notlung about
doctrine. Rome never condoned anything that it the special sensibilities of _.o\ntiochene theologians,
believed to be heresy; having few po5ttiv~ theolo- to be both a meddling controversialist and a
gical gifts of its own it maintained a fai tbful general promoter of false opinions. A Roman
guardianship over other people's. Nestorius synod was lleld in August, 430, al which Nestorius's
should have done all be could to explain his own teaching was condemned, and he himself was
teaching, for which abundant aulhorily was ordered to retract wilhirt teo days or else to con-
available in the East, and have avoided furtller sider hlmself deposed and excommunicate. Cyril
paradoxes; unlike Chrysostorn, he had no enraged was commissioned to execute the sentence with
Empress on his track, and unless dc)(:trinal error tbe joint authority of Alexandria and Rome;
could be proved against Jum to the honest salts- Antioch and other important sees were invited
faction of the Pope, he was completely safe. .13ul to adhere to the same policy_ Nestorius, in fact,
he was clearly too much over-confident in his own had completely overreached himself; even before
position to regard Ute doctrinal charges brought the arrival of the news from Rome his friend John,
against himself as a serious menace. Instead, he the bishop of Antioch, advised him to recant.
wrote rather airy letters to Rome, presenting an l!eanwhiJe Cyril had issued a flood of ably
argumentative account of his own theological written pamphlets and letters on the theological
activities, and requesting to be told the reason why question, three of which were addressed to different
certain prominent Pelagian::;, who had been con- members of the royal family. Towards the end
demned as heretics ten or more years earlier at of the year he held a local council at Alexandria,
>6+ NE.'ITORIUS: REDEEMED truMA.."'flTY >65
and published twelve anathematisms upon con- The Emperor may possibly have suspected that
clusions which he deduced from Nestorius's the battle involved more misunderstanding than
teaching; Nestorius replied with counter-anatJlc- heresy; be could not fall to perceive the disastrous
matisms on Cyril NeYer have two theologians effects to be e.'tpected from disunion. So in
more completely misunderstood one another's conju1tction with his Western coTieague he adopted
meaning. They approached the subject r01:n the time-honoured imperial policy oi swnmoning
widely different angles, but in substance they were a general council, to meet at Ephesus in the summer
not wholly and irreconcilably opposed; tbe ot 431 and deal witi1 the dispute. Unlil the
trouble arose chiefiy because, instead of conferring council shotlld decide, the threatened excoJilmuni-
together on the purpose, meaning, and associations cation of Ncstorius by Rome wa:s necessarily held
oi their terms, ca.ch drew his own inferences, and in abeyance. When the time came, Nestorius
assumed that the other meant what be b:imseH arrived with ten supporters, and Cyril with ftfty i
mighl have intended to convey, had he himself the bishops from the patriarchate of Antioch were
employed similar language. Nestorius therefore more than a fortnight late. Tbe interval might
deduced that Cyril was an Apollinarian, and Cyril well have been spent in conferences between the
deduced that Nestorius was an Adoptionist. It principal parties. Jnstead of that, 1\le.mnon, tbe
is possible now to see how false was eacl1 of these local bishop, was induced to treat .Nestorius as
deductions. Bnt at the time, the whole school already excommunicate, dosing the churches
of Antioch rallied in self-defence behind the banner against him and his followers; Cyril bad not
of Nestotius, wilile the West, in lear ol another come to Ej?hesu$ to discuss differences but to
half-century of quasi-Arian controvetsy, with execut1~ t.he policy previously agreed upon l)etwee11
Constantinople once more acting as th e power- himself and the Western Pope. Conversations were
house of bere.~y. threw all its weight into the indeed held, but CynJ was not present. Two of his
support of Alexandria. Whatever else he had adherents entered into discussions witll Nestorius;
achieved, Nestorfns had certainly succeeded in Nestorius posed academic difficulties and delivered
dividing the hardly re-established unity of himseli of epigrammatic paradoxes, which only
Christendom. The division was no less real for made matters worse; for his questioners did not wait
the fact tbat its cause was a double intellectual to hear tl\e resolution of estorius's intellectual
delusion, fathered by autocratic impatience and quips, but accused him of uttering heresies and
mothered by ecclesiastical jealousy. lmrried off to report his obstiuacy to Cyril.
It was at one of th.e$e interviews that Nestorius ceed with lhe council. But CyTil's patience, never
made his famous observation denying the pro- abundant in the moment of action, was now
priety of saying that God was three months old. completely exhausted, and he committed a great
This remark has frequently been misquoted, as i wrong. l n spite of protests from the imperial
what Nestorius denied was that a child of three commissioner he opened the council al once,
months could be called God; it is thus misre- claimfng not the authority of the Emperor, who
ported even by his own contemporary and fell<lw- wanted a serious theological conference to be
resillent at Constantinople, the historian Socrates tulderlaken, but Utat o[ Rome anrl AJcxa:ndria., who
(h. e. 7- 34). But Nestorius certainly never s.o1.id intended to deJ)Ose an obstinate berelic. Nestorius
tbttt, and what he did say was perfectly capable refused to attend, and his deposition was decreed.
of an orthodox interpretation. He meant that Four days later jQlm of Antioch arrived, opened a
although Christ was God, it was only His hwnan council of his own, wluch was attended by the
embodiment, not HI$ divine being, which began imperial commissioner and the friends of Nesto1ius,
its existence in time and underwent the accidents alld in l1is turn decreed the deposition of Cyril
o( J1uman growth. But the conclusion was imme- and ~lemnon. lt was now the end of June. In
diately drawn that he assumed the Adoptionist July the Cyrilline council was augmented by
position, and that in his view Christ was only a the arrival of Roman legates, who confirmed the
good mao favoured with exceptional gifts of divine decisions that had been taken and announced the
(,'TRee. His accusers were quile sincere and were Pope's MSenl to the Condemnation of ~estorius;
honestly grieved at his supposed defection. The except for thal, however, even ls at EphestiS had
incident me.rely shows the folly o[ discha.rgi11g reached a deadlock, and the critical scene was
intellectualist wisecracks at opp011ents who ar<: shifted to Constantinople.
talking a different theolegical language. H e only Here both sides were exercising every influence
succeeded in convincing the other side of his of inhigue and obstruction. The Nestorians inter-
obduracy, and in confirming their determination cepted CJ1il's letters, but a message was carried
not to argue further but to come to judgement. through the blockade io a cane by a beggar-man.
After a fortnight Cyril received messages from CynJ mobilised tlle monks of the city, who demon-
John of Antioch. stating thal he hoped to reach strated in his favour; but the interest of the Court
l5phesus in five or six days, and that, ii he were inclined to iavou.r its OWll archbishop. Opinion
delayed longer than that lime, Cyril was to pro- swayed this way and that, but at last, in A'1gust, a
268 NES'l'OlHlJS: REDEEMED TIU!.iA..'HTY z6o)

new imperial commissioner arrived in Ephesus Nestorius himself was a Nestorian or to acquiesce
with instructions to treat both Cyril and Nestorius, in his personal condemnation, they finally had
and also bishop Memoon of Ephesus, as deposed, either to submit or to be deprived of their sees.
and all three were committed to gaol A fresh A number of them withdrew to regions outside
attempt to get the two parties into conference was ihe Empire, and from their 1.cal sprang the begin-
rejected by Cyril's friends: on the other hand, the njngs of a vast missionary movement that in the
Nestorian party began lo realise the necessity for course of centuries spread right across the conti-
some kind of conciliation, and Cyril wrote from nent of Asia, and though checked by the rise of
prison an e.'\."Planation of the purport of his twelve Islam was only extinguished in the appalling
anathematisros. In September the Emperor re- massacres of Jenghiz Khan in the early thirteenth,
ceived a delegation from each side al Chalcedon. and Tamerlane at lhe end of the fourteenth
The Nestorian party afterwards accused Cyril of oentury.
~aining his ends by wholesale violence and bribery Nestorius was kept at Antioch until his muse
- he certainly spent large sums in ' presents ' to had been hopelessly lost. 111en, in 436, presumably
palace officials at a later stage. At any rate, the because his continued presence wa.~ an embarrass-
outcome was that the Emperor dissolved the ment to the bishops who had been compelled to
council, sent Nestorius back to his monastery at desert him, he was sent to Upper Egypt, where be
Antioch, had a new bishop consecrated for Con- seems to have lived out his life in the monastic
stantinople, and dismissed Cyril to Alexandria, profession which he had accep ted before he was
where he arrived in triumph. T he obnoxious rnade bishop. He endur<)d the harO.~hips incidental
Nestm:ins hacl been eJimlnate<l. to the desert, was persecuted by the amous and
The whole of the next year was spcut in negotia- fanatical ab!Jot Schnoudi or Scnuti, was taken
tions for a general settlement, conducted between captive in a raid by nomadic tribesmen; he
the Emperor, Cyril, and the Orientals under J ohn survived to hear a fuU account oi the second, or
oJ Antioch. ln the end, the Orientals gave way " Brigand," Council of Ephesus in 449, at which
aU along the line. The teaching of Neswrius was Cyril's Monophysite successors perverted his
condemned; Cyril managed to avoid any formal teaching and far outdid his violence; he welcomed
withdrawal o( his anathematisros, which t)le Pope Leo's doctrinal epistle or "Tome," asserting
Orientals strongly disl iked; and altllllugh, to their that it expressed exactly what he himself had
credit, a number o! stalwarts refused to admit that always believed; and he died, apparently in the
latter part of 451, well content that theological thanks to Lhe inestimable rediscovery o lhe
truth had been vindicated by the Council of "Bazaar " Nestorius himself afiords the bulk of our
Chalcedon and that the leader of the Monophysite material for studying the most idiosyncratic
opposition had thrown in Ws hand. " God brought phase.<; of Antiochene theology. 'But enough sur-
not these things about on my account-for who vives to illustrate both the main tendency and the
is Nestorius, or what is his life, or what is bis principal difficulty of the century-long succession
death in tbe world ?-but because of the truth .from Eustace down\va~dsc The characteristic ten-
vh.i.ch H e has given unto tl1e world " (Ba.zaar 514). dency of the whole sdJOol was to lay great stress
" I have endured the tonnent of my liJe . . . ovory on tbe entire reality and completeness of Christ's
day l beseech God to accomplish my dissolulion, human nature. Its members all revolted from t.he
whose eyes have seen the salvation of God " (ib. dominant allegorical method of interpreting the
520, 521). These are fine words, proceeding from Bible which ]lad been popularised by Origen ;
a man who had been disciplined by sulfering to allegory had ensured that the Bible must be
reckon his own vindication less important than treated as a theological book, presenting a definite
the victory of God's truth. divine revelation, aJJd its work was now done.
So much (or the external history o Nestorius. They themselves were primarily interested io
What of his doctrine? In principle, be taught tracint; the work of revelation on the historical
nothing ne'" His views on the Person of Christ scene, which e.\:plains their a ttraction for the
were, as his critics quite rightly judged, taken in modern world. Turning to the his tory of redemp-
substance f.rom Theodot e o( Mopsucstia, who died tion, they emplmsiscd the- way in which true God
in 428, when 1\estorius was just ernl.>arkiog on his ma.ni[estccl Himsd in lrue man for the salvation
~onlrovcrsial episcopate; aud Theodore had only of m ankind. Christ was for them both the
developed the thoughts of Diodore of T;1rsus, the divine Son a.nd the representative and t1rst-l:ruit.s
enemy o Apollinaris; and Diodore himself had of the redeemed human race; He was able lo
built on a foundation laid by Eustace of Antioch, become the Redeemer ot mankind just because He
who was deprived in the early days of Arianism

was entirely human. That conviction formed the
because he supported Athanasins and tl1c }iicene common ground or all their teaching.
creed too vigorously. The doctrinal works of Their re<-'U!Tent difficulty, whlcb c<unc to a l1ead
these earlier writets are represented to-day only in the course of the Nestorian controversy, was to
by the scantiest and most dismembered fragments; reconcile their habitual man11cr oi talking about

>7> NESl'ORlU$: tlEDI!Ii:MED HUMAN11Y 273
the C..od and the man in Christ with a convincing This is just what no Antiocl1ene who applied him-
statement of the union of boih in a sjng)e person. self directly to the Christological problem ever did.
The extrcmei" members of the school approached The theological answer required by the Gospel is
the Chrislological problem from the side of the tltat U1e sum total of Christ, whether in heaven or
duality, not from that of the unity; they con- on earth, must always add up to one. But
cerned themselves less with the fact that Christ Antiochcne speculation usually tended towards the
was both God and man, or that the man Christ conclusion, which its authors themselves sincerely
Jesu$ was also in a tme sense God, than with tbe repudiated, that the sum of GQd and man is a
theory that a d.lvrne being and a human being had partnership rather than a single personality. And
somehow been combined in order to f.orm Christ. that answer, although Nestorius never accepted
In some degree, it is the old story of Arius over it, is Nestorianism, and a heresy ; as he himself
a,gain. He started wiU1 an exaggerated sense of unreservedly and even strenuously insisted.
God's triplicity, and never came within reach of a The doctrine of two Sons undercuts the Gospel ;
Christian doctrine of the divine unity; the solution on that point Apollinaris and Nestorius, the
o that problem was contn'buted by Atbanasius, extreme representatives of rival theological
who began at the other end, insisting primarily methods, are entirely at one. If in Christ God
on the unity o God- So now we find Diodore and and man not only embrace, but coincide, a new and
his ~;ucc.:essors protesting stoutly that they l>elieve perfect agency has been created by divine action
in one single Redeemer, but incapable o giving and set working in human experience; the starling
any satisf:tctory account o! Him as a whole. point l1as been provided of a new spiritual order of
Their effort~ to clo so only convinced their oppo- men, drawing their inspiration and their power
nents lha.L they really believed in two separate trom Chrlst, because tl1ey are incorporated in Him.
Sons o{ God, of whom one was a natltral Son, God The means are thus secured of a second and
the Word, and the other was an adopted Son, spirituaJ birth for all mankind. Apollinaris saw
Jesus. A permanently valid doctrine of Christ that, and fastened on the indispensability of
could only be fort!lcomiug irom men who somehow divine action to bring it to pass. Kestorius saw it
made tl\e unity of His person the ultimate ground too, and clung to the necessity of a full human
of their thought about the duality of H.is natures, experience to make it. a full reality for human
taking their start from what was single, not trying beings. T he possibility of redemption, in lhis, the
to reduce two incompatible concepts to identity. Christian sense, depends on the agent's being at
H :-ms-roruus : REDEEMED HUM..'INITY 275
once human and divine, so that tbc redemptive cuss the distinctive qualities of the school of
work is actually done by GQcl and in ma.n.l 'l11e Antioch, they sometimes tend to suggest that the
sacrificial seLC -offering of one perfect!y good man principal link bet ween its members was the
might suffice to save himself; but j{ so, the specifically Nestorian strain of thought, which
process would have to be repeated individually and created difficulties in envisaging the unity of God
personally by every member of the human race; and man in Chri~t. But that is not in facl a n
and neither every member of the race, nor even accurate presentation of the matter. So far as
any member of it, is perfectly good. It needs the our knowledge extends, only three of the leaders of
dcMh and resurreclion of God's new Man, the the school c.ithcr experienced or created any such
second and divine Adam from heaven, in order to difficulties. The real rheological bond between all
redeem mankind, by making divi.m: power Cully the Antiochenes was their clear perception of the
operative within human aclion, once on behalf of full and genuine human experience which the
all. H we admit for a moment the separate incarnate Son historically =derwent; they shrank
existence of two Sons, the work of ] esus ceases to in horror from the idea that He was not in all
be the work of God, Kazareth and Calvary possess respects as truly kin to us as He was kin to God;
no deeper sanctity for us than Oxiord University they emphasised the Gospel evidence of His human
and Tower Hill, and God the Son has performed no consciousness and mora! growth, and would not
essentially greater work in Jesus than He did ill have it thought that His human li(e was merely tl1e
M:oses or Isaiah. Some people think that that is illusory ex.llibi tion on earth of an action which in
indeed tbc case. But if they are right, the sphere and lTH;thod was exclusively celestial. It
Christian Gospcl is a fraud. nright be sfl.id lhat they p inned His hwnan nature
Before we pass on to glance at An tiochene down to tbis earth to which, in a true and vitaJ
theology in greater detail, it is important to sense, il belonged. But by no means all of them
distinguish between its more extreme and its more "iewed His humanity in such isolation as to en
moderate professors. When modem writers dis-- danger tbc unity of His person. No proof oi such
; Ct Augustine ilt tio. cld u. 2 fin., where Christ's media- an attitude emerges from the fragments o( Eustace;
tion is explained as depending on His double characler as the pasloral and unspeculative mind of Chrysostom
both God and man. ~When a way stretches !rom the traveller is 1ar removed from any risk of such declension;
to his goal he has some hope of reaclung the goal : Christ is
this Way : " the same person "B at onte God lind m:~n; God and Iheodoret, who defended ::-lestorius even after
our goal, mnn our ro~d." John of Antioch had thrown him over, manifests
no sign of intellectual strain in the effort to hold maintains consistently that Christ's bumiliatious
the unity of Christ together. These are among the belong to Him specifically as son of sla.ry; they
greatest o the school : there are others of less are not evidence that His heavenly nature was
prominence on whom the same verdict could be subjected to the domination of physical circum-
passed. When Antiochene theology is said to stance; though He assumed the form of a slave,
have a natural trend towards Nestorius, the as the apostle saidJ yet in His godhead He remained
judgement is only true in the sense that dis- free, untouched and uncon-trolled by material
proportionate pressure on the truth$ specially conditions (e.g.. 57B, 235D}. He distinguishes
valued at 1\rttiocb was bound to lead to conse firmly between " Him who anoints " and "him
q11ences of which Nestorius is the unhappy who is anointed"; the fon:oer is "God by nature,
example. Taken as a whole, tl1e school of Antioch begotten of God", tl1e latter is " beautified by
was just as orthodox as the school of Alexandria e..xquisite construction, from the godhead that
or that of Cappadocia, and contributed as much dwelt in him," but his v1rtue is not innate, but
to sound belief as either of the others. "acquired", the fruit of moral effort (57D-58A).
The broad outlines of Antiochene Christology Eustace bestows on Christ 's manhood several
were blocked in by Eustace with an insight that different titles. He calls it t he " shrine" o( God
seems almost prophetic, at a time when theology the Son (e.g., 57c, compare St. J ohn ii. 19), or His
was wholly concerned with Trinitarian problems, "tabernacle" (ib., compare St. John i. 14)1 or
a complete generation before a ttention was His " house" (235c, compare Proverbs ix. I) .
seriously diverted to problems arising from the Again he calls it the "human instrument " whic~
incaFnation of the Recleemer. The substance of the divine Word a,5$'Umed fo( the ptlrpose of
his teaching about Christ is easy to observe in the redemption (r36A, B). Frequently he calls it
fragm ents preserved by Theodoret in the three simply " the man ". Stress must not be laid on
dialogues entitled "Eranistes " (Schulze vol. iv., any one of these descriptions to tlle exclusion of the
to tlte pages of which the following references r est. If " the man " sounds !Sestorian, the phrase
apply). Eustace insists e..xplicitly on the reality " human instrument " sounds no less Apol-
of Christ's human soul (s6s), and is anxious linarian, pa.rticula.rly when it \s observed thai
throughout the writings quoted lo oppose the Eustace sometimes refers to the manhood simply
Arian contention that the sufferings of Christ were as "the body" (570, 236c). He has no special
endured in His heavenly character. He therefore doctrinal bias; he is merely employing language
current both in his own time and later, not as the divine Wisdom did not cease to contain the whole
catchword of a party, but to illustrate the many- creation; being immaterial and invisible, He did
sided trulll. (Compare Lecture V, p. 216.) Simi- not in His heavenly character sustain the nails and
larly the relation between God the w ord and His the tomb. On the other, ffis man, compact of
manhood is variously described. He" took up and diverse members, was crucified and rose again, :l.lld
wore" the human mstrument (I36A). He "occu- was made tord attd Christ, a.nd called the Lord of
pied Himself [or, carried on Ilis life] inside" the glory. Yet there are no two Sons being preached.
body (236c). In the same way He "wore" His In the same sermon Eustace refers the whole action
man, like a g:umen t (57PL and "inhabited" His t(l the $Ingle pen;on of God the Son. Quoting
mw, like a sanctuary and shrine (I34A). The Christ's claim that no one took His tife from Him,
subject is normally the divine personality, working for l-Ie had power both to lay it down and to ta.ke
in and through the human agency. But that the it back again (St. Jolm x . 18), Eustace proceeds:
human element possesses a t.rue and characteristic "Though He had power, as God, to do botb, He
life is indicated not only by calling it the man ", acceded to those who without counsel tried to
a.nd by ascribing to it " a soul of the same stuff destroy His shrine, and in raising it up He rebuilt
as our souls", but also by the plain statement that it more magnificently; it is proved on unimpeach-
" the man lives from the power of GO<!, that is, able testimony tl1at He Himself by His own act
beca\ISe he occupies himself conjointly with the raised up and rebuilt His own house " (234c-235B) .
divine spirit, for He that is believed on within him He repeats lhe last statement elsewhere: ''The
is tho Power of the Most High " (236a}; and by Word and God gloriously raised up tbe shrine of
conscf]ucncc, alter tl1e victory won, the man is Himself" (237C). The di vine spirit or Wisdom
exalted Lo heaven and installed "on a common had two spheres of action ; "Hr~ both lived inside
throne with lhe most divine spirit, on n.ccount of the body, <md rode upon tbe heavens and con-
the God that dwells in him continuously " (13"'"\). tained the earth and r'l.lrJ.Stered the abyss and
J\Jl that this amounts to is that the human " performed all nonnal acts as God ". He was not
experience of the R edeemer was a real experience contained exclusively within the pltysieal limita-
and nol an artifice or fantasy, while at the same tions of His manhood like water in a cup, but
time jt was the experience of God. On the one "being a divine and ineffable l:'ower He embraces
band, Eustace asserts, the divine Word i.u His own and strengthens both what is quite interior and
nature continued in the bosom of the Father; Lhe what is quite external tu His shrine" (236c, o}.
Nor does Eustace stop at affirming the ttnity of the i\rians. His use of the word 'image ' and of the
Christ's person; l1e throws out a pTegnant sugges-- analogy with the holy Trinity is therefore most
tion as to the basis of the ttnity. As God the Son, signiftcant. I t implies that Christ's man-" the
he says, is the image of the Father, so is the man dorninical man", as Augustine and many Greek
whom He wore the image of the divine Son, though Fatl1ers called Jesus-is nothing less than a
in a different material. St. Paul did not claim reproduction on earth in human material of God
(Rom. viii. 29) that we are foreordained to be the Word, the eternal Son in heaven: a trans-
con(ormed to the Son of God, but to the image of lation into human terms of tile actual godhead:
H is Son ; and reason supports t he apostle's an earthly present at ion nf what God Himself
phraseology. "For the immaterial spirit of would be, and was, when He should deign to be a
wlsdom is not conformed to physical men, but His man. The divine nature. was ttot debased or
impress is, the man who has been made body by diminished in its own sphere by the I ncarnation.
the spirit and wears members of like number with as the Arians falsely asserted, but God received an
every one else and is clad in similar shape " exact expression of His own perfection in the
(t34D-t35A). This argument is much more im- finite medium of physical existence. He ceased
portant than il looks at first sight. It means, not not to be all that He had ever been, but He
that the man Christ Jesus is as like God the Son as condescended to undergo a process of limitation by
the Son Himself is like the Father; but that, which He became that which hitherto He had not
making dne allowance f or the different medium been.
of expression, t he man is identically the same with This interpretation is further confirmed by a
t he divi ne Son, just as t he being of t he Son is passage in Eustace's only work that has survived
actually tl1e same as that of the F<tther. The complete, the exeget ical treat ise on the Witch of
word ' image', as used in Trini tarian theology, Endor. The devil, he says, '' regarded tho figure J
implies that the Son is a second complete of Christ; he saw there, on th e inward side, God
presentation o exactly the same reality as the in fact and deed, God's true Son by nature; and
Father; that is the truth, not only to which he saw revealed, clothing Rim on lhe outside, a
Hosius bore witness at Nicaea and for which pure, undefiled and stainless JUan, a beauteous
Athanasius made a good confession for half a
' 'D1e word used is prosoj>oH, that is. the objecl which "ffe
century after Nicaea, but for maintaining which constituted Cor perception, His ' presentation ' ; <'Ompare
Eustace himself was deposed from his bishopric by God i11 J>atrislic Thought, p. I 57
NE:srotuus: REOEE:lfED HU11JAN1TV 283
example of a shrine, consecrated, inviolate" friends fowtd in Atba.nasian unity rather tbe goal of
(de mgastr. to). ln this one sentence Eustace their men tal pilgrimage than the base of their
sums up his whole doctrine of Christ. There is campaign, and the historical reason for their
only one Christ; He is both a single person and a attitude is simply that they arrived at Nicene
single object of perception. .But those who have orthoooxy by the road of Semi-Arian Conservat-
the eyes to see can perceive in Him two distinct ism. Diodore followed a similar course ; although
depths of reality. Outwarclly He appears on earth at Antioch he fought Arianism to a standstill, the
n man, the very fairest flower of humatt develop- early theological influences that !>haped his mind
ment. But wituin, He is yet more than that i the were of the p,.agrnatical type that emphasised dis-
human figure is the fllli te expression of the im- tinct facts without looking too deep into their
measurable truth of God. interior for a uuilying principle. Diodore's men tal
Eustace, then, the father of the An tiochene constitution, in fact, was what is sometimes called
school of Christology, was sound in thought by Aristotelian rather than Platonistic; such sb.arp
any rational standard of theological orthodoxy, antjthescs are apt to prove very misleading,
having many links with the gTCatest and most but the description serves to ~'llggest his
reputable Christian thinkers, and exhibiting no bent.
private inclination towards intellectual impiety. When he approached Christology, he grasped
Rc enjoyed a wide angle of vision and saw the the subject from the dualistic end, and seems to
truth from many sides; but no one ever accused have shown a good deal less caution than .Eustace
him of seeing it double. Diodore, the next out- in his handling of it. He remarked, for instance,
standing Christian teacher of AntiocJ1, did nothing that God the Word had no intention of calling
t(l dissati!lfy tb,e dominant Cappadocian orthodoxy Himsel( David's son but David's Lord; it was His
of his day, but fell completely foul of Apollinaris, " body " that He chose to have called the scm of
the substance of whose mind was definitely not David. Again, he said : "The Son before the ages
Cappadocian but Alexandrine. This fact again is is perfect in His kind; perfect too is the Davidic
profoundly significant. Alexandria had put unity one, the son of David whom the Son of God
in the forefront of its theological speculation. assumed. You will ask, Do I then preach two
Cappa<.locia, on the other hand, though it fully Sons? I do not say two sons of David, for 1
accepled the conclusions of Alexandrine wuty, never called God the Word David's son ; nor do I
continued to flirt with phtralism; BasU and his say two Sons of God in real being, for I do not
1&4 NES1'01U US : RED'EEMEO HUMAN l'l'Y 8s
assert two Sons .out of tbc being of God; I say Nevertheless, it is plain !rom Lhe quotations
lhat the pre-eternal God the Word has inhabited given that Diodore would not find it easy to issue
in him of David's seed." Diodorc docs not, at a direct deniaJ of lhe accusation which Apollinaris
least in the extract given, deny the charge of brought against him. Re did maintain a dis-
preaching LWO Sons, though his words suggest tinction between two Sons, though it is extremely
that what he meant to convey was rather a double improbable lhat he meant by it anything essentially
Sonship; the same comment may justly be made di.fierent from what Eustace bad previously laid
upon his further statement that " the man out of down. His fault lay not in what he meant to
~ary is son by grace, God the Word is Son by express or even in what he actually said, so much
nature". (The text is to be found apud Lcont. as in his failure lo guard adequately against the
Byz. c. Nest. & E11t. 3.) But we only possess the inferences to which his Language gave momentum.
few shreds of Diodore's doctrinal writings which his Tlus failure was accentuated in Diodore's disciple
later critics pared oli as evidence of his alleged Theodore. Theodore's doctrine o[ Cl1rist depends
Nestorianism, and it is therefore quite impossible on his doctrine of man. Man, wirh his double
t o form a proper estimate of his real Leaching, or to nature of soul and body, was regarded by Theodore
judge how fully he balanced his separatist ten as the linchpin by which God designed to maintain
dencii'..S with more constructive statements. We the solidarity of the created wriverse, visible and
can only say that in 38 t, in tJ1e decree by which the invisible. But the Fall of mankind had shattered
Emperor confirmed Lhe dt:cisions o! the second the harmony oi creation, and to restore it there
General Council, Diodore was named as the stan was required a reconstitution of the universe
dard of orthodoxy for the churches in his own under the Ll ~adship of a l)cw Man, sinless and
region; that he died full of years and of honour ; immortal, and indissolubly tmlted to God. With
that Apoliinaris's attack on him received no this theory in his mind, Theodore laid so great
support until more than thirty years aft er Ius stress on the distinctness and perfection oi Christ's
death ; and that, of hls two great diseiples, [hough humanity and on the reaUty o( His moral progress
Theodore of Mopsuestia was certainly the im as an individual man that-whatever may be the
mediate source of almost everything that Nestorius truth about DiodoJe-in Theodore's teaching the
taught, yet Chrysostom can hardly anywhere be manhood of Cluist is habitually treated as an
matched for the passionless propriety of hls almost independent being. It is presented less as
doctrine. ' the Lord's man ' than as ' the mao united to the
Lord' : the difference may seem subtle, but its In the second place, Theodore repeatedly rebuts
effect is profound. the charge that he believed in two Sons; although
On the olher hand, though the weight has be often talks as if he did, he himself makes such a
shilted rather to one side of the point of balance, point of t.he falsehood of the inference that, though
it js plain that Theodore's intentions were sound. be may be charged with inconsistency, be cannot
ln the first place, he took most of the materials rightly be accused of heretical intentions. " We
oi his doctrine, whether wrectly or indirectly, assert neither two Sons nor two Lords " (3290).
from Eustace. There is the same SllSpicion of t11e "We assert the one Son and Lord Jesus Cruist.
Arian notion-though in Theodore it is directed through whom all things were made : under-
against U1e supposed Apollinariau notion-that standing thereby primarily God the Word who is
the deity of Clrrist was impaired by the incarnation Son of God and Lord io real being, but under-
(pp. 313, 319c of the second volume of S\vete's staniling the<eby conjointly and secondarily that
Minor Episel$S, lo which all referertces apply whicb was assumed, Jesus o! Nazareth . . . as
unless otherwise stated); and the same distinction sharing in sonship and lordship by virtue of His
between the shrine and its inhabitant God, and union with God the Word " (330c). As body and
between the man assumed and the God who as- soul retain thei~: distinct qualities in a single human
sumed hirn (pp. 313, 320, 321). There is the same being, so " neither is the assumer the assumed nor
recog1lition of the double sphere of action; Christ is the asswned the nssumer, but the union of the
descended to indwell the man, but did not cease to assumed with the as.~ttmcr is indissoluble " (3rgn}.
be omnipresent in His uncircwnscribed heavenly " We do not assert that the Sons are two, but one
nature (3orc) . The san.1e application reappears of Son is rightly confessed, sil)cc, whi le the distinction
the title' image to Christ's manhood, though not, it of the natrues must necessarily persist, the unity
must be admitted, with the peculi~r force conferrc"t;l of the per~on (prosopon) must be inseparably
on it by :Eustace (on Coloss. i. I5, Swele i. z6r f). safeguarded (304A).
The sam~ suggestion is adopted, and greatly In what he has to say about this unity of person
intensilied, that the right focus of the rcla.tions be- or prosopon io Christ, Theodore adop ts an idea
tween the man hood and the deity is to be sought in already discernible in hints thrown out by Eustace,
the single unique presentation or person or figure but develops it with great originality. It is here
wlticlt is bolh God and man (296A, 299-300, 30} that he comes nearest to the positions maintained
All this is the very sluff of Eustatllian Christology. by the school of Alexandria ; what he meant by one
prosopon is practically, although not technically, real being (ousia), and so has the man ; the natures
the same as what Cyril meant by one hypostasis, are distinguished but a single prosopon is effected
for prosopon means an individual figure as pre- by their union. When the natures are regarded in
sented to perception. and hypostasis means the isolation it has to be maintained that the prosopon
same figure philosoph:ically defined as an in- of the man is perfect of its kind, and so is the pro-
dependent objective reality. However, Theodore sopon of the godhead. But when attention is
appears to have avoided reliance on the term diverted to the union, " then we preach that the
hypostasis. for reasons doubtless the same in prosopon constituted by both the natures is
substance as later caused Nestorius to object to it, single, {he manhood receiving through the godhead
and instead he based his teaching on the word the honour rendered by the created world, and the
prosopon. The godhead and the manhood, he says, godhead accomplishing all appropriate action in
are never {used; but these two natures ' are the manhood" (299-300). Theodore is obviously
brought together by a union which creates of them trying to hold the balance true; failure of method
one prosopon. rather than waywardness of purpose is responsible
He illustrates this union by the highly un- for the ultimate impression that his solution of the
satisfactory example of man and wife : as they problem is lnadequate. He fully recognises both
are called by Christ ' one llesh ' (" so that they are sides of the truth, but, because his outlook is
no more twain, but one flesh," Matt. xix. 6), essentially dualistic, lie cannot satisfactorily fit the
so it might be said of Him that there are no longer two sides together.
two prosopa but one, by virtne of their union. He attempts to form a theory of the manner in
But his meaning is bettet than his illustrat.ion. whlcb God the Word indwelt tl:.\e man. Did He do it
" When we distinguish the natures, we assert the by some special localisation of His divine being ?
integrity of the natwe of God the Word. and the or by some extension o'f the exercise of His divine
integrity o[ its prosopon. for a real object (hypo- power? That could not be, because H1s divinity
stasis)without perceptible presentation (pr-osopon) i::; present and operative everywllere equally: any
is a contradiction in teJrns; we also assert the e.,'( tension in 011e direction would imply a limitation

integrity of the nature of the man, and of its pro- in other directions, and God is not limited. 13ut
sopon likewise. But when we regard their com- there is one way in which God can properly be
bination, then we assert a single prosopon.'' ln the described as nearer or further, the way of good-
same way, he continues, God the Word has His own pleasure. " Good-pleasure expresses that best
and highest will of God which He ~xercises when exist between God's general il)dwelling tn the
He is gratiiied with those who have shown earnest righteous by grace and His incarnation in tbe
devotion to Him, because He thinks wcU and particular man chosen to be His earthly tabernacle,
highly of them." The Lord, he quotes, bas pleasure whose moral progress, though real, advances on a
in lhem that fear Him and put their trust in His peculiar scale and even seems to work on a clifierent
mercy: He is nigh unto them that are contrite in principle from that of ordinary men (298A, n,
heart. In this sense o( propinquity, dependent on go8c). Theodore is expressing a distinction, not
moral disposition, God ca:n be at once near to one merely of degree, but of character, when he claims
and far from another, can indwell the saint and that, still expressJy within the channel o{ good-
withdraw from the sinneli. It is therefore in this pleasure, " the shrine who was born of the Vir:gin
type of union that the clue must be sought to the was conjoined to God the Word from the very womb
manner of His indwelli11g in Jesus. The union of and remains inseparable from Him, posscssiog in
God and man in Christ is not simply equivalent to all things identity of will and action with l:iirn, so
the union of God and the saints : to say thal would that no conjunction could be closer" (339A).
be madness. But the way of good-pleasure admits oi He ailirms a unity, of which he holds the strongest
differe.o t applications. God dwells in the righteous conviction, but of which he can give neither
by way of good-pleasure in their righteousness : definition nor explanation. To that exi:ent his
but in Jesus as in a Son. \ Vhat does U1at mean? Christology must be reckoned a failure. He
It mean$ that God "united to Himself the one sets the problem, with invaluable emphasis on
whom He assumed, in his entirety, and prepared factors of transcendent importance. But he con-
hirn to share witt~ Ri!llSelf a.I1 the honour Which the tributes no real $Olution. That achievement still
indweller, being Son by nature, enfoys; so that the awaJtcd the efforts of somebody who should
man is incorporated in one person, owing to his apJ?roacb the task synthetically, from the angle of
mion with the indweller, and partakes with Him the union, instead of analytically, from the duality
of all His dominion " (:zgs~~g6). of the component parts.
This description helps a little, but not much, Theodore's problem and failure were Ncstorius's
It stamps the method of union as spiritual, not problem and failure. for there is nothing i:n
physical or mechanical; but tells us nothing more Nestoriu:; which does not appear, in principle al
about it, leaving altogether undefined the im- least, in Theodore. Even his critici.<;m of the title
mense difference which Theodore perceives to Theotokos for the Blessed Virgin was taken

straight out of Theodore's great work on the tone which he imparts to rlis work : unlike his
Incarnation (Swctc p. 310). All that Nestorius did master, who was content to go on teaching quietly
was to put a razor-like dialectical edge on Theo- for over thirty years in his bishopric, Nestorius
dore's tools and apply them to lbe cutting-up ot was no sooner consecrated than he started deliber-
Apollinarianism or anything else lhat he con- ately to provoke conflict; all his work was meant
sidered to betray an Apollinarian character. It is either t o raise or to answer controversy. And even
unnecessary to summarise his teaching here. in the act, his methods present a glaring contrast
Anybody can do that for himsel1 with little trouble, to the theological dissensions of deep religious
if he takes the several heads of Theodore's Christ- spirits like Athanasius or Augustine. His temper
ology and, by the usc oC the index to the Bazaar was not evangelical but contentiously academic.
and to Nesum'a11a, identifies their counterparts As to emphasis, Nestorius devoted most atten-
in Nestorius. It need merely be said that the tion to those aspects of the truth which he thought
phrase " union by good-pleasure " re-appears in to be most seriously endangered by his opponents.
the translation of the " 13aU1al' " as " voluntary His object was not to expound or defend t he whole
union "-a phrase less rich in suggestion, but of Theodore's intellectual system, but to ha01mer
reproducing in Syriac idiom the same general away on tl1ose particular points derived from it,
sense, and possibly even representing an identkal by which he hoped to nail down the supposed
Greek t ext. The only difference between the two errors of his adversaries, especially of Cyril,
men lies in manner and emphasis. whom he regarded as the head and (ront of offence,
As to manner, they were both intellectualists. theologically as well as ecclesiastically. His
They wouJd probably both have assented to the arguments are as clear and sharp as they are
view that the value of metaphysical theory wearisome, for they chiefly consist of dreary
depends on the moral and spiritual. issues which it variegations of the sa,me themes, infinitely re-
raises. and they botl1 certain ly exhibited a, deep peated. He was convinced-quite wrongly-
concern for the reality of man's moral freedom and that Cyril regarded Christ's humanity as nothing
for the redemptive quality of Christ's work. more than a collection o1 abstract qualities, which
"But their deepest interes ts were involved in a the divine Son assumed as a kind of human pose.
speculative rather than a religious treatment of In reply, he insisted over and over and over again
their subject. Nestorius differs from Theodore in that the divine humanity was cut in the round,
this respect mainly in the personal and polemical that it was solidly three-dimensional, that it was
not a painted fresco but stood out as an objective force godhead and manhood into a mechanical
fact. That is the meaning of his pertinacity in union, by which the godhead would suffer all the
claiming that the human nature was an ousia, a pains and limitations of humanity and the manhood
real fact, and lliat it vosscsscd hypostasis, ob- would have no authentic substance left to iL
i edive character; as, for instance, " the O\lsia of (e.g. Bazaa:r 1:31 f., 226, 262, 332).
the likeness of God and the ousia of lhe likeness of The two lhinkets were completely at cross-
the servant remain in their hypostases " (Bazaar purposes. Their tragic misunderstandings blinded
252). Outside the school of Theodore, it was not each to the deep value of the facts which the oppo-
customary to speak of lwo ousias in Christ, but site school was primarily anxious Lo secure and
only of two ' natures ' ; the phrase ' Lwo ousias ' enforce. Nestorius seems to have been completely
sounded much too much like ' two separate unconscious of the peculiarities of Theodore's
beings'. And when 1\cstorius said that the presentation. Cyril seems to have been thunder-
humanity possessed hypostasis-was objective, struck when he fitst encountered them in. Nestor-
adjectivally-Cyril thought he meant that it \vas ius. But he had behind him a far greater weight
itself a hypostasis, was an independent object than that of Theodore in the resistance which he
irrespective of its union with the person of Christ, offered; he was supported by ~he whole sense of
which would definitely imply tbat Christ in His Christendom outside the school of Antioch. This
incarnation was two beings and not one. Here has been thought strange, seeing that the accepted
Ncstorius was right in substance, though Cyril Western forms of tbough~ more nearly resembled
misunderstood hirn. Conversely. when CyrU those of Nestorius than those of Cyril. 13ut the
claimed t hat Lhere was in Christ Ofle hyposta..,is explanation is simple enough. What was at
and- from the moment oi llnion-oue ' nature ' stake was not the general substance oJ Antiochene
(physis), he meant what Nestorhts intended to t eaching, which was thoroughly acceptable in a
convey by his insistence on a single prosopon and a Cbrysostom or a 'fheodoret, but the set of pecu-
single will-tbat in and throl.lgh the two disti net lirui ties in its presentation adopted from Theodore
channels of experience aml activity tile same divine by Nestorius. Rome was as deeply startled by
personality was 1evealed in fact and operation. those peculiarities as was Alexandria. The Roman
But ~estorius misinterpreted Cyril as completely Pope was even more drastically opposed to their
as Cyril mistook :-lestorius, spending inm1ense exponent than was Cyril. Nestorius accordingly
pains to demonstrate tlla t Cyril was trylng to was repudiated and degraded, not because he
296 NESTORfUS ! BEDEEM.ED RL-::.11u'UTY 197
originated a heresy, but because he popularised a with a protective entrenchment, which immobilised
paradoxical version of orthodo>..JI. Tbe same further attempts to arrive at positive explanations.
thing came within the possibility of happening Thus Antioch, the theological strength of which
in the thirteenth century, though with fa{ less lay in its sense of facts, prevailed over Alexandria,
reason, to St. Thomas Aquinas, when he trans- which desired explanations.
ferred onto his own indelible canvas the Aris- When Leo's "Tome" was read, t he bishops
totclianism of Albert the Great and the Arabic cried that " Peter has spoken thus through Leo;
commentators. so taught the apostles; piously and truly does Leo
The unorthodoxy of Nestorius wa$ not a positive tea.ch: so taught Cyril, everlasting be the memory
fact but a negative impotence; like l1is master of Cyril: Leo and Cyril teach the same thing."
Theodore, he could not bring within the framework In a sense those cries of approbation were justi-
of a single, clearly conceived personality the two fied; but though Cyril and Leo taught the same
natures of Christ which he distinguished with thing, the voice of historical truth pronounces
so admirable a realism. In so far as it is a merit in that they taught it in different ways. For Nestor-
a thinker to raise a vast problem in an acute shape ius also welcomed Leo's doctrine with approbation,
and then to show himself, not merely incapable of as he never did or could have welcomed Cyril's
pointing towards any solution, but unconscious that hated affirmations. Leo, he said, had been
an overwhelming problem has been raised, to that raised up by divine providence to overthrow the
extent Nestorios posses!;eS theological merit in a l judgement of his predecessor Celestine, allied with
high degree. That is at least the full extent of his Cyril at the Council of Ephesus; Nestorius himself
unorthodoxy. The orthodoxy of Ne..<>torius is being suspect. God had (Dade Leo His instrument
positive: with his peculiarities of presentation for bringing back ~ he Church to the true teaching
once for all eliminated, the substa11ce of his doctrine of lhe Fathers (Bazaar 51.4, 51.9).
was accepted as the faith of Christendom at the In his claim that he h1nlse1l and Leo were of one
Counctl of Chalcedon in 45I. A neutral school of mind, Nestorius was substantially right. They
thought had b~n formed in the East by the both made the doctrine of the two Natures the
merger of moderate Antiochencs with the school foundation of their Christolo,ay, and the Council
of Cappadocia. Its adherents, strongly urged and took the same Line of approach to the problem as
vigorously supported by the nentr~l West, S\tC- they took, though it confirmed Cyril's orthodoxy
ceeded in fortifying the main Christological facts and re-asserted the canonical authority of some
of his pronouncements. Its definition of the How negative and abstract the Chalcedoniru1
faith, in consequence, served admirably as a settlement was, is shown by the subsequent
warning against theological perversions. as a history of Christological discussion. A vast
negative safeguad against heresy, but ignored the schism of 1\ionophysitcs immediately occurred in
indications which Cyril had given or a positive Egypt and Syria, comparable with the secession
way out of the dilemma which Nestorianism had of Nestorians after the Council of Ephesus. Some
wmtcd. 1t avoided Nestorius's difficulties, n<lt of the schismatics were real and material mono-
because its method w~ essentiaJJy diFrerenl from physites, believing that Christ could not be con-
his, l)ttt because it declined to state the issues ceived as pos~cssing bt1man.ity of the same sluff as
with ltis stark precision and uncompromising ours; others were verbal and formal mono
n:alism. So far as tl1c Council is concerne<J. the physites, adhering to Cyril's tennino1ogy and
real intellectual problem, namely, how two distinct teaching, but rejecting Cbalcedon on grounds of
and complete natl.lres are combined in one Christ, mingled theological and nationalistic patriotism.
remained unsolved. The Cotmcil declared that The secession of this second class illustrates the
Christ was perfect in godhead and perfect in man- Council's initial failure to bold together those who
hood, of the same stufi as the Father on the one entertained substantially the same theological
hand, and of the same stufi as mankind on the convictions. Proof of its incapacity was several
other. In defining the two natures, therefore, it times repeated dl.lring the next two centuries. as
speaks positively. But in defining their relations successive ef(orts were un dertaken to n!concUe
it speaks negatively. Christ is to be " confessed adherents and opponents of Cbalcedonian phrase-
.in two natures", without fusing the natwes to- ology. T.eontius of Byzantitun indeed produced
gether, without transmuting either into the other, a logical statement of Chalcedonian doctri nc, which
with<mt dividing Christ into two. and without <>wed something to study of Cyril. and showed o.
dissociating the nattrres from one another : " wt- great technical improvement on previous ex-
confusedly, inunutably, indivisibly, inseparably." positions. Jts virtue, howe'\>er, was also its prac-
The formula state.<; admirably what Christ is not. tical undoing : by the use of formal and abstract
On the constructive side it merely says, with philosophy Leontius was able to reach an in-
Nestorius, thal He is one perceptible figure or telligible and at the same time orthodox account
prosopon, and, with everybody e:xcept Nestorius, of the unity of Chri~i in His two natures, but the
that lie is one objective reality or hypostasis. result was so abstract, technical, and devotionally
arid that it made no appeal whatever to anybody controversies and persecutions two wills were also
but professional theologians ; it was not a thing established. The question wnelher Christ possessed
for which men could fight, except in the restricted two distinct faculties of intellectual consciousness
area and refined atmosphere of a library reading- was never directly and explicitly raised; but if it
room. The ideas that aroused general interest had been, the answer could only have been that He
and excited popular enthusiasm were at once also had two minds, one in His eli vine nature, the
simpler in fonn and wanner in texture. other in His human natur~. There was ample
If Christ were t ruly one being, was it tolerable precedent for stating that He knew some things
that under the cover of the two Natures He should divinely, and others humanly or " in the manner
be repre.sen ted as the possessor, in practice, of a of the incarnation."
divided personality, acting now humanly, now In short, the further the analysis is J)ursued of
divinelyY If not, must not all His actions be each nature, taken in abstraction, the harder it
attributed to a single divine-human operation? becomes for the most orthodox Chalcedonian to
So Monergism arose, asserting that in the Redeemer avoid the very difficulties jn which Ncstorius was
was only one principle of action, operating jointly engulfed, and the less content is left for the actual
i.n U1e two natures. But Chalcedonian theory could personality which was embodied in both natures.
not accept this. The human and divine energies At best, Jesus Christ disappears in the smoke-
were indeed concurrent, but two complete natures screen of the two-nature .Philosophy. Formalism
imply two distinct principles of activity, the triumphs, and the living figure of the evangelical
one divine, the other human. Then the com- Redeemer is desiccated to a logical mummy.
promise was expres.~ed in differ~nt tenns. Even The Monophysites were horrified by tbe barren
Theodore and Nestorius had attributed to Chrh;t intellectual desert into which the gateway of
both a single energy and a single will, meaning, ChaJcedon opened, and fought raggedly but per-
no doubt, a single practical result from the co- sistently to gain a more realistic outlet for Cllrist-
operation of divine and human faculties. Might ology. The orthodox had their choice between two
it not be said, asked the :\{onothelite.s, that Christ unsatisfactory alternatives: either they kept the
possessed but one will? Again, Chalcedonian gateway shut, and occupied their minds with
logic stood in the way, and necessarily so. A pursuits less paralysing to the heart than specu-
human nature without a human faculty of will lative theology now threatened to become; or
would be an utter unreal:ity, and so after furious else, like the great Maximus the Confessor, while
302 ~ESTORn;s : REUEE~rED HU?.1.A}l1TY 30J
continuing to refine their definitions they ignored attitude had been adopted by the Council, the
the practical bearing of them, and drawing on the resultant schisms would almost cert<rinly have been
thought of Cyril. whose religious fertility still lay yet more disastrous, and have spread over the
stored beneath the barren turf of formal logic, and whole area of Greek-speaking Christendom. The
of the pseu<lo-Dionysius, a Christian Neoplatonist Council did the best it could in very diJiicult
of monophysite leanings, they preached a richer conditions. It accorded Cyril entire justification,
Gospel than had strict wa.LTant in the admonitory and at the same time blocked the earths of those
negations actually delivered under pressure from who under cover of his doctrine sought to make
theuntheological West at the Council of Chalcedou. havoc- of the historic hwnanity of tbe Saviour of
The wisdom oi that venerable assembly has been mankind. In stopping up the bolt-holes of that
somewhat roughly criticised in the cotl!se of the heresy it did the work that Nestorius bim.seU
preceding observations. It needs to be said, in cbiefty desired to see accomplished inllis generation.
support not o its theolo~y but of its action, that ~we can nflord to overlook the academic and
after Cyril's death, which took place in +H. the puritanical rigorism of Nestorius's mind, in recog-
conditions were most unfavourable to a balanced nition of the real service which he rendered to
and rational treatment of positive Christology. faith by his appreciation of the humanity of the
The archimandrite Eutyches, a mystical pietist Lord. Ptlritan rigorism tends to divagate in one
of Constantinople, and arcl1bishop Dioscorus. of two directions. It sometimes seems to preach,
Cyril's successor at Alexandria, 3J1 overbearing jnstead of salvation, a gospel of almost universal
ecclesiastical dictator, were bent on the violent damnation. Augustine, with his overbearing sense
overlluow of the whole theology of two Natures, of the contrast between God's tran$cendent power
though Cyril, under due reservations, had accepted and man's ingratitude to his Creator, ~has always
it. They, who should naturally M .v e been the exercised a dangerous fascination over those whose
prime guardians and exponents of Cyril's teaching, minds are already bent in the direction of re-
proved themselves its deadliest enemies. Nor was probating the. human race. Pelagius, his British-
Rome, which held the casting vote, in the leru;t born contemporary and theological antagonist,
fitted to assume the part of leader in a positive followed the opposite tendency ; in bis aruciety to
theological quest; it showed no sign of com- protect the freedom of the human will !rom the
prehending the subtle issues which were at stake. overpowering shadow of divine causation, and to
If, in those circumstances, any but a negative preserve tbe reality of moral action, he relied
excessively on man's capacity for spiritual self- In the reconciliation of roan with God no peace
help, denying both the corruption of man's heart imposed by naked force can lead to the voluntary
reconstruction of human life; li)e principles of
and lhe universal need of divine grace, and teaching
a sort of Stoic morality. Ncstorius, still following I settlement must operate from witJ1in and be
the practical example of his master Theodore, accepted from within. An exterior thcophany of
was tender, as became a fellow-rigorist, to those overwhelming divine power, like that pictured in
followers of Pelagius who took refuge in the the concluding chapters of the book of Job, may
East. He did not commit himself to them, and it is reduce man to silence but cannot produce internal
impossible that he could ever have agreed fully conviction and spontaneous assent: Prometheus
with their views, but he extended to them a on his rock continues to punctuate the jabs of the
degree of patronage that called down the wrath of eagle's beak with protestations of ethical re.
R ome. He must have had a certain sympathy pugnance and spiritual recusancy; that is the
for them, since he himself was fighting for the reason ,_-hy Christ refused the temptation of tbe
recognition of moral reality, not simply in mankind, devil lhat He should Bing Himself to earth from
but in the Son of Man. When God became man. the roof of the Temple, and of the Pharisees that
Nestorius may well be imagined to be saying, He He should attest His claims by miraculous 'signs'.
became a real man, with a real mind and a real Surrender to the love of God is certainly re-
will. quired; but it is essential that the surrender should
This is the vast and permanent service of the
school which culminated in Nestorius, that it
1 be voluntary. The efficacy of Lhe divine redemp-
tive act depends upon a human change of outlook
stood out firmly for tbc concreto human figure of and a human re-directiOJl of energy; the divine
Christ, realising that any true redemJ)tion of man act has to be appropriated and the divine power
must be effected in and through man. Ii God's absorbed. A curious corollary of this principle
gift of moral respoosibili ty and spi ritual freedom is would seem to have been disclosed by recent
to hold good, and the divine purpose f<)r mankind studies of Christian missions throughout the ages.~
is not to undergo a radical alteration in the act of Although it appears to have made little ultimate
redemption, then the redeeming God Himself is difference whether the conversion or a people began
limited by His own creative scheme, and the through individual persuasion or through forcible
recreation of humanity must follow the same 1 Cf. Latourette, History of lile Expansion of Chrulia>ity
libertarian principles as mark its first beginnings. vol rt passim.
assimilation, it has made all the difference between porated into His divine humanity. The Holy
Christian stability and pagan reversion whether or Spirit draws us into God along the pathway of tbe
not lhe Gospel, when preached, bas succeeded in one perfect example of our own finite nature.
penetrating the social and :intellectual life of the As far-seeing Athanasius used lo say, that God
region concerned. Where Christianity has been might make us divine He became man. To l:iim,
able to interweave its own uncorupted influence now risen, ascended, and glorified, crowned King
with the thought and cu)tUTe of a nation, there it ir1 heaven and King, though still uncrowned, of all
has, jn general, survived the shocks of time and mankind on earth, with God the Father and God
persecution; but only there. T ht: moral is the the Holy Ghost, be all honour, praise, aucl thanks-
same wilh peoples as with individuals : wl1atever giving, now and for evermore.
the nature of the initial impetus towards con-
version, the grace of God demands inward accep-
tance and unforced conviction as security !or its
continuance, and withdraws itself from the wilfully
Since, then, redemption requires a human
response and l1Uman appropriation, God Himself
supplied a perfect human agent to lead the re-
sponse and a perfect h=an instrument to convey
the means of appropriation. He has not only
reconciled the world to Himself but l1as done so in
the rnan Christ Jesus, true Son of God, true son of
Mary. It is no Jess important for theology to
recognise the necessity of Christ's fuJl manhood
than it is for it to acknowledge the indispensability
of His lrue godhead . Only God can save mankind.
But il has pleased His wise providence to save
men only through man and in man. We are made
children of God by being made brethren of Jesus.
We become members of Christ hy being incor-
MAY 26TH, 1 940

CYRIL, archbishop of Alexandria, aler whom
this lecture is entitled, was one or those active
and strong characters that excite tbe animosity
of less successful controversialists. When his
death was announced, in the year 444, one or his
critics wrote a letter to a rriend, from which the
following sentences are quoted: "At last with a
final struggle the villain bas passed away. . . .
Observing that his malice increased daily and in-
jured the body of the Church, the Governor of our
souls h'a s lopped him off like a canker. . . . His
departure delights the survivors, but possibly
disheartens the dead ; there is some fear that under
the provocation of his company they may send
him back again to us . . . . Care must therefore
be taken to order the guild of undertakers to place
a very big and heavy sto ne on his grave to stop
him coming back here. . .. 1 am glad and rejoice
to see the fellowship of the Church delivered from
such a contagion; but I am saddened and sorry
as I reflect that the wretched man never took rest
from his misdeeds, but died designing greater
and worse '' (Theodorct r-p. r8o). The author-
ship of the letter is not beyond all doubt, but it
seems mosl probable that it was penned by the ornaments, and confiscating aU the property of
gentle and warm-hearted Theodoret. It affords their bishop. What we are not to!(l is b.ow he
striking testimony to Cyril's greatness. Small effected these designs. Whether his claims to
men do not cam such heartfelt obituaries, even jurisdiction over all Christians, even over schis-
from deeply indignant saints. matics recognised as such by the law, were ad-
Cyril was born at Alexandria and studied tnitted by the secular authorities, or his procedure
theology for some years in the desert under the took the fonn of independent direct action, is
care of monastic teacher$. Even at that early not shown . Only he is said to have exceeded his
period his mind was occupied with the affairs spiritual functions and as:;umed the administration
o[ the great world; il was plain that the monastic of secular afiairs, an accusation that night well
vocation was not for him to undertake, and his be levelled at many Popes and would-be Popes,
uncle, the archbishop Theophilus, brought him of other cities besides Alexandria, especially at
back to Alexandria and ordained him. He was. times when for one reason or another the boundary
present with his uncle at the synod held near was not demarcated very strictly by the Christian
Chalccdon in 403, at which Theophilus procured State between the different jurisdictions of great
the condemnation of Chrysostom. On his uncle's functionaries in civil and spiritual government.
death, in 412, his position was prominent enough, Archbi..-;hop Cyril did not occupy himsell with
and his leaderShip sufficiently recognised, for him civil administration to any greater extent than did
to secure election to the bishopric in spite or strong Archbishop Laud.
opposition. His first act was characteristic both Nevert.hckss. the governor Orestes was jealous
of the man and of.his policy: he imitated Chrysos of tl~e growth of episc;opal power: thougb .himself
tom and his own contemporary Innocent of Rome a Christian, baptised at Constantinople, he re--
in oppressing the local Novatians. This sect was sented the close and critical attention with which
perfectly orthodox in faith, but had separated Cyril had his various proceedings watched, and
from the Church on puritanical grounds of took an early opportunity to vindicate his inde-
discipline; its adherents were to be found both pendence. His chance came on the occasion of a
in the West, where it arose, and in the East. Jewish riot, directed against a certain schoolmaster,
Cyril showed the Novatians of Alexandria that he a man habitually conspicuous by his enthusiastic
too intended to be a disciplinarian, by dosing attendance at Cyril's sermons and leading the
their churches, taking possession of their sacred applause by which it was then customary to
exhibit a due sense of edification. The jews nor was this done with any idea of embarrassing
alleged that Cyril's indiscreet admirer was also the constitutedgovernment, but from mere extrava-
acting as Cyril's spy : Orestes had him arrested gance of native spirits. As Mommsen observed
and tortured publicly on the spot, to see what truth (Tlte Provi11cr,s of thr; RomaJi. Empire, ii. z65).
there might be in the charge. 1\s soon as Cyril heard though these savages were not in the political
of this be sent for tl1e principal Jews of Alexandria sense dangerous, they were malicious, incalculable,
and warned them either to desist from further moles- and violct1t; and their evil passions, uneradicated
tation of Christians or to take the consequences. by conversion though dormant unde1 wise and
The Jewish rabble retorted by org-anising fL kind fi.tm lca<]ership, remained at the service of any
of Bartholomew massacre : one night they armed Christian agitator who was oase enough to evoke
themselves, assumed distinguishing emblems, them. Cyril knew this as well as anybody.
raised a cry that one of the churches was on fire, He is dreadfully accountable for having roused
and slaughtered all the Christians who ran up to them to so unnatural a defence and confirmation
put it out. !\ext morning Cyril went round to the of the Gospel.
synagogues and seized possession of them, accom- The urban ferocity of the town was shared by
panied by a Christian rabble; he then started to some, though not all, among the ardent monastic
expel the Jews from the city and gave the rabble tempers of the neighbouring desert. Five hundred
his free permission to sack Jewish property; a fiery monks, whom Cyril's uncle had previously
large number of jews were aclualJy driven peltni- employed for his own violent ends, descended
less frorn their homes into exile. The governor on the capilal, determil1ed to make the archbishop's
was as helpless as he was furious; both parties cause their own. They met tlte governor in his
appealed to the Emperor, and Orestes indignantly chariot, taunted him with aJ'mse in proper Alexan-
refused the friendly advances which Cyril now saw chian mode, and began to stone him. Orestes
fit to make. was wounded in the head a.nd his escort was
In considering these and subsequent events. scattered ; but the pagan rabble rallied to tbe
it has to be remembered tl1at the lower classes tumult. rescued the governor, and captured his
of Alexandria were the most irresponsibly tumul- assailanl, who was promptly tortured so severely
tuous in the world. Other mobs used to riot: that he died. Again both governor and arch-
the Alexandrian mob alone made a point of ending bishop forwarded their sepatale versions of the
every riot with cudgels, brickbats, and knives; incident to the emperor; hut CY1il, instead of
renewing his previous overtures lor reconciliation, discredit both on Cyril and on the whole Alexan-
now with inexcusable indecency enrolled the victim drian church. .People who incite the passions ol
on the list of martyrs. Sensible members even the rabble cannot escape all blame for what the
of bis own party drew the line at glorifying such a rabble does when it is roused.
ruffian, and Cyril gradually allowed tb.i.s bizarre Perhaps this frightful outcome sobered Cyril.
saint to fall into oblivion. At any rate, the Emperor ne;o.."t year forbade the
Unfortunately the matter did not end even there. clergy to engage in public affair$, and we hear no
! n the eyes of the Christian rabble, led by one of more of controversy. General concord prevailed
the minot' clerics, i be lwnour of the Church was in tlle Church at large; nor does anything further
still engaged in pursuit of the quarrel, and blood appear to have occurred to break the peace in
had t o be wiped out with blood. In 361 the J Alexandria. Cyril was occupied with the in-
heathen section of the populace of Alexandria had cessant duties of Ius vast charge, in composing
lynched the unpopular Arian archbishop, George his voluminous works of interpretation and com-
the pork-butcher, paraded his body round the city ment on the Bible and b.i.s great l(eatises on the
on a camel, and burnt it. In 415 their Christian Christian doctrine of God. His conduct of the
counterpart waylaid a most distinguished and Nestorian affair, more than a dozen years later,
highly respected philosopher, a woman, dragged has been described already in the preceding
her into a church, covered her with indignities, Lectw-e; it is enough to say here that in its earlier
murdered her, tore her limb from limb, and burnt stages he displayed greater patience than tbe
her mangled remains. The victim was the famous Roman Pope, in his theological contentions be
Hypatia, the outstanding Neoplatonist teacher manifested no deeper misw1derstanding of his
of her day; and her offence \vas the mere rumou( opponents than did NestorLus, and in the intrigues
that she used her friendship with the governor which accompanied and followed the Council of
to prevent his reconciliation to the archbishop. Ephesus of 43:t he adopted methods little, i[ any,
The historian Socrates, in recording the horrible more unpleasant than such as his antagonists
crime, though he had no love for Cyril, makes not employed. He did the work that was set him,
the slightest suggestion that Cyril was directly under the impulse of a sense of mission ; both in
responsible. But he does remark, with justice, its design and in its execution he had much the
that an event so utterly removed from the spirit larger part of Christendom upon his side. The
of Christianity brought the most resounding faults of lhe Council are uot by any means all
3T8 CYR{I.; ONE lORD, ONE FAITH, O"'E BAM'lS~! 319
chargeable to Cyril's unscrupulous judgement or memory officially condemned : that was Wl-
to his imperious temper. They were mainly due necessary, since Theodore's doctrine was already
to the hardened, and also morally hardening fact repudiated in the person of Nestorius. The Pope
of the imperial Stare connection, which led ec- of Alexandria had shown himseli as resolute and
clesiastics not only into employments of a political inflexible about decisions once taken as the Popes
character, but into doing in politics as politicians of Rome. ] ust as he never could be induced to
did. Such are tne incidental perils to be balanced inscribe th<! name of Chrysostom on his Churcll roll
ag:llnst the incalculable advan tages of effective of departed worthies l_he said he would as soon
Church establishment. restore the name of Judas lscariot to the roll of the
After the Council and the personal climLnation apostles-so he never fom1ally withdrew his
of Nestorius, Cyril made peace with the remaining twelve anatl\ematisms on )Jestorius ; his mind
leaders of the Antiochene school, having been con- had been made up iinally on tbe subject of both
vinced of their substan tial orthodoxy. Jobn of men, and nothing could make him change iL
Antioch was reconciled on what were practically With Roman support, Cynl was in a fair way to
Cyril's own terms : he was induced not only to establish for !lis see a similar position in Eastern
repudiate Nestorianism but to condemn Nestorius. Christendom to that occupied by Rome in the
Theodoret, who was honestly persuaded that West. That the position could not be maintained
N cstorius was no heretic, ultimately had to tall was due to two causes, one fundamental, the other
into line. His correspondence shows (ep. 83) proximate. In the Vest, Rome had no rival;
that he and Cyril resume.d the outward ceremonies but in tlle East Alexandria was merely ftghting
of friendship; letters passed between them, and against nature in aiming a:t permanent control
Cyril's treatise in refuta~on of Julian's attack
' It used to be s."tid that he gave way in 4r7, but it is clear,
on Christianity was forwarded to Thcodorct, as Dr. Kidd brinjss out, that his lett~x refusing to do w wa
though indirectly, for his approval. Cyril had written a fter 421, since Thcodotw; was bishop of Antioch al
fully gained his object; he had stopped the currency the date o! litis correspondence. The only ground for statlng
that be ever withdrew !lis objections is the assump6on Ul:U
of any further teaching about the two Natures Rome, wrucb supported Cbrysostom's cau51:, would not other-
of Christ in the extreme form which, as popularised wise have had any friendly dealings with him. But, as
by Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius, had Duchesne observes, lliere is no positive evidenc~ tllat Cynl
ever COtl)promised on this point. It appears thai in tlus
given rise to so much misunderstanding. He instance even Rome wai,ed i1s policy before the superior
wisely refrained from any effort to have Theodore's tenacity of Alexandria.
of the bishop of the imperial capilal at Constan- of his throne. The consequences were manifested
tinople, and the Council of Chalcedon in 45I only two years later at Chalcedon, where Rome and
recognised ineluctable facts wbcn it confirmed Antioch won a qualified triumph in Cbristology,
Constantinople in its primacy next after Old Rome, and Constantinople gamed a reverberating suc-
and gave it at last a legal patriarchate to govern cess for its claims to ecclesiastical government.
and legal rights of appeal from the whole of the Against tbe Jatte> Leo protested in vain. Thence-
East. This constitutes the fundamental reason forward Byzantium, not Alexandria, was to rule
for Alexandria's decline. The immediate cause the imperial Chtll'ch of the East.
was the loss of Roman support, brought about These events, howeer, so swift and catastraphic
through Alexandrine deviation into heresy. After in their iioal unmasking, were as yet veiled in an
Cyril's death, ill 444, Dioscorus, his successor, occult future While Cyril liv-ed. For his remaining
abetted the root-aud-brat~ch attacks of Eutyches days the archbishop of Alexandria acted as the
and others on the whole doctrine of two Natures, arbiter of Eastern theology and tbe chief power in
sustaining their assault by ftagran t acts of violence Eastern ecclesiastical politics. But his ascendancy
and injustice at the Brigandage of Ephesus in 449 was closely and suspiciously watched. Though
Rome believed strongly in justice, and no Less outwardly reconciled, Theodoret never shed either
strongly in a moderate and unspeculative accept his preference for Antiochene ways of thought
ance of the two Natures: Pope Leo, therefore, or his distrust of Cyril's teaching. At the time
wrote to the Emperor that the Christian faith of the first Council of Ephesus he had described
was being utterly destroyed (ep. 44), and cried out Cyril as " the Egyplian once more raving against
for a new general council to overthrow 'Dioseorus God and ma.l~g war on Moses and Aaron and
and reverse his actions. " We pray iliaL when His servants"; adding sorrowfully that the greater
those '"ho i11 jure the Church arc expelled, and your part of Israel was taking the side of God's enemies
provinces enjoy the possession of justice, and (ep. 162). In the words of the official report to
vengeance has been executed on these heretics, the Emperor from the Antiochene bishops at
your royal power also may be protected by the Ephesus, a document which Theodoret probably
right hand of Christ" (ep. 43) A Jehu was drafted and certainly approved, Cyril " was born
again calling for a Jezebel to be ca..~t down, as and bred for the ruination of the churches" (Thdt.
in the earlier case of Nestorius ; but Dioscorus, ep. 157). I:lis "impious intentions" are revealed
when he fell, brought down with him the power in his twelve anathcmatisms on Nestorius, by
which be is convicted of " raising from hell the m11ch-tar more, indeed, than Cyril himself had
impious Apo11inaris, who died in his heresy " (w.). any notion, for the document from which Cyril
Theocloret's views on this subject had not materially constantly quoted, as an authentic letter of his
changed by 449, when Cyril had been for five spiritual father, Athanasius, was undoubtedly
years as dead as Apollinaris, People outside the penned by Apollinaris in person. Moreover there
patriarchate of Antioch, Theodorct then wrote existed some justification for Theodorot's under-
(ep. ll2), had no idea of tbc poison contained in lying resentment al the treatment measured out
Cyril's Twelve Articles ; he himsel[ had always to Nestorius, and at the aspersions cast on tJ \c
opposed them, as being a revival of h ])Ollinaris's teaching of !lis own master, Theodore. Cyril
innovations, and had joined in Cyril's deposition judged Theodore and Nestorius not by wha.t they
for maintaining them, and had refused t o make said, after comparison of one point with another,
peace with Cyril until he had explained his ortho- but by the effect produced, or likely to be produced,
doxy without including any reference to them. by one aspect of their teaching, taken in isolation
lt is perfectly clear that so long as Cyril's Twelve from the rest. Though the whole Christian world
Articles were not withdrawn, even though they outside Antioch sbared in his misunderstanding,
stood in the background, they constituted an and though his own thought was similarly mis-
obstacle to harmonious co-operation with the represented. Cyril's attitude was both prejudiced
strait sect of Antiochene theology. Constanti- and unfair. He fL"ed a meaning on Nestorius's
nople, Asia Minor, Palestine, and the West were phrases which their author plainly rejected, and
in intcUcctual amity with Cyril ; but Alltioch laid himself open to a charge of positive mis-
retaioetl all its old misunderstanding of Cyril's quotation (Loofs Ne:;tot1.tt7ill l? ~05).
manner of approach to Chrlstology. There really Cyril'.s own Writings convict him o-f uofairne~s.
is lHtle cause for wonder that Tbeodoret should He protested repeatedly against the use of the
have welcomed the ne"'-s o! Cyril's death, and word ' conjunction ' to express the union between
in a private letter to a friend should have expressed Christ's two natures, suggesting that it was an
his relief with painful vigour and liveliness. innovation, and claiming that Nestorius used it to
What lrulh then was there behtnd Th<:odoret's imply a moral association instead of a real identity
suspicions? I n the formal accusation thal Cyril of person (ad Nest. 3, 7IA; quod um~ 733A, n).
was an Apollinarian. none. But in the implication But in fact it had been employed in a fully ortho-
that Cyril had learned a ~reat deal from Apollinaris, dox sense by Athanasius (c. Ar. 2. 70), Basil (ep.
zro. 5), Gregory of Nyssa (c. Eun.. 3 3 66, Migne passage oft he "Ba1.aar" (p. 229) N estorius actually
705c), and even by 1\pollinaris (tl11 u n. rz: frag. for a moment lighted on the truth of what Cyril was
rz). Language capable of bearing an orthodox trying to express by the phrase' hypostatic union.'
meaning in these writers was neither new nor only to stumble again off the firm ground of iact
necessarily unorthodox io Nestorius. Again, Cyril into the loose and slippery shale or formal polemics.
objected to the description of the Incat:nation as Wbat Cyril plainly meant was the concurrence of
the' assumption of a man' (apol. c. Thdt. 232c, n, E, the divine ancl human forms in one person, so that
d. hom. pascll. 27, 3238), forgr.tting that in bis whether as God or as man or as both Christ con-
own pre-Nestorian treatise he had written: "The stituted a single objective reality (hypostasis) ~
Word was in the beginning, and far later in time just as by his phrase' physical union' he indicated
became high priest on our behalf, assuming the a personal unity in which the two elements
woman-born man or shrine like a robe " (t/Jes. severa11y expressed different embodiments of a
ass. zr, 2148). And though he strongly deprecated single 'pbysis' or personal existence. ButNestorius
the Nestorian usc of ' two hypostases ' and ' in- and Theodoret were alike convinced that Cyril's
dwelling' and union ' by good-pleasure', he was language implied a fusion of the deity and the
quite ready to use all such phrases under proper humanity into a bybrid compound, neither wholly
safeguards in his ovvn explanations of his faith divine nor wholly human, 1mder pressure of a
(e.g. atl Acac. u6c; thes. ass. 32, JI7D; ail 'physical ' or ' natural' law of mechanical com-
S1tccens. l, 137A) : indeed, in 435 extreme members bination entirely opposed to all conceptions of
of his own party were openly suspecting l1im of personal or voluntary action (cf. Theodoret on
having gone over to the Nc~torians during h.is Cyril's znd and 3rd anathematisms, and Nestorius
negotiations for a settlement. Yct so resolute Bazaar passim). They were right in so far that the
was his conviction of the heretical depravity of his word ' physical ' in Greek could quite well mean
principal opponent, that language which was 'mechanical,' and was frequently associated with
orthodox in Cyril acquired a tinge of heresy merely the idea of a fixed law of behaviour imposed on
from passing through N cstorius's lips. It was objects by their natural con~-titution: where they
useless for anyone to discuss the faclof what Nes- went WTOng was in their failure to perceive that the
torius really Laught when so perverse a critic was word could not possibly mean anything of the kind
upholding the other side of the debate. in the context in wbich Cyril used it. The whole
Cyril himseli was just as bad1y treated. In one void which made a reasonable understanding un-
attainable between Cyril and the Antiochenes was purposes of a human existence. God learned
nothing more nor less than a chasm of mutually through personal condescension what 1t is to be a
omitted contexts. man.
Cyril's main contention was that the personal This explains the reluctance which Cyril showed
subject o{ the godhead and of the manhood was to concede more than he could help of human
identical ; only so could the unityof God the Word ignorance to Christ. He never could forget that
and ' the man ' be positively conceived, and only whenever Christ spoke it was God speaking, even
so, therefore, could redemption be maintained as though His speech issued through huma,Jl lips and
having been effected both in man, through human was conditioned by human faculties. That is why
channc:ls, and by God, through divine agency. he represents the Saviour's moral and intellectual
Theodore and Nestorius were content to leave the growth as a volttntary unveiling of His divine mind
union oi the two natures a complete mystery; (cf. Sellers Tv1o A11cient Christologies, pp. 103 ff.):
Cyril saw that misconceptions and heresies were Athanasius had treated it in precisely the same way
bound to recnr until theology had supplied a (cf. Ath. c. Ar. 3-52, 53); and, looked at from the
positive doctrine of the one Lord Christ. Cyril aspect of His deity, that is what it was. Cyril is
insisted, then, that all the experiences of the in- little interested- too little interested-in Christ's
carnate life were experiences of a divine Person. human moral effort and His human apprehension
God the Son Himself, and no other, was boro and of tmth; that is where, as Dr. Sellers rightly
Jived on earth under human conditions and claims (op. cit., pp. zoo f.), the Antiochene.s have the
suffered and rose from the dead, not, of course, in better of him. The one fact which Cyril never will
His J1cavenly nature, but in the " form of a scr~ let go is that God was learning and deciding in His
vant" to which, for the purposes of the incarn- manhood, 1' economically ' '~that is to say, wilbin
ation, He condescended to limit His experience and the sphere and terms of the incarnation (in Greek,
action. It was God who suffered in the flesh and ' economy ')-what He already knew and had
was crucified in the :flesh and, because even within decided [rom all eternity as God. " Sometimes
the limitations to which He bad reduced Hirose! He discourses as man, economically and maowise;
He remained the true stuff and source oi life, sometimes He makes His utterances with divine
became the first-born from lhe dead (anathem. 12). authority, as God" (ad Sucu1r.s. I, I378). The
The manhood represents the conditions to which the lips are always human lips. but the authority, when
action of God the Son was scaled down for the aathority is asserted, is that of one who was God
JZ3 CYRJL : 0 1-<"E LORD, ONE l'Al'I'H, O~E BAPl'IS:M 3~9

as well as man. That sort of claim for the author- The Lord's .flesh is Jile-giving and belongs to the
ity o Christ's teaching is one whlch the extreme Word Himself who is out of God the Father; it
Antiochencs, with their deficient theory of the j does not belong to some one other than Him,
union of nat ures, had no strict right to put forward . conjoined to Him by merit or merely enjoying a
TheAutiochenes had done their best to draw the divine indwelling (mraeh. n). The Word of God
manhood of ' the man ' closely round the person of suffered in Jlesh (attath. .t2).
God the Son, by declaring that Christ's ' man ' was Cyril carefully disclaimed ApoUinarianism, but
no casually selected human being, but one designed, following in the footsteps both o! the Alexandrine
prepared and fitted for t he sole purpose o being and of the Cappadocian theologians he maintained
united with God the Son; U1at he was in fact so insistently that Christ's manhood was a true and
united from his first moment of e:tistencc in the individual expression of His divine person in
Virgin's womb (Theodore in Swete ii. pp. zgS, 308, human terms. " We do not say that the nature
339 ; Nestorius in Loofs Nestoriatta, p. 354, of the Word was changed in order to become flesh,
Bazaar, p. 267; Thcodoret on I saiah xi. I, 249B, c). nor that it was transformed into a complete man
Cyril affinns the union still more boldly and un- of soul and body : but rather this, that the \oVord
equivocally in the crucial statement that the flesh united to Himself in a n objective reality, ineffably
of Christ was the flesh of God : " the body that and incomprcl1ensibl y, flesh ensot~led with a
tasted death was by a genuine l.lnion H is very own " rational soul, ~ad tl\us became man " (ari Nest. 2 ,
(apol. c. Thdt. cap. 12, 240A). The same theme 23B). "He was incarnate; that is taking flesh
runs through t)le Twelve Articles. Emmanuel was from the holy Virgin and making it His own from
in truth God and therefore the b.oly Virgin was the the womb, He underwent a birth like ours and
Mother oi God, for she bare in flesh God the Wox:d came forth iJom the woman a man" (ad Nest. 3,
made flesh (anath. X). The man assumed is not to JOA). "He Himself, who is the Son begotten of
be worsbi pped and glorified alongside God the God th e Father and is God o nly-begotten, though
Word, a,s if the one were dwelling in the other, but He is impassible in His own nature, s uffered in
a single worship is to be addressed to Emmanuel flesh lor us according to the Scriptures; and in the
inasmuch as the Word bas become flesh (anath. 8). crucified body He was making His own, impassibly,
OUI hig h priest is the very Word out of God, be- the sufferings of llis own flesh " (ib. J2A). " Being
come flesh and man like us; not another man born united to manhood like ours, H e could. impassibly,
of woman separately apart !rom Him (anath. I O). endure human sufferings in flesh t hat was H is
own " (d~ l'ed. {ul. 163E). " He made His own a proceeds from the one Christ, both the divine
body whiclt was able to suffer, in order that He manifestations and the human (apol. c. Tlu/J. 4.
might be said to suffer in that which had a passible 217A, B). The human utterances are nol to be
nature, although He remained impassible Himself referred to another person, to a son separalely and
in His own nature'' (apol. c. Tiedt. cap. 12, 2390). independently conceived, but to the conditions of
Neither Christ's sufferings nor His ignorance His manhood (ib. o). Accordingly Cyril rejects
belonged to the divine nature; but the whole every attempt to ascribe the Redeemer's action~ to
obj()Ct of the incarnation was that ~hey might be .anythin.g resembling a distinct personification of
made the actual experience of God in a human either nature. It is an true that Gocl t.he Word
embodiment. and not ' the man ' raised Lazams from the tomb;
Nor was Ule humanity a mere bundle o! abstract it is untrue Lhat the assumed man and not God the
attributes wilh 110 more than a paper existence, as Word was wearied in His tr;;tvels a.nd was crucified
the Antiochenes feared lhat Cyril meant. Cyril a11d died ; that is simply to misunderstand the
denies this expressly, asserting that the humanity truth of the incarnation : the Word of God
was as real and substantive a thing or act as the became man, and every word and act must be
deity; a genuine incarnation implies " a concurrence ascribed to Him Himself ; tor since the same person
o actual things or real objects" (apol. c. Thdt. I , is both God and man at the same time, His speech
206c). Nevertheless, though. tbe medium and displays both divine and human qualities, and His
condiLions of each experience were concrete, he is actions likewise are both div ine and human (resp.
careful to deny that this admission involves two ad TiiJ. 39011, c, Pusey v. 586 ; Atbanasius had
personal subjects. He distinguishes clearly be made exactly the same point, ad. Serap. 4 14, ll)
tween the divine experience and the lmman language oE unambiguous luroinosity). 1 In llther
experience, while: maintaining that the one un- words, Cyril will have nothing to do with a.ny
divided Christ is U1e subject ot both. If there is theory of alternation betwe~n divine and human
one Jesus Christ our Lord ancl. one faith in Him and functions in the Redeemer; the effect of the two
one baptism, iliere must be only one person of natures is concurrent; the Redeemer's acts are the
Him; and if the same person is at once boili God acts of a roan who is God and of a God who has,
and man, it follows beyond the possibility of within the sphere of operations undertaken for
criticism that He should speak " ai once both in a human redemption, effectively made Himself a man.
divine and in a human fashion "; everything 1
Qnotod in the note appended to Ulis Lecture.
Nothing could be much plainer than this; and something which He has, so a soul, or finite con-
Cyril repeats with great consistency substantially sciousness, is really something that a person is,
the same clear doctrine in everything he writes rather than a possession that he owns; and as
upon the subject. But be not only has a finn Christ became a man, rather than took possession
grasp of conclusions; he also holds definite ideas o[ a man, so it would be truer to say that He sub-
about the conditions under which the incarnation jected His divine consciousness, within the in-
has been brought to pass. His notion of the nature carnate sphere, to the limitations involved in a
of man was precisely that of Apollinaris-and, it physical existence. He adapted Himself to " flesh
m!LY be added, that implicitly held by Athanashs- consciously ensouled ". voluntarily limiting the
with the one significant exception of ApolJinaris's range and action of His divine mind to physical
error. Apollinaris defined roan as " consciousness conditions, and Himself. thus limited, becoming
in iiesh" (Jrfl.g. 72). but refused to admit the need the soul of His " ensouled flesh ".
for that consciousness to be subjected to human This view, which is what Cyril's teaching really
limitations; a fully divine and unreduced con- amounts to, involves a number of corollaries. It
sciousness, unconditioned by its association with implies the real continuity of the human soul of
the ilesh and operatil1g the flesh like a mechanical Christ with His divine consciousness, on which, as
instrument, satisfied both his definition of human we have seen, Cyril laid great stress. It further
nature and his theory of the incarnation. C:y-ril involves the conception that man is not a com-
did not fall into that mistake. He saw that a bination of two disjunct elements of soul and body,
human consciousness ls subject to special con- regarded as almost independent and unrelated
ditions and lil)J.itations, d!)pcndent on its association factors, so much as a mind physically conditioned
with its physical organism, and he improved the - psychologically a far more satisfactory defmition.
defi11ition accordingly. " What else," he asked, It requires the assumption that Christ's buman
"is the nature oi manhood except flesh consciously life was a real addition to His eternal life, yet an
ensouled, in whidJ we assert that the Lord addition characterised rather by a new mode of
suffered ' in flesh ? " (ad SU(:cms. z, 1450}. To action than by fresh content ; what was always
deny the human soul is to eliminate the conditions within His range as God He now experienced over
which make the consciousness genuinely human. again as man. It argues that in His earthly life He
Christ, then, had a human soul. Or more strictly, made Himself Jess than He eternally was, reducing
just as deity is something that God is, rather than and contracting His infmite eternal compass. And
33~ CYRIL: OI'E LOR[), ONE Ft\lTH, ONe BAPTIS~l ll'
it assumes tbal human nature has certain def1nite Chrysostom again, a thoroughAntiocbene, states
constitutive principles, o the scale and limits of in Platonic language that the relation of the soul
whicb He confined His human action. These to its " earthy vessel " is the same as that of a
points need some brief illustration. driver to his chariot or of a musician to his instru-
The definition of human nature accepted by ment (de ang~tse. port. I, ed. Ben. iii. zso). Finally
Cyril was stated in principle by Origen, who says Nemesius, the philosophical bishop of Emesa in
(de.pri11c. 4 z . 7), "by men 1 mean souls employing Syria, who was roughly a contemporary of
bodies ". 1\.thanasius implies the same idea when Chrysostom, observes the c.o ntrast between Aris-
be mentions (ad Epict. 6} that while Joseph totelian and Platonic ways of regarding humanity.
wrapped our Lord's body in linen and laid it in the Aristotle, he says, regards mind as only potentially
tomb, " He Himselt " went and preached to the created with a man, actual mind being a later de-
spil'its in Hades. Basil aifi.rms it clearly. He velopment of personal existence; whereas P lato
distinguishes between the selt, and its properties, "does not appear to mean that a man is a soul
and its incidental attacbments : " Our soul and and a body both, but a soul employing a particular
mind are' our sell, inasmuch as we have been body", intending tllat "we should consider the
made in the image of the Creator; the body and soul to be our self and pursue only the goods of the
the sensations derived tl:irough it are ' ours ' : soul " (de nat. hem. 1). Hence in spite of frequent
possessions and occupations and the rest of life's statements, made without any qualification, that
furniture are 'attached to us ' " (i1~ illu1l AUetule man is a compound animal consisting of two
Tibi ipsi 3, ed. Ben. ii. T8c;). Elsewhere he notes members, a soul and a body, there 1s a long
the difference between ,ex.periences occurring to succession of Christian thinkers who victure the
mere (iesh, such as laceration; to animated flesh , relation between these two elements not as that
such as physical weariness ; and to " a soul subsisting between two equal and parallel com-
employing a body", such as grief (ep. 26t. 3} : and ponents, but as that of a finite consciousness, which
in yet another passage he claims, on the ground that is the true self, to the physical conditions that
the Saviour was " not inanimate (.i.e. soulless] permanently determine its character. Cyril is
flesh but deity employing animated flesh " , that simply building on that tradition when he puts
ignorance can rightly be attributed ''to IIim who forward the self of God the Sou, appropriately
accepted everything in incarnate fashion and limited and conditioned, as the personal subject
progressed in wisdom and grace" (ep. 236. 1). of the manhood ot Christ.
The same jdea is possibly in the mind of but that withm the sphere of His jocamation He
Gregory of Nazianzus, when be says that God was caused His own mind to be physically conditioned
united lo flesh through the medium of a soul, the and limited. That is the "})Oint of Cyril's rulhless
two divergent factors being linked together by war upon Nestorius. Christ was " not two different
the medium's affinity to both (or. z. 23); or, persons, though He acted in two different ways "
more simply, tl1at God became associated with ([rag. hom. '!5, Pusey v. p. 474). Cyril had no
fie.~b tbrough the medium of a mind (or. zg. 19) ol)jection to confessing one Christ in two natures :
Both Gregory and Cyril exhibit the same sense he was adamant against any possibility of two
that three distinct terms are involved, and that the separated nature.'> constituting t wo separate Sons,
central term provides the key to the Cbristological of splitting in to two sections the ~ingle persottal
problem. In descending order we are presented bci.ng and action of the Saviour, or of doubling
with the infmite Mind of God, a finite human the solemn act of redemption between Christ and
consciousness, and the material envelope in which a human understudy.
the human consciousness or soul is embodied. It is a commonplace of fourth-century theology
Gregory, following Origen (d~ pri1rc. z. 6. 3), saw that the manhood of Christ was an " addition "
that the human soul must be the true point of which He "took". Such a statement was necessi-
union between God and a physical organism, tated in order to avoid assuming that His deity was
because of its double affinities: it has kinship on changed or impoverished by the incarnation ;
the one hand to God, since the soul though finite what H e experienced in the flesh had to be some-
resembles God in being a rational consciousness; thing outside the range of H is divine experience,
and on th() other hand to pltysical bodies, with uU).ess it~ limitations were to be reckoned as liroit-
which it is regularly associated in the order of ations of the infinitude and transcendence of God.
natural existence. Gregory, and still more Cyril, Hence comes the constant repetition of such
improved on Origen's statement that the cli'.rine phrases as " the addition (proslepsis) of the
Son identified Himself with a particular soul, till flesh ", " Christ's incarnation or addition ", " being
the doctrine is clearly implied !.hat God the Word eternal God and King He was sent to us and added
became a human sonl. The relation between our mortal body", "impassible in His deity but
Christ's di'.rine and human conscioosness was not, passible in His addition " , "not altering (meta-
as the strict two-natum school was bound to say, balon) what He was but adding (proslabon) what
if pressed, that He took to Himself a second mind, He was not" (Ath. c. AI'. 1. 41; Greg. Na:z;. or.
338 CYIUL: ONE LORD, ONE FArr'f!, ON~ J:lA!,~TlSM 339
21. 3; Atb. c. Ar. I. 47, Greg. Naz. or. 40. 45, or. been described as " a condescension to th e
39 13). At firsl sighL this looks like an attempt humiliation and weakMss o manhood " (Basil in
to extend infinity by tacking on to it something ps. xliv. 5); a.s an act, " not of 11ature, but of
in which infinity itself was deficient, and if that grace and condescension and emptying" (Chrys.
had really been intenued, the result would equally i11 Heb. 7. 2). It added nothing to the godhead ,
have been to attribute limitation to the godhead, it was only in the manhood that anything at all
and let in Arianism by the back door. But the was added.
doctrine of human addition to Christ has to be In the manhood, however, the word addition is
balanced by the doctrine of divine kenosis or strictly applicable; as man, Christ could pray to
contraction, by which ChTist made Himself on the Father and receive gifts from the Father.
earth what might be called a miniature of His What Cyril says about the glorifying of the
eternal. sell; and when the two doctrines are put Redeemer is typical. of his whole. altitude to the
together it becomes plain tl1at the so-called incarnation. "Tile Son, as Word, stands in no
addition was nothing but a repetition, on a smaller need of glory or o any other accession; though
scale, and in a limited :>phere, of what Christ He asks from the Father or is said to receive, He
already was eternally. does so under the term.s of the incarnation; He
This is hinted at by Gregory (or. 37 z), who receives in human manner owing to the fashion of
collocates the contraction and the addition : Bis assimilation to us'' (U~oes. ass. 23, 226E).
" What He was He emptied and what Be was not "Since He took flesh which is in need of being
He added." An addition, of which the very natm:e glorified, and that flesh became His and no on~'s
is that it is a conlracti.on. involves a new method .else, it is in keeping tor Hlm to make l;:Iis own the
of operation, but no enlargement of the divine experiences that befall it or concern it ; and as man
infinitudt;. Cyril sees the 'facts clearly. "What He Jacks and receives from the Father what He
sort of process is the. emptying? 1t means be- possesses in His own nature as Son and God "
coming suuject to the addition of flesh . . . t he (ib. 227B). The 'addition ', then, is in its essence
assimilation to us of Him who in His own nature a subtraction, and all that was ever strictly added
is not like us " (quod un1es 7-12a). "He became was the gradual restoration, so far as was appro-
subject to the addition of flesh consciously en- priate to ilie conditions of a human existence, of
souled ... by Himself becoming flesh, that is, a endowments which, while retained unimpaired in
man" (ib. 743E). The incarnation had already the divine life, had been voluntarily discarded in
the act of incarnation. The 'added flesh means U1al exists in man towards the nature of the God
nothing more than the physical conditions which in whose image man is made; if reversed> they
God the Son was pleased to impose on the self show how dimi.nutiv<J God made Hin1sell when He
emptied consciousness of His human ex-perience. Himself became man, So, for CyrO, Christ " re
Some queerly interesting passages can be quoted <luced HimseH in diminution, that is, under our
to illustrate the general notion that God the Son conditions" (ad Acac. u6c).
reduced Himself, as it were, in size when He Bat the normal expression for the divine
became man. One comes from the Syriac Doctri11e condescension is kenosis or 'emptying', and the
of Ailaai, as cited in Greek by Eusebius (fl. e. I. I3 reason for 1ts prevalence is, as Marly always,
20) : " I will preach about the coming of Jesus; that it was taken from the Bible (Phil. ii. 7) .
. . . about His littleness and humiliation; how He When St. Paul said that Christ emptied Himself,
bumbled HimseU, and laid aside and stunted His be seems to have meant no more than that He
deity, and was crucified". Methodius compares poured out His divine prerogatives onto the ground
Him, in an involved argument, to a subdivided like wine out of a bowl; he had in mind an act of
number b ecause He had been " lessened and re- self-denying generosity. Prigcn developed the
solved into His Iactors ", '' withollt ever having idea, as he did so many other ideas, giving the
been diminished from His integral value" (symp. kenosis positive expression in the actual circum-
8. II, 202). Eusebius suggests that "He receded stances of the incarnate life (in fer. I. 7), in-
from His deity and stunted HimseU from His sisting that it made the humanity a mirror of the
natural bigness" (dem. ev. 6. g. I). "lfe em1)tied divinity (de princ. 1. 2. 8), and claiming that what
the ineffable glory of His deity," says Gregory of was left as the result of the process of emptying
Nyssa, "and stunted it with our diminutiveness; was stiU the Wisdom of God (jn, ]er. 8. 8). W11ile
so that what He was remained great and perfect St. Paul had been thinking of the unreserved
and incomprehensible, but wl1at He took was of self-sacrifice of Christ, Origen sees in His self-
equal size with our scale of nature" (tulv. Apotl. emptying the method of His contraction from an
20). F rom this point of view the manhood of infinite to a finite scale. Origen's conception was
Christ is presented as deity viewed through the accepted with general, if with rather casual,
wrong end of a telescope. The lens consists of the approval. It was left to Cyril to give it intense
constitutive principles of human nature : used in prominence, and to connect the emptying. re-
the ordinary way they point through the highest peatedly and emphatically, with the ' measure '
CYlUL: ONE LORI), ON!t fAlTH. Oi'fE D.~.PTISM 3+3
and 'scale' (metron) or the ' terms and ' prin- human experience. " He makes His own all that
ciples' (logoi) uf httrnanity. belo11gs, as to His own body, so to Lhe soul, for He
He harps perpetually on this theme. The had to be shown to be like us tlrrough every
emptying was a voluntary reduction to our level, citcumstance both physical and mental, and we
undertaken as an act of pure love (i1~ ] oh. 97os). consist of rational soul and body ; and as there
'' The method of the voluntary emptying, in- are times when in the incarnation He permitted
volving as it necessarily did the fashion of the His own flesh to experience its own affections, so
humiliation, makes the only-begotten God appear, again He permitted the soul to experience its
through the manhood, m circumstances meaner proper affections, and l-Ie observed the scale of
than those in which the Father is" (ib. o). The the emptying in every respect " (de rect. (~. 176c,
emptying in this sense was not absolu tc; it is o). Again, since Christ is in one and the san1e
defined by reference to the standards to wl1ieh person both human and divine, " it will be entirely
God the Son was reduced. " He wl1o fills all tlri11gs true of Him both that He knows and yet that He
lowered Himself to emptying" : " He who is above appears to be ignorant; He knows divinely as
all principality is within the measures of man- the father's Wisdom, but since He has subjected
hood" (hom. pasch. 27, 324c) . "We assert that Himself to the scale of ignorant manhood He makes
the very Word out of God the l~ather, in the act this also His own, as well as every lhing el~c,
by which He is said to have been emptied for our within the incarnation, although He is ignorant
sake by taking the form of a slave, lowered of nothing and knows everything in company
.Himself within the measures of manhood " (c. vvith the Father" (apot. c. Thdt . cap. 4, 2188, c)~
Nest. 63c). " He who lowered HimseH for our "1]le. only-begotten Word of God has worn, with
sake to a \IOluntary emptying, on what ground the manhood, everything a.ppl:rlaining to it, sin
could He reject ll\e principles proper to emptying?'' alone excepted : it may reasonably be held that
(ad Nest. 3. 73.0) . To "become flesh" is the same one characteristic of the measm:es of n1anhood is
thing as to "make the human scale His own " ignorance of the future: accordingly, considered
(apol. a. Tlult. cap. J, 2l2D). as God He knows all that the Father knows, but
In spltc o( everything that may be said. in as being likewise man He does not repudiate the
criticism of Cyril's lreatrnent of the Saviour's appearance of ignorance, owing to the properties
mental and moral development as a human soul, of manhood ; but just as He received physical
he admits uneqt1ivocally the reality of His entire nourishment, not despising the scale of the empty-
ing, tbougb. He is Himsell the source of liie and personality of God the Word, and it made .Besh .
power . . . so although He knows everything He The Greek word here translated ' personality ' is
does not blush to attribute to HimSelf lhe ignorance physis. Physis means the way in which a thmg
proper to manhood ; for everything appertaining grows and functions, hence its 1 nature ' ; applied
to manhood became His, sin alone excepted" to tl1e universe at large it means ' natural law' .
(resp. ad Tib. 4, Pusey v. sSs). St. John, says But it is also frequently applied to t he actual
Cyril, "in introducing Lhe Word as having become thing that grows 01: tunct)ons-suc/:1 as N aturc, in
Hesb, represents Him as allowin.g, in the inca~ the concrete sense of ' the natural worlrl ' . or some
nation, His ovm flesh to proceed through tbe laws pa.ticular c reature or subject, regarded always
of its own natue; and it appertains to manhood from th e standpoint of its function or behaviour,
to advance in age and wisdom, and I should say as an individual embodiment of some specific
also in grace, as the individual intelligence springs characler. Hence in connection with personal
upward, as it were, in correspondence with the beings pbysis can mean either their constitution
measures of the body ". Infants and children and behaviour, or a concrete 'personality' . There
and adults display different characteristics. It i..:; no doubt whatever that, as a description of
would not have been antecedently inconceivable God the Son, divine and incaruate, Cyril meant
for the body of the divine Word to have shown physis in this last sense. The 1 physis of God t he
adult characteristics in infancy, nor for Him to Word' is nothing else than God the Word Himself,
have manifested miraculous wisdom from the the personal sub ject of all His actions and ex-

cracUe; "but such an event would have been peneuces.

not far remo.v ed from oCc\lltism, and out of Cyril shows this by Lhe signifi.cant explanation
keeping with the principles of the incarnation.'' which he adds after quoting the formula. in his
Accordingly, he concludes, the Word "permitted t reatise against Nestorius. After the union, he
the measures of the manhood to prevail over says, there is one incarnate personality of God
Himself in the way of incarnation , since He the Word Himself, as might be said of any h\lman
made His own what appertains to us, seeing that being compou.oded of lhe diverse elements of soul
He became like us (quod zmus 76oA-c). aod body. " But it is necessary to supplement
Cyril sums up his Christology in the formula tl1is '~ith the statement that the body united to
which he adopted, as he thought, from Athanasius, God the Word was eosouled with a rational soul.
but in reality from Apoll:inaris (ad ]ov. I), "one And we may usefully add that the flesh was dis-
lind from the 'Word out of God according to the capac1ty to suffer, it would necessarily have
principle of its own nature, and again the nature followed that the suffering affected the nature of
of the Word Himself was distinct in substance; the Word. But by the term 'incamate' the
yet although the above-mentioned elements must whole principle of the ' economy ' with flesh is
be conceived as different and apportioned to dis- brought in; for He was incarnate in no other
tinct natures, one Christ is conceived as out of way than by taking hold of the seecl of Abraham
both" (c. Nest. 3rc, D). and being made like in all respects to His brethren "
He e>-'])Ounds his meaning with great care in the (ib . 2, 14213, c) . "When we say that there is one
two letters to Succensus. " The flesh is flesh an d only-begotten Son of God, incarnate a.nd made
not deity, even though it has become God's flesh ; man, He is not thereby intermingled, as they sup-
similarly the Word is God and not flesh, even pose; neither has the nature of the Word deviated
though He made the flesh His own by way of iuto the nature of the flesh, nor that of the flesh
incarnation "; consequently it is both right to into that or the Wo(d; each continues and is
allow that the " concuiTence into union " was recognised in its own natural character . . . and
effected out of two ' natures ' (that is, personal ineffably and indescn'bably united He displays to
characters determined by their respective spheres), us one 'nature' of the Son, but, as I say, in-
and also necessary to deny that after admitting carnate" (ib . T4311., B). Cyril is Implying exactly
the fact of their union we should separate the what Theodore and Nestorius had attempted to
' natures ' from one another and partition the express : the deity has its personality and the
undivided Son into t wo Sons; " we assert one manhood aJso has its personality, but the two
5on and, as the Fathers have stated, one incarnate personalities are identically one and the sRme.
personality [' na ture') of God the Word " (ad. Tbe Antiochcne leaders left the matter there as a
Stlcctns. r , I3?D). "There is no ground for mere assertion, unsupported by any attempt at
alleging that He sufk'fed in respect of His own explanation. Cyril adds the vitally important
[i.e. divinel nature, if we admit after the union link : the reason why the two are identical is
one incarnate 'nature ' of the Son. That might because the human personality is simply that of
properly bave been alleged, if there had not the divine subject under submission to physicaJ
existed within the principles of the incarnation conditions.
something constituted to undergo suffering; for Cyril gave one final indication that by the
bad that something not existed and possessed the ' nature' of God the Word he meant the divine
348 CYRIL: ONli LORD, 01-.'"E FAITH, ONE BAPT1S~1 319
Word in person. throu!$h the variations which he equivalent; that which, exhibited in terms of
introduced into the terms of the formula as found deity, is God the Son, is also, when exh.ibited in
in the original document. Sometimes he substitutes terms of manhood. Jesu$ Christ. If His nature '
for j physis ' the term ' hypostasis : " all the be regarded from the abstract point of view, as
utterances recorded in the Gospels must be illustrating the terms which constitute or condi-
attributed to one individual (prosopon), the one tion Him, tl1en it must be admitted to be two-
incarnate ' object of the Word " (a1i Nest. 3. 73D ; fold ; the terms of deity are quite distinc t from
cf. c:. Nest. 5LD). Sometimes ag<tin he changes those of manhood, and so remain. But if it be
the gender of the 1)a.rticiple ' im;arnate '. making .regarded from the concrete pojnJ of view, as the
it refer directly to the Son instead of His ' physis ' : person, being, or subject embocllcd and expressed
" we believe there is one ' nature ' of the Son, as in the terms, then He is one Christ, both God
of one person, but H1m made man and incarnate" and mao.
(ad Acac. usE). Leontius of Byzantium, a cen- Cyril bad far too deep a religious apprehension
tury later, struggling to reconcile the formula of of the awesome profundity of A.lnrighty God to
Apollinaris and Cyril with the truth as it appeared think that he could dissect the tremendous mystery
from his own two-nature standpoint, rashly of the union of Natures in detail, and serve it
observed tl1at to make the participle agree with up filleted for a logician's breakfast. Intellectual
tbe divine Word inst~ad of the nature is to coun- pride was much mon: typlcal of the temper of
terfeit the true coin of the Fathers' teaching Nestorius. To Cyril, "the manner of the union
(c. Monoph. 42) : because he failed to see t hat by is entirely beyond human understanding " (fJ140d
' nature ' Cyril meant personality, be imagined un.us 7361\.}. But the fact and even thG\ purpose
that the ascription of one nature to the incama.te of the unkm were revealed with quite sufficient
Word, witM1.1t even implicit mention o-f an in- clearness for all J)J:actical Christian needs, No
carnate nature. involved the Monophysite heresy. fl;lSion or intenningling, be insists, is implied in
Unfortunately for Leon tius, Cyril committed this the confession of one ' nature ' of the Son, and
indiscretion more than once, as if to show ex- H1rn incarnate and made man: if people say
pressly that it made no dillerence to the sense of there is, do not attend to tbem, but to the in-
the pltrase whether he said that God the Son, or spired Scripture. If they infer, from the fact
His personality, or His objective reality was in- that human nature is as nothing compared with
carnate; the three e:l\.l>ressions were exactly the divine transcendence, that in Christ the man-
3;10 CYRIL : ONE LORD. 0.:-1 FAfTH, ONE BA?T!Shi 3S'
hood was '' filched and squandered away "-a tianity is netther a doctrinal construction nor a
clear reference lo lhe Monophysite teaching later moral law, but the relation of persons to a Person.
to be popularised by Eutyches-then " they err Yet theology is both inevitable and essential,
through not knowing lhe Scriptures nor the power since the object served by theological orthodoxy
of God " . God, wbo loves mankind, was not is the maintenance of a right balance of thought
incapable of finding a way to manifest Himself about God, to preserve the truth about His action
io a manner that the measures of the manhood in creation, redemption, and grace. If the balance
can " tolerate ". So he quotes the instance of is upset, the ulLiroate consequence is seen in the
the Burning Bush; Christ appeared to Moses in ~evalonce of wrong ideas of human life and duty,
the likeness of fire, and tlie tire blazed in the in superstition and idolatry, in neglect oi the
thJcket, but tlle wood was not consumed- " the primary obligation of mankind to seek first the
combustible substance was tolerant of the in roads kingdom of God and His righteousness. Chris-
of the flame " . The incident is meant to illus- tianity certainty upholds a system of ethical
trate the way in which the measures of the man- principles : " but the mere ethical teaching, how
hood can be made tolerant of the divine 'nature' ever important, is the least important, because
of the Word, "while He so wills" (ib. 737A-<:). the least distinctive part of Christianity. . . . Its
The last words are important. They show that distinctive character is, that in revealing a Person
on Cyril's view the .incarnation depends on a it reveals also a principle of life '' (Lightfoot,
continuous act oJ the divine wil1, and bar out PMUppians, xgo8 edtn., p. 3~8). The primary
absolutely any element of mechanical necessity task of theology is to keep the vision of that
such as the Antiochencs drcaued. The incarna~ Person clear and its meaning unmistakable.
tion is much more than a metaphysical problem; There are dangers, subtle and profound, in a
fundamentally it is a condescension, a moral and theology which over-elaborates its dogmas; which
personal dispensation, of the loving-kindness of concentrates notice too much on secondary issues,
God. so distracting the mind from God rather than
" One Lord, one faith, one baptism' ' ' (Eph. making Him tl1e centre of attention ; wh.icl1
iv. 5) was a text frequently on Cyril's lips. The makes no adequate distinction between immediate
vindication of the first member of this dogmatic and necessary inferences, and those which follow
trinity was the lifework to wlucl) he was pro on with remoter force and more uncertatn validity,
videntially called. The task was vital. Chris- so raising speculation to the level of revelation;
or which so identifies itseli with the thinker's quest mean that doctrinal formulations must necessarily
for intelligible truth as to sacrifice the universal preserve universal identity of phrasing throughout
need for religions fai bh, and to petrify the Word Christendom . ln fact the more fully theologians
and Wisdom of God with intellectual incrustation. ente.r into detail, the greater is likely to be the
Dogmatic fonns, said Lightfoot, are the buttresses need of complementary versions of Christian be-
or the scaffold-poles of the Gospel, not the build- lief, to ensure that the whole theological ground
ing itself. B\lt, he continued, " in the natural is adequately covered and that lbe effects o
reaction against excess of dogma, there is a special illumination are not confu1ed to too
tendency to Iay the whole stress of tl)e Gospel restricted an area, so ministering to a one-sided
on its ethical precepts. For instance men will appreciation of truth: the school of Antioch
often tacitly asswne, and even openly avow, that certainly had something vital to contribute as a
its kernel is contained in the Sermon on the supplement to the Christology of Cyril, funda-
Mount. This conception may perhaps seem more mentally right as Cyril's teaching was. But agree-
healthy in its impulse and more directly praclical ment must be conscious in order to be effective,
in its aim; but in fact it is not less dangerous and the real tragedy of fift h-century controversy
even to morality than the other: for, when the was that through lack of conference tll.e oppor-
sources of life arc cut off, the slream will cease tunity was lost of reaching something like an
to flow. Certainly this is not St. Paul's idea of agreed and inclusive statement of the theological
the Gospel. . . . Though the Gospel is capable significance of Christ, which would cover all the
of doctrinal exposition, though it is eminently points elaborated in the divergent schools.
fertile in moral results, yet its substance is neither If all parties ha,d been bent on concll.iation, and
a dogmatic system nor an ethical code, but a had, without abating anything of the substance
Person and a Liie '' (op . cit. p. ix). To set forth of their own convictions, made a genuine effort
that Person in ascriptural.and intelligihletheology, to understand one another, the task might well
whidt should serve to maintain undimmed the have been accomplished and the Nestorian and
vital features of His eternal love and majC$ty, Monophysite scl1isms averted, at any rate on any
was the principal ain1 of Cyril's loug and active serious scale. An Athanasius might have suc-
career. ceeded in consolidating Christian though l and
If there be one Lord, there should in substance preserving Christian unity. But neither Cyril nor
be also one faith. That does not necessarily Nestorius wa~ an Athanasius; none o{ the chief
figures combined !Us strong grasp of truth with and blotted oul of memory that earlier insistence,
his sympathetic penehation of the minds of others so conspicuous, say, in I renaeus, on the love and
and his large-hearted charity ; they each lacked joy and peace which it is part of His mission to
something essential to that great and exceptional transfer (rom Christ and to reproduce in lhe hearts
synthesis of character . So iatal precedents were and conduct of Christ's followers. There is prob-
set. and in the still more critical and complicated ably considerable substance in this argument.
circumstances of the sixteenth century the ex- Cyril and his leading contempor:uies had a genuine
ample was followed, no t of the Council of Alex- zeal for truth, oftea for intensely real aspects of
andria h1 362, but of Bl and 45'1 Tbcwlogy, tmth i bu t few Of t hem displayed a sufficiency of
which sl10uld have united, proved an instrument tbal particular form of divine truth which God
of division ; not because it tried to mirror Christ the Holy Gbost draws from the well of Christ's
in human thought , but because it failed to pursue evangelical gentleness.
its work to U1e very end with unrestricted breadth Feelings h:td grown embittered and moral tone
of vision and unftinching thoroughness of method. relaxed through the long persecution relentlessly
What were the causes making for division? It conducted by the Arian leaders and their imperial
might be suggested that Cyril's comparative Jack State allies. Alhanasius indeed protested against
of interest in the human life of Ch1ist obscured the whole principle of coercion in matters of re-
from his vision the tendemt>-ss and consideration ligion. The part of tme godliness was to persuade,
which, without minimising Christ's intolerance of not to compel (Mst. Ar. 67); " persecution is a
evil, coloured a11 His treatment of persons. Cyril's device of the devil" (apot. de Jug. 23, cf. hist. A?'.
private life was blameless and devoted, bu t he 33). But experience sqon demonstrated only too
showed, on occasion, a banefuJ truculence wd well t he efficacy of persecution if it is applied
precipitancy. But Nestorius was equally in tol er- without scruple and without remission for a long
ant, and Theodoret, though a pattern of concilia- enough time; the example was set and tbe leaven
tion among his own flock, thought and apparently of malice and wickedness was working. Athan-
continued to trunk the worst of Cyril ; and these asius !Umself had spoken plainly and forcibly
were the very advocates of a fully human Chris- about the Arians; both their behaviour and their
tology. Or it might be argued that prolonged theology had been fundamentally anti-Christian,
controversy about Christ had diverted attention and he made no scruple of saying so. lie even
from the full doctrine of His Holy Spirit of truth, adopted the nickname ' Ariomaniacs ', already
attached to them by the astringent tongue of the tone and proportions of a c.ivil war. Each
Eustace oi Antioch (ap. Thdt. t~.e. r. 8. 3, 759B). side in its own assurance of possessing the truth
There was profound justification for all that assumed that it possessed the whole tmth, and
Athanasius said about the Arians ; they were read into the other all the vice and venom of
trying to displace the Gospel in favour of a set heathenism, where no heathenism lay, but only,
of thoroughly pagan ideas, and in doing so they at worst, an undue concentration of emphasis on
emp1oyed the essentially pagan method of brute one particular part _of the problem. The leaders
force. On lhe other band, he always declined to of the several schools seriously regarded them-
condemn those whose errors appeared to him selves as prophets, and so in some degree they
superficial or venial, such as )larcellus of Ancyra: were. It is the business o prophets to denounce
wben Epipbanius questioned him about Mar- falsehood; but they should make very certain of
cellus's orthodoxy, the tolerant old warrior refused the falsehoods before they start denunciation; and
either to defend or to attack him, answering only that is just what none of these champions took
with a smile; which Epiphanius took to signify proper pains lo do.
that Marcellus had sailed very near the wind, but The ecclesiastical atmosphere was not wholly
had cleared himself (Er.>iph. hacr. 72. 4). vitiated. Chrysostom, while still a priest at
The case was very different in the ne.'C:t centuty. Antioch, where he had every opporl1mi ty of esti-
The issue then did nollie between Christianity and mating the effects of religious faction, protested
paganism, but between divergent Christian inter- strongly against the popular habit of pronouncing
pretations of Christian facts which all parties anathema on theological opponents : try to con-
equally acklwwledgc~l. But the habit of de- vert the brother who has IaUer\ into heresy, he
nunciation, acquin:d in the liie-and-cleath struggle said: act without rancour or persecution; ;ulathe-
with the Aria.ns, was Cllrried over into these later matise heretical opinlon~ but not heretical persons
controversies; and the ir1vocation of secular coer- (de anath. 694D, c; 696A). (By the word ' anathe-
don, by which deposed bishops were imprisoned matise' he meant 'orestall the judgement of God,
in insanitary dungeons or banished to unhealthy consigp to perdition and deny the hope of salva-
wildernesses, unhappily survived also. Wh<tt tion, ib. 693A : he had, and could have, nothing to
should have been no more lhan fraternal dis- say against putting wrong-doers under discipline,
putes, designed to give Christendom a two-eyed cf. in I CQr. IS 2, 127c-t, or depriving heretical
stance and secure a complementary vision, assumed teachers for their bad theology; he had, shortly
before this very sermon, bidden his hearers avoid almost always proved the best missionaries, when-
the company of heretics, tle im;cmpr. z. 7 .162ij, ever their special vocation has allowed or led
and elsewhere he claims that the Scriptures act them to undertake evangelisation : England wllolly
as a sure gate to bar heretics against entry into owes to monks her introduction to the faith- to
the sheepfold. i11. Jolt. 59 2, 3460.) But his plea Benedictine monks from Rome in tbe south, to
for moderation was robbed of its appeal when, as Celtic monks from Iona in the north, to Irish or
archbishop, he showed himself as unconciliatory Irish-trained monies in the west, and perhaps to
as any other prophet of reform. It is important an unknown multitude of wandering solitaries
to observe how, even at tl1at period, recognition who follOv/Cd s trange stars and pitched their
was acc<)rded to ideals of consideration and wattle huts all over fhe unsettled part of the
humanity. But when occasion arose for copl- country- not to mention the debt owed to the
biuing f~rmness with "kindness, it was all too easy Greek monk Theodore from Tarsus and the Lom-
for prejudice to take the floor and crowd con- bard monl<s Lanfranc and Anselm from Bee in
sideration out of the window. Perhaps the worst Normandy, who gave the English Church an
fault of lbe whole age was its 'ingrained habit of organising and reforming hand in times at which
suspicion, with which evco good men bad become it was needed. Do not let us make the mistake
infected. The Lord God is a jealous God, but of despising those on whom God has laid this
His power of exercising a wholly righteous jealousy special vocation.
for truth is given to few men to share : con- Good monks live very clo&e to God. But at tM
sequently, the false prophets are always likely to same time they Jive very intensely, and have the
outmm1ber the tr.ue. greater need of discipline and control. Their true
tt has also been asked :whether the growth of province is in their own monasteries and amid
intolerance should be connected with the extension their own peculiar ministrations; when they
of lhc monastic movement. Egypt, Syria and break out of bo\lnds and leave their proper
Constantinople alike over:flowcd wtth monks and observance their very intensity of conviction can
solitaries: Nestoriusand Theodoret and Eutyches, make them sometimes intensely dangerous to
the J-Ionophysite leader, were all monks; Cyril peace. During the ftrst half of the fifth century
and Chrysostom had been trained by monks and unruly members of the brotherhood in Egypt and
favoured them. It would very ill befit an English Constantinople were a menace to Christian order;
Christian i.o disparage monasticism. }.{onks have drawn into ecclesiastit:al politics by contriving
36o CYTllL: QJI(g LORD. ONE 1'1\TTl l, Ol'lll: :O.~M'TSM 361
prelates and employed as pawns 111 an unlovely the unity of the Church", ile says, ''must not be
game, they filled the spiritual underworld with a quest for Church-unity in itself; for as such it is
carnal passion and could always be found in the idle and empty." "The quest for the unity of the
ranks of the extremists. This kind of intensity was Church must in fact be identical with the quest for
an outrage on the monastic profession and an equal Jesus Christ as the concrete Head and Lord of the
obstacle either to theological or to ecclesiastical Church : the blessing of unity cannot be separated
unity. Corruptio optimt pessima. The unity oi from Him who blesses ... and only in faith in Him
the faith, which the over-jealous zeal of the theo- can it become a reality among us." " ' Home-
logians imperilled, was by no means cemented sickness for the 1ma sa11cla ' is genuine and legiti-
through the over-bigoted enthusiasm of the monks. mate only in so far as it is a disquietude at the fact
After one Lord and one faith comes one baptism, that we have lost and forgotten Christ" (The
which is the means of entry to the Church. If the Church and lhe Churches, pp. r8, 1.9, 20).
R,edeerno1 is one, and the Christian faith is really The Church thenis Christ's own creation,His bride
one, so must the Church be one. Christ was God's and His body. 1t exists as Ris instr11ment in this
Word in t he creation of the world; He was God's world; lo bear His witness to the truth, to carry on
Word no less in the fresh act of creation through the work which His Father gave Him to do, to keep
which human society, disintegrated by rebelliol\, His commandments, at~d to pray His prayers. 1ts
by the blindness whicll thereby fell on human soul, unJess it should lose its soul, is His Holy
vision and tho paralysis which overtook human will, Spirit. It is one because Christ i.<; one, and for no
was designed to be 1cfashioned on the model of the other essential reason. But like l:lim it bears <t
incarnate Lord . From the human ity of Christ was double character, supernatural and fleshly . As
meant to grow a new order of redeemed men, to He is both Gocl and man, so the Clmrch is both ~.n
show the world a sanctified pattern of life lived in elect spuitual kingdom and also a human social
conformity with God's will. Christ, said the institution, a communion of saints and an associ-
apostle, is married to the Church: He loves it, gave ation of sinfu.l men. "cclcsiastical perfectionism
Himself for it, and cherishes it even as His own -the belief that the Church in history can become
flesh; and since He is no polygamist there cannot a perfect society-is an error that is the counterpart
be a plurality of Churches. No one could state of secular utopianism" (Vidlcr, God's judgement
the reason for Christian unity more plainly than it on Emope, p. 92). Nor can any escape be found
has been put by Dr. Karl Barth. ''The quest Jor from the paradox of a sinul society acting as the
362 GYRJ L : O~E LORD. ONE FAlTI'. ONE 1),\PTTSM 363
organ o God's kingdom, in the di~til1ction between one faith . Christian unity, ll11like political unity,
the visible and the 'invisible' Church. " The docs not depend on general submission to one
Church IS not ideally one thing and actually another, supreme organ of government or to one centre of
but it is really both these two things at once, coercive authority. That, or something perilously
divine and human, full of grace and full of nature, like l,!:, seems to most people who repudiate the
spirit and .Oesh, eternal and temporal, universal Roman claims to have become the theory of the
and particular, immutable and mutable, lhe new Latin West. But, speaking for myself, I can see
Is:rae] of God and an "Ussoaia.tion of human in- no evidence that such a theory was ever :lccep ted
dividuals" (op. cit. p . 93}. That is both a funda- in the ancient Church outside the West; and its
mental doctrinal postulate and an unevo.dable approval in the West resulted frorna combination of
experimental fact wbtch affords the only expla- special causes. The actual manner in which Church
nation of the actual course of Christian history. unity was outwardly expressed in the patristic age
lllustrations of both aspects of the Church's char- appears rather lo have been through the voluntary
acter may easily be drawn from facts recorded co-operation of regional Churches ; the great sees-
earlier in these Lectures. not to be identified wholly or exclusively with tJ1e
The unity of millions of fellow-Christians who formally recognised patriarchal sees-exercised a
have never seen or met one another must obviously preponderant influence over their own immediate
be a special kind of unity. The union bel ween neighbourhood, and inter-regional unity was main-
Christ and Christians is compared in the Bible to tained through the agreement and i:ntercommunion
that of man and wife, or of head and members; of the great sees. At times friendly relations
that between Christian and Christian, however, between certain of the great sees, together with
resembles ra.ther the union between different and their respective dependencies. were ruptured. But
often widely separated joints and particles in a nobody imagined that sttch domestic quarrels
bodily organism. It depends on two things: on could be permanent, still less that the real unity
the community of life flowing downward from of ChrL'\t's Cl1urch wa-5 being thereby severed. The
Christ through the life-giving arteries of His Holy life of the one Lord continued to flow down ;
Spirit, and on the community of Jaitb directed theological or disciplinary divi$ions, so long as they
upwards in the inspiration of the same IIoly Spirit did not proceed from rejection of the faith oi the
to God the divine Saviour. To say this is only to Gospel, could be repaired. On its human side Ute
repeal that one Church follows upon one Loru and Church was wounded. not dismembered ; on its
364 CYRIL: 0.1\'.E LORD, ONE. FAU'l'l, ONE BAPTJS~f 365
divine side it remained glorious in the unity of its the same truths, and At.hanasius has taught us
Lord. that it is no heresy to mean the same thing while
The case assumes a somewhat altered appearance putting it in difterent words. Real heresy consists
to our modem eyes when whole limbs are observed only in overthrowing the true faith.
breaking away after 431 and 451, because, although Accordingly, there was a genuine llroblem of
these wounds proved to be incurable, yet the dogmatic reunion even in the ancient Church, a
severed members showed no sign of early moral problem that could not be, solved without some
d1!cay or practical dissolution. In theory, the mutual recognition of the complementary views of
orlhoclox Great Church which excommunicated tmth held by the several divided bodies. Tiley were
NesLorians and Monophysites regarded them as no separated by tl1eological discords, that is to say, by
true Christians : like the Arians, they had cast real differences of conviction, but those discords
away the one faith of the Gospel and had therefore were not so deep as to constitute ultimate diversity
been themselves cast out of the one Christian of faith in the Gospel; if the theologians had dug
Church. To that extent the problem of the deeper they would have found tl1at their several
Oriental schisms was simpler than that of the spnngs rose from the same source. As a matter of
puritanic but theologically orthodox schisms of hislory, the only efforts made to bring about re-
Novatians or Donatists, of whose position Augus- union were made from political motives and under
tine had to find a ratheT different elucidation. politicl pressure; and they all failed. But. our
But the Eastem schismatics are in fact unlike the present study of the fifth-century schisms strongly
Adans in two vital respects. They did not die out indicates that efforts ought to have been made from
with Tcasonable expetlition ; althot1gh MohalTh- r eligious motives under theological pressure, and
mccJ!j.n militancy shattered them and largely veiled that they ought to bavesuceeded. The problem of
their continued existence from tbe eyes of the the fl.fth century may therefore fitly serve as an
orthodox, yet venerable relics of them survive to introduction to tbe problem of the twentieth.
this day. And, as we begin to-day at last to It is true that the modern reunion problem is
realise, it is more than doubtful whether the bulk immensely complicated by vital que.<;tions of
of them actually were heretical; they gave ex- Church order and institutions, which did not arise
pbUJations of the faith that differed from the in the fifth century, because on those questions all
explanations approved by the majority, but many parties held similar views and practised identical
of them, at least, meant to express substantially principles. This makes the problem more difficult.
but does not make it essentially different, for all those who are united in the true faith of Cl1rist a:re
the serious questions about order are at bottom in some sense united already to one another in the
questions about faith. Teacher after teacher. soul of His Church, because it is divine; to make
approaching the matter from the most divergent the human body o( the Church correspond out-
angles of denominational loyalty, bas lately been wardly to its innermost reality can be achieved only
reminding us thal to concentrate on Church order through dependence upon God's own a.clion, be-
in and by itself is the gravest mistake. Chmch cause, even on its human and earthly side, it is still
order is relevant to Church union only i.n so far as His Church, <~nd its unlly is His will. The times
it is relevant to t.he doctrine of the C!mrcl1 ; in and seasons are in l:lis hand ; and though His acts
other words, the difficulties whieh hae to be
surmounted arc not merely institutional b\Jt
theological, and must be theologically solved. We
are sometimes catastrophic, they are never hurried.
When Pilate asked our Lord wheU1er He really I
were a King, Christ gave an answer which implied
are brought back to the point that the unity of the botb yes and no. Tn the sense of governing a man-
Church depends on the unity of the faith. When made association, expressing human desires and
questions of faith have been settled problems of authority and principles, no. In the sense that
order will solve themselves; but a federation of " to this end have l been born and to this end am
organised Christian .g roups all agreeing to differ I come into the world, that I should bear witness to
fundamentally about the real meaning of Christ's the truth," and that " every one who belongs to
Church and the true character of His means of the truth hears my voice" (John xviij, 36, 37)-in
grace and the r ight interpretation of His will for tbe that scns<! yes, He is a King, of a kingdom founued
practical union of Christians to Him and to one 011 revea:led lruth, and peopled by those who are
another, would constitute not one Church, but Joyal to revealed truth. Pilat e was not. in the
fi fi:y ' areas of discussion'. Ieast interested io kingonms lounded on truth ; tor
The way of Christian reunion is the way, first of him realities so transcendental simply did not exist
recognising facts dispassionately, then of trying to -" What is truth? " He was only concerned witlJ
find their true significance in the light of revealed kingdoms established aod maintained by men. So
biblical truth, and thirdly of thinking and wocking today many good men take Pilate's line, and try to
through lhe stubborn crust of circumstance to tlte base the divine cause of Christian reumon on
purpose and providence of God, till the stubborn- grounds of expediency- ' It is vital for Christians
ness is dissolved and the will of God is uncovered to present a united front to the challenge of secular
in its true form and shape. We believe that all materialism ' : 01 on gro\lnds of ecclesiastic'll
efficiency-' We have got to prevent overlapping':
or even on grow1us or historical accident-
' Since it is quite hopeless to think of reaching
general agreement without some sort of episcopacy
(or alternatively, ""'-ithout some sort of papacy), let ABOUT TilE TWO NATURES OF CHRIST
us consenl to episcopacy (or papacy) while carefully
explaining that for most of us it has no me-wing. Ath<Utasius':; fourth letter to Serapion, in which the
passage tcap. 1.4) referred to above on pllges ~38 and 331
These are not, as Origen would have said, argu- occurs, is not included in Robertson's translation of
ments worthy of God. Not that any of them lacks Athanasius; but the extraCt is so important as lO deserve
substance. Unily is a practical need. Inefficiency reproduction here in an English vcrs1on for the benefit of
is a scandal. Reunion \\-ithout a validly recognised those to whom the text is not easily accessible.
After a praye to Christ for gUidance Atbanasius quotes
sacramental ministry is unthinkable. But if such JohD i. ~4 (" Tl1e Word became llesh ", etc.) and Phil. ii,
considerations move us, as they should move us, 6, 7 (" Being in the form o( God . 1Jc emptied Himself,
tliey ought to move us only in one way : not taking the form of a !.et'Vanl, being found in fashion :!$ ;t
because they present absolute obligations in them- man '' , etc.). ne then continues as follows :
" Therefore, since Cod He is and man He became, as
selves-it might conceivably be God's will, in all God He raised tho dead and, healing all by ~. wo:>rd, also
the circurn.5ta.nces, that His Chmch, or large cl1anged the water into wine. Sudl deeds were not those
portions of it, should follow Cl1rist by dying in of a man. But as wearing a body He thirsted and was
order to live-but because they are indications weaTi.e d ;md suncrcd; these experience.~ are not character
istic of the deity. At>d ns God He said, ' I am in the
which recall us insistently and point us emphatic- Father and tbe Fa!:her in me ' ; but us wearing a body
ally to that same will of God, which is tha,t His He rebuked t he Jews, ' Why d!l yc seck to kill me, a man
Church sl\ould be one as God is one, and as Christ is that has told you l he lt:~~lh which I heard Irom the
one, and as Christian faith is one. Corporate Father? > B\t these facls did not occur in dissoci
ation, on line.~ governed by the particular quality of the
reWJlon accordingly is a work that man cannot effect several acts, so a~ to ascribe oM set of experiences to the
by himself; it can only be the wock:of God, to whom body apart fNtll the deity and the oth~r to the deity apart
\'le must look and to whom we mnst pray, in one from the body. They all occurred intt:rco~ncctcdly,
Spirit, through one Christ. To that sole most ancl it was one Lord who did t l1em all wondrously by His
own grace. For He spat in huml\0 fashion, yet His spittle
blessed Trinity, one God in three Persons, be all was charged with deity, lor therewith Be cau~od the eyes
might, majesty, and dominion, now and for of the man born vlind to recove~ their sight; and when
evermore. He "illed to declare Himself God it was "~th a human
tongue that He signified this, saying, ' I and the Father
are one'. And He used to perform cures by a mere act
of will. But He stretched forth a human hand to raise
Peter's wife's mother when she was sick of a fever, and to
raise up from the dead the daughter of the ruler of the
synagogue when she had already expired."

JUNE 2ND, 1940
" JOHN called God Love, and I do not think that
anybody can be censured for calling Him Eros," said
Origen (prol. in Ca11t. 3 fin.) . " I n fact," be con-
tinued, " I remember that one of the saints, named
Ignatius, said with reference to Christ, ' My Eros
is crucified '." There is a vast difference between
the associations of the two names for love. The
Beloved Disciple used the name Agape (I J oho
iv. 8), which expresses primarily intellectual judge-
ment and moral appreciation. This kind oi love
was little understood among Hellenistic pagans,
whether Greek or Roman, and the terms corre-
sponding to it were hardly ever used by them to
signify love; in the sense of moral passion the
word agape is almost whol ly confmed to Christian
speech. On the other hand, the word Eros was
quite freely applied to that sort of affection which
is earthly or sensual or devilish; it was the
title bestowed by the poets on the god or gods of
physical affection, and its normal quality may be
rightly estimated by the sense of its modern
derivative ' erotic '. To trans fer such a name to
the God of righteousness was an extremely bold
Origen took this step because he wanted to " the pleasures of this life "; the phrase is modelled
interpret the human love-poems of the Song of on lhe assertion of St. Paul that " they that are
Songs, so mysteriously incorporated in the Old of Christ Je.<;us have crucified the fte.<;h with the
Testament, as an allegory of the mutual devotion passions and lusts thereof " {Gal. v. 24).
between Christ and His Church-as a picture of The situation is the more interesting beca11s.e
the heavenly Bridegroom and His spotless Bride, lgnatius, therni'!rlyr prophet and bishop of Antioch
together with their respective companies of atten- in the early years of the second century, displays
dants, the~gclsand perfectedsoulswho accompany so keen and passionate a devotion to Christ, and
the Bridegroom and the Chri;tian men and women so strong a desire to be united with Him in the
wl1o sustain the efforts of the Church below. With grace of martyrdom, that be might quite suitably
him, therefore, the word eros expresses a passionate have anticipatcrl Origen in calling Christ his Love.
intensity and freedom from restraint which the " I take no pleasure," l1c exclaims, "in the food
more austere Ch~istian word agape less readily oi corruption or the pleasures of tbis life : 1 want
conveyed. His employment of it was, Jwwever, the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ of
justified by the fact of its being purified from all the seed of David, and I want as drink His blood,
pagan associations and applied to the limitless which is love (agape) incorruptible " (Rom. 7. 3).
devotion of Christ to His (l\~n people and of He craves not to be reprieved from the sentence
corporate Christendom to its glorified :VI aster. that had been passed on him, but to be God's
Eros, thus interpreted, suggested a vivid sense of wheat, ground by the fangs of the wild beasts to
the Jove which surmounts aH barriers and holds which he was to be thrown; he longs to find his
nothing back. H did not come into general \tSe, tornb in their roa.ws, for " then shall I b e truly a.
but was adopted by the mystics (e.g., pseudo- disciple of Jesus Christ, wben U1e world shall not
Dionysius de div. 110m. 4 ro-tz, who has a long see even my body" (ib. 4- r, 2). Ignatius lays the
discussion of its appropriateness), and sQ passed utmost stress on the reaUty of the incarnation of
into the language of mediaeval piety. The one Christ, who is " God in man, true lile in death,
strange fact about Origen 's statement is that he both out of Mary and out of God, fust passible
misunderstood the meaning of fguatius. When then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord " (Eph.
Ignatius said" My Eros is crucified" (Rom.? 2), 7. 2); who "was out o the race of David, out of
lhe context cleady .o;hows that he was referring Mary, was really born and did eat and drink, was
not to Christ but to his own '' sensu{lll$ .fire " and really persecu ted under Pontius Pilate, was really
crucified and died .. who also really rose from is to IgnatiU!; far more an historical fact than a
U1e dead " (Trait. g. l, 2). The truth of Christ's mystical attraction. \Vith all his fervour and
humanity, a " mystery of shouting accomplished imagination, Ignatius is a rigid stickler for practical
in the silence of God " (Ef>lt. rg. l:), was the realities. He is imp01tant not only because l1e is
foundation of his iaH:h. He ha.d a special affection the earliest of the Fathers to exhibit a peculiar
{or the thought of Chl'isl's passion. "Near the devotion to the-sacred humanity; nor only because
sword is near God; in company with Llle beasts is he serves so well to illustrate the more popular
in company \vith God: only let it be in the name of side or Christian thougbl, an aspect which .is largely
Jesus Christ, so U1;1.t I may sufler with Him : I concealed in the more tlleological expressions of
endure everything, seeing that He Himself, tbe the faith and is thoroughly vulgatised in the
perfect man, enables me '' (Smyrn. 4 z). Chris- Christian apocryphal romances-but also because
tians are "in1itators of God, kindled with the in his deepest transports be retains that finn seuse
blood of God" (Eph. I. r). of history which governs the typical piety of
One point however should be noted. Ignatius ancient Christendom . He knew that he had lived
dwells rather on the wonder and t he love, than on in Syria and was to die in Rome, sundered by
the pain or the humiliation of the passion. His many miles in space and by a century in time
mind passes on to the living power of Christ cruci- from Bethlehem and Calvary. The cross of Christ
fied and risen, and the thought of the sacred was indeed the arm of his spiritual crane, but l1e
humanity is a:.>ociated with its cfiects in Christ's fully realised that before its elevating force could
body the Church and its fruits in Christ's body be extended to himself it had to span an interval
the Eucharist (Smyrn. I; 6. z; 8. I ; Phita1l. 4; of vacant history with the cable of the Holy Ghost
cf. TraU. 8. I & Pltiltul. 5 I). ll1e appeal of the (Eph. 9 I). He never sought to traverse in the
temporal is transcended in the glory of the eternal. oppo~ite direction the road by which Christ had
Ignatius does notforget that the scars of the passion, ascended into heaven, to return to Golgotha and
though ever glorious, are healed; that Christ's watch the sacred blood drip to the ground. His
time of suffering lies behind in the past, and that affections, like St. Patll's, were fixed on things
what is present is His eternity of triumph; that, above where Christ sits at God's right hand, and
both as a moment in His temporal life and as the his life was hid with Cbxist in God.
power of Christiat1 lives, the sacrliice of Calvary It is far beyond the scope of thls Lecture to
has been once and for all accomplished. The cross present a detailetl 1'1istory or a critical analysis of

Christian devotion to the Son of Man. Its object (!rag. 155, n.6) ; it is worshipped as one individual
is the more modest one of calling attention to the and one organism with Himself ([rag. 85, ad ]ov.
tmportance and interest of the subject, with the I). The controversial efforts o( the extreme Antio-
liope that some qualified scholar may be ted to che.nes were more conceroetl with right faith and
make a therough treatise about what is here morals than wit11 righi worship, but they too were
sketched in a summary and episodic outline. We perfectly clear Lhat ' the assumed man ' receives
shall therefore pass at one leap from Ignatius lo the worship of the whole creation. that the
Athanasius. Christ's flesh, says Alhanasius, is phenomenal man is to be worshipped for the sake
part of the created wodd : but it is also God's of the latent deity (e.g. Theod. :\lops. exp. fid. ap.
body, and neither do Christians divide that body Swete Mi11or Epistles ii. 329. 15 ff. : Nest, serm. 9,
from the divine Word and worship it in isolation, Lools 262. 2 ff,). Tlleir language is theological
nor when they worship Christ do they separate rather than devotional ; Cyrll, however, revives
Hirn from His flesh, since a:fter coming in the flesh the religio11S tone of earlier Alexandrine teaclJers,
He is still God (ad Adelph. 3). Seeing that Re when he call$ the sacred manhood "life-giving
took flesh to deliver mankind, it would be the flesh (mbath. n ); and his influence persisted.
J1eight of ingratitude in men to make light of lhat At lhe close of the patristic age John of Damascus,
Resh : those who refuse to offer worship to the the grand summariser of Eastern doctrine, makes
Word made flesh are as good as asking God to a carefully guarded statement of orthodox Greek
reverse the incarnation and to dose " the road " piety. " The -flesh is not to be worshipped in
to redemption that runs " through the veil, that is virlue of its own nature but is worshipped in the
to say, H is Aesh" (ib. 5; cf. Hebr. x. 20). Else- irtcarnate God the Word", just as charcoal burns
where he clairrts Hlo.t, though the divine Word has not of itseJC but through the fire with which it is
become man_and is called Jesus, He none the less impregnated; " we do nol claim to worship mere
bas the whole creation under foot and bending flesh, b~t the flesh of God, that is. God incarnate "
the knee to Him " in thls name " ; angels and (de fid. orllt. 4 3)
archangels in heaven " are now worshipping Him As in the East, so in the West, the sacred
in the name of Jesus" (c. Ar. T. 42 ; cf. Phil. ii. humanity was worshipped without being made
ro). the object of any specialised devotion. The
Apollinaris ca:rries on the thought. The flesh creaturely flesh of Christ, said Ambro~e-the
of Christ, he says, is holy and quickening Hesh great bishop of Milan who baptised Augustine in
387-was adored by the apostles in the Lord Jesus manhood points os out the way (ib. r .r . 2). So,
and is adored by Christians to this day in the Augustine repeats, " if you want to live a pious
Eucharistic mysteries (de spir. sanct. 3 79). Augus- and Christian .life, cleave to Christ in that which
tine shows fervour enough, bot it is not particularly for our sake He became, that you may arrive at
directed towards Christ in His manhood. He Irun in that which He is and ever was " ; on the
describes how after his conversion he found Christ raft of His humanity we weak men can cross the
Jesus to be ''sweeter than all pleasure, though sea of this world and reach our native country,
not to flesh and blood; brighter than all light, with the kilowledge, if possible, of the harbO\lr to
but more veiled than all mysteries; more exalted which we are being wafted, but at all costs clinging
than any honour. though not to those who are to His cross and passion and resurrection (in ]oh.
exalted in their own conceit .. (umf. 9 r) . He too z. 3) Even regarded as our human pathway
connects Christ's ftesh wit11 His body the Church : Christ is not merely crucified, but risen.
the Lord came in the flesh and died on the cross The devotion of the ancient Church was neither
sinlply to give life to all those who are engrafted mainly subjective nor mainly individualistic. Its
members of His body (de pecc. mer-it. etremiss. I. 39) . standard pattern of prayer was the liturgy, and
The Lord's form is beautiful beyond that of the the prayers of the liturgy are addressed not to
sons of men, but with a beauty that is the more God the Son, but through Christ to the Father.
to be beloved and admired tbe less it is merely The in~ertion into tllO liturgy of hymns or prayers
physical (civ. del 17. r6). He is unlike the demons: addressed to Christ apparently only began abou t
they have an immortality of misery, Ho took a the fourth century-sign.ifi.cantly enough, in Syrian
m0rtality that has already passed away; His circles-and never made much permanent head-
mortality was transient but His blessedness is way. Accordingly, such ancient b.ymns as survive
permanent (ib. 9 rs). There is here no lingering and are addressed to Christ observe the common
on the passion; Augustine rather imitates St. thought and tone of a biblical and historical piety.
Paul (II Cor. v. r6) in k1101ving Christ after the Two poets may be quoted. Ambrose first, from
flesh no .longer. The man Christ Jesus is our the hymn "Veni redemptor gcotiwn " -
mediator, Himself both God and ma.n, and neces-
sarily so : the traveller musl know both where he 'fhe eternal father's eqnnl Thou,
Gird on tile trophy of U1c Jlcsh,
is going and how to reach his goal : Christ in His i\nd all our lxldy's feebleness
godhead shows us where we are going, and in His Strenglbn with might perpetual.
How radiant thy manger gleams; r;,ther than an historical adoration. lie is con-
The darkness breathes a novel light, templated now not only as deliverer and illumin-
'Which may no darkness f.alsify,
But faith p.n"enuially shine, ator, bringing heaven down to earth; not only as
pattern, guide, and judge, Taising earth to the
And secondly Synesius, sportsman, essayist, and radiant majesty of heaven ; but still more as
statesman, devoted pupil of Hypatia and righteous companion, friend, and brother, though divine, as
bishop of Ptolemais, the capital of Cyrenaica- husband and lover of devoted souls, as the most
Be mindful, 0 Christ,
intimate associate of Christian hearts and the
The !)On of God. object of a passionate spiritual affection. He is
Reigning on high, sought not so much as the temporal revelation of
Of me thy servnnt
A \vretched sinner. . ..
the Father as for the sake of His own perfect
Grant me to see, human qualities; and not so mach by way of
0 Saviour Je<us, saturation wiU1 His Holy Spirit as by direct
Thy divine glory,
To which attaining
mystical union with His earthly experiences, and
1 will chant a lay especially with the events of llis passion. It has
To the healer of souls. to be insisted that mystical theologians consciously
The healer of bodi<$,
With thy mighty Father
used and recommended this devotion to the sacred
Aod lhe Holy Ghost. humanity as a stepping-stone to a higher kind of
love, centred in Christ's deity. " It is too much
The men who wrote these lines were thinking of bouncl up with the senses unless we know how to
Christ as l1aving brought immortality to men make use of it with prudence, and to lean on it
rather than mortality. t o God; they kept in the only as something to be surpassed '' (GUson, The
forefront of the mind not so much Ch.ristus fllf'ystical Theology of St. Bernard p. 79}. Bat it
Patiens as Christus Victor. changed the whole character of popular prayer
During the twelfth century a revolutionary and popular teaching, strongly emphasising the
change passed over the devotion of the Western subjective side of religion and, with its accompany-
Church. Attention came to be concentrated less ing stress on the primary duty of saving individual
exclusively on the miracle of redemption and more souls from death, providing great encouragement
deliberately on the wonder of its method. The for spiritual individualism. It is not without sig-
man Christ Jesus is regarded with a mystical nificance that it was accompanied by a fresh

38~ EROS: nEVOTl0:-1 TO TBll: SACU!J) 1-flJ~'\...'UTY 383
revival of the impulse to the solitary life of from St. Frapcis, who had the blithe spirit of a
t!)e hermitage. sk-ylark. Bernard could not soar like Francis , he
Romance and individualism were present in the felt the encumbrance of this earth a heavy burden
air eccksiastical no less than in the atmosphere oJ on human resilienc~ and lbe pressing struggle witb
the secular world, and before the twe)~tb century the wic1{ed world d\verted all Ws aspirations to tJ1e
opened these tendencies had already been heralded inner life and to a better world beyond the grave,
by precursive indications both in East and West. He ignored created beauly or evaded it : he
But the person who brought them to a head, d readed natwe and fought it, with gallant chivalry,
impressed on them their permanent sltapc, and but always the chivalry of a cross, unlit with any
gave them European popularity was St. Bernard. glory of an earthly resurrection. His influence on
Bernard entered the new bul languishing monastery the later mediaeval mind was overwhelming. Its
of Citcaux in :r.uz wilh about thirty noble com- joy in nature turned pagan ; its efforts to reform
panions, representing an almost complete roundup were stamped witll puritanism. Bernard couJd
of his own family and personal friends ; he founded never bave been called Christ's troubadour, but
Clairvaux in nrs, and proceeded for the next rather His hardy and loving vassal, devoted to his
thirty-eight years to beleaguer and fortify Western Lord with passionate attachment, but re.adier to
Christendom with no fewer than sixty-eight Cis- die with Him than to assist Him in raising Lazarus
tercian abbeys, all <X;Cupied and garri'lOned directly from the dead.
or indirectly from Clairvaux, whence their lowly- Assuredly he did love j esus. His sermons on
minded founder rebuked kings, instructed popes, the Song of Songs speak for themselves . "Above
and directed the corisciencc oi Latin Eul'Ope. In al,(, I say, Thou art made lovab1e to me, kind J esus,
bis liie as in his teaching Bernard is the supreme by the cup which Thou didst drinl{, by the work of
Christian romantic, exb,ibiting both 1:hc grace and our redemption. This altogether claims with ease
gladness of romanticism, and also the cold sense our whole love. This, 1 say, it is that draws our
of underlying terrors from which romance is an devotion most sweetly, e::..-acts it most rightly,
endeavour to escapc. His combination of bright binds it most closely, excites it most s trongly.
composure and wam1 enthusiasm with a defrnite Greatly did the Saviour labour therein, nor in the
streak of intellectual pessimism and apocalyptic whole construction of t1lC world did its creator
gloom set the spiritual tone for the tater Middle w1dergo such weariness" (u~ Ca1~t. 20 . z). For
Age. He is. an a ltogether ilifferent kind of person all of tbirly years f[e worked at thy salvation in

the midst of the earth, and oh what He endured showed His own love by <lying foJ him. " They
in the work J the exigencies of the fl esh, the pierced His hands and feet and cleft His side with
temptations of the Enemy-and this burden He a spear; and through these openings I may suck
augrnentcd for Himself by the shame of the cross honey from the rock and oil from the hard stone;
and loaded with the terror or de-ath " (ib. n. 7). that is, I may taste and see how gracious is lhe
Man's response to such love must be the sacrifice Lord . . . the privacy of His bead is e-~posed
of every natural affection, however binding ; " to through the clefts of Ilis body; exposed is that
love Him with thy whole heart means to place great myStery of mercy [I Tim. ijj. r6 Vulgate];
second to love of His sacred flesh everything that exposed are the vitals of compas.<~ion of our God,
delights thee in thine own flesh or in another's " whereby U\e dayspring from on high bath visited
(ib. 20. 7). " Cast thyself also on the ground; us. Why should not those vitals be e>..-posed
embrace His feet, fondle them with kisses, wet through His wounds? Nothing makes it more
them with tears, with whicll nevertheless thou luminously clear tban Thy wounds that Thou,
washest not Him but thyself" (ib. 3 2). Lord, art gracious and gentle and of gteat com-
J esus was the light of his life. "But the name passion " (ib. 6r. 5). Bernard sees the cross a.~ the
of Jesus is not only light but food. . . . All constraining revelation of divine love. His medita-
spiritual food is dry unless it is dipped in that oil, tion on it is profoundly moving. Familiar as we
tasteless unless seasoned with this salt. Write, are to-day with such conceptions as be expressed,
and your writing has no flavour for me unless I it is hard to t'eOLlise that practically nothing even
read Jesus U1ere. Argue or discuss, and it has no remotely resembling t hem was known before the
fla vou.r for me unless ] esus is echoed there.. Jesus twelfth century, and that Bernard, in creating a
is honey in the mouth, music in the ear, rejoicing t:ype of piety which has i.ntensely lxltluenced all
in the heart,'' as well as medlcine for $adness and subseq1,1ent Cl11istian devotion, was uttering
sin. " When I name Jesus I recall to myself a thoughts far nt)arer to those of Isaac Watts, the
man gentle and lowly in heart. kind, temperate, Independent nin1ster who published in 1707 the
pure, pitiful, marked by every grace and holiness; hymn" When I survey the wondrous cross", than to
a man too wb.o is almighty God, who heals me by Athanasius or Augustine. He seems to peer through
His example and fortifies me by His aid . . . . So Christ's wounds as through windows to watch the
I take my examples from His manhood and my beating oi His h~rt. This reeling [or Christ as
assistance from His power" (ib. 15. 6). And Jesus love's tortured victim is something altogether new.

It certainly provided a most efiective means of quickened by the spectacle of Byzantine piety,
impressing the religious sensibilities of Franks and with its tone of supernatural otherworldliness, its
~ormans and English, who as yot had hardly mystical devotion, its apparatus of iconographic
succeeded in rising out of their native barbarism art and its pervading cult of relics. Here was a
and were still striving to re-establish the tradition living survival of the classical tradition, and the
of Christian European culture. As Bernard him- grosser West was quick both to absorlJ it at1d to
sell said, " What so effectively cures the wounds transform it into something closer to 1ts own
of COllScience or cleanses mental vision as persistent perceptions. l'vr. Gilson has recently shown how
meditation on the wounds of Christ? " (in Cant. strong was Eastern inlluence already on Bernard's
62. 7). Together with th is newly found devotion mystical theology, though derived indirectly
to the sacred humanity went also other methods through J3enedict and Cassian from the Desert
of making the Gospel story realistic and vivid to J1athers and through Erigena's translation of
the rude minds of the feudal age, whom a more Maximus from pscudo-Dionysius (The Mystical
philosopbical dogma left uncomprehending and Theology of St. Bernard ch. i). But now, devotional
unmoved. There was a fresh outburst of devotion subjectivity and individualism from the East began
to lhe blessed Virgin Mary, to the holy angels, to take 'Vestern En rope by storm and to make it a
and to tbe saints, and a hardening of conviction ready receptacle for Bernard's new teaching.
about tile manner of Chlist's presence in the Bernard based everything in religion on the
Eucharist and the reality of the oblation therein heart and will. and maintained the gravest sus-
presented.1 These tendencies arc already found picion of the activities of t.he 11ead; he took the
conspicuously in Bernar d ; in this respect as in view that nothing was W(,)rth knowi ng t hat did
others l\e is the focus and reflector of his age. But not bear directly on a. man 's salvation. In spite
they represent the effect of far more than merely of the scientific theology of the great schoolmen
Western influences. The crusades were opening and the passion for e..xperimental knowledge shown
the Orient, and Latin senses were immensely by the Franciscan Roger Bacon, dtl!ing the thir-
teenth century, tlte influence of Bernard prevailed,
1 It is noteworthy that even in the SmHma Theowgica of at any rate !or the generality of men. Scholasti-
Thomas Aquinas, whle practicaJJy no consider..,lion is devoted
to th~ theory and manner of the Eucllaristic sacrifice, much cism itse!I grew steadily more sceptical, divorcing
space is given to the Eucharistic prescrn:c and the nature of reason from revelation and prOf,'fessively increasing
the sac ramen r. "the Jist of those revealed truths which a Christian

should believe, but cannot prove " (Gilson, Reason creature with mankind. The advice given by
aml Revelation in the ]!!fiddle Ages, p. 85) ; and Bernard's friend and biographer, \Villian1 of St.
popular preaching was certainly far less in sym- Thierry, was put to universal practice. Tbe simple
pathy with Roger Bacon than with another Christian, said William, when he turns to prayer or
Franciscan, the Spiritual stalwart Jacopone da meditation, should have set before him " the image
Todi (c. 1228- r3o6, quoted ~11. p. !4) who wrote- of the humanity of our Lord, His birth, passion, and
resurrection; tl1at the weakly soul that knoweth
Pinto ;md $qcratcs may contend
And all tHe breath in thciT 1Jodics spcncl,
not how to think on aught save bocUcs and boclily
Arguing without end- things may have somewhat tha t it may draw to, to
What's it a ll to mr.? cling to it aftcri ts measure, with t he gaze of 1ove " :
Only a pure and simple mind "aSiection " , as he truly observed, "is wont at
Straight to heaven its way doth 5od; first to be so much the sweeter as it is nearer to
Creels t.hc King-while far bahind
Lags U1e wodd's philosophy.
human nature" (Epistle to the Breth.rm of M011t
Dit}:~. 43). This was indeed a simple and practical
rt is hardly surprising, when independent observa- method of spiritual training, equally well suited
tion and rational enquiry were so much dis- to the meditations of the mystic and to the prayers
couraged, and inadequate efforts were made to of the unlettered Christian living in the world :
scrutinise the authorities on which practical over both classes Bernard's inftuence reigned almost
opinions and speculative conclusions were based, unchallenged. The visions of the ascetics and the
that some very bad authorities were followed and sermons of the preachers continued for centuries to
that the growtl1 of superstition kept pace with tl1e I reprodllcc the general features of tbat veneration
spread of devoticm. of Christ the 1'nan which Bernard had so power-
\tVe are not here concerned, however, with tl:le fully sketched.
degeneration of thought, except in so far as it No one teacher did more than St. Francis (n8I-
supplies a background for popular religion. De- I226) to spre.'l.d that veneration. Bernard had, as
barred from the fruitful exercise of rational under- a young man, enjoyed a vision of Christ's nativity,
standing, the heart of the people responded warmly and in his dream had fondled the divine inCant :
to the emotional appeal of God's humanity, and in his maturity he had expounded with peculiar
found a focus for its devotion in the earthly life force the attraction of the cross. The example of
of Him who came from heaven to become a fellow- Francis both popularised the Christmas crib, in
39" enos: DEVOTION TO 'fli SAClHm IlUMAN!"fY .193
which Christ's assumption of humanity is repre- imagination not only as intense as Bernard's, hut
seo ted in concrete agt'res before the eyes of wor- of greatly extended range.
shippers, and through his own reception of the A special devotion to the childhood of Christ
stigmata crystallised in the most realistic poS<>ible developed, and to the l1oly Name bestowed on
form the fluid substance of popular devotion to Jesus at his circumcision. The fourteenth-century
Christ in His sufferings. It was irom the cmcifix German mystic Henry Suso (c. t295-I365). who
above the neglected altar of St. Damian that be belonged not to the Franciscans but to the
bad heard the audible command of Christ to "go Dominicans, and sought to imitate Ghrist's passion
and repair my church", and !rom that hour, it was by the practice of frightful austerities, not only
sa.id, his heart was pierced and melted by the carved the sacred mooogr.tm IHS on hls own
remembrance of the Lord's passion. One pro- breast as a. "love-token", but also records a
foundly new thing, however, he did contribute to touching vision in which at his request the blessed
the mediaeval religious outlook; he taught Virgin allowed rum to take the infant jesus in his
Christians by heroic e~-ample to recognise the arms and kiss Him. But the central devotion of
presence of Christ iu lhe person of Christ's poor. the mystics was directed towards the ctoss and
Unlike most otherworldly saints, Francis iound in passion. It was the image of the Saviour on His
religion not a barrier between himself and the cross that converted tbe lyrical lover and mis-
created world but a bond of Jiving charity; and sionary of Christ, the Majorcan, Raymond Lull
he gave to the poor not rnerely a portion of his (c. I232-I3I5), as he sat penning a sonnet of
goods, as Christians had always been encouraged earthly passion. It was by the way of the cross
to do, but his heart and his aU. He .showed that that the Italian J acopone da Todi. the r0ving
t he loving sel'Vice of the needy and h<~lpless is a songster of the Franciscan Spirittmls, sought to
true homage to Christ ; the lesson was exemplified conform and unite l1imse1r to Cbrist-
not only by tl1e devoted work of his friars in the
Take me to my dc"d Christ; drow rnc from sea to shore.
negledcd slums of mediaeval towns, but in such
remarkable personal acts o-f charity as were Like all strict disciples of Francis, he "followed
performed by the nobility and citizens of thir- naked the naked cross ". Thus too, in the middle
teenth-century Siena in the great Hospital of their of the fourteenth century, did Giovanni Colombini
city (cf. Misciattelli, Tile Mystics of Sie11a, pp. and his companions in their movement, part re-
36 ff .) In this direction he displayed a spiritual ligious, part anarchical, earn the title of Gesuati.
39~ ~;:nos: DEVOTION TO Tl!E SACRED HUMi\NtTY 395
They found the joy of life in a living death, " by contempt of iYlach.iavelli, and for the Florentines a
the grace of t.hc crucified Christ ". public holiday of which his own shameful execution
Catherine of Siena (1347- 138o) was a far more formed the principal spectacle, published in I492 a
practical as well as a far more orderly-minded little" Treatise of the Love of jesus Christ" which
person, but she envisaged aU life no less in the light ran through many editions. In the course of it he
of a Christ mystically present and active in the observed that "the love of Jesus Christ is a llvely
human world. At the age of eighteen she e..xperi- affection inspiring the faithful with the desire to
enced her famous vision of the Lord, accompanied bring his soul into unity, as it were, with that of
by saints and angels, who came to espouse her to Christ, and live the life of the Lord, not by external
Himself by faith. Nine years later she was imitation, but by inward and divine inspiration: he
meditating on the passion when blood-red rays would seek that Christ's doctnne might be a living
descended with fiery pain upon her heart and feet thing in him, would desire to suffer His martyrdom,
and hands from the five wounds of the crucified : and mysticaUy bang wiU1 Him on the same cross ' ' .
though these stigmata were invisible she felt the When a person is animated by this ){ind of love, he
pain of them to the end of her life. Nor did added, he continually rises !rom humanity to deity,
Christ exist for her alone, but f(!)r the good of H is and this love " is sweetest of all affections inas-
whole Church. Wl1en she desirerl to mitigate the much as it penetrates the soul, masters the body,
indignation of Pope Gregory XI wit11 the people a.nd causes the faithful to walk on earth like one
of Florenctl she addressed her appeal " on behalf float ing in ecstasy" (Villa ri, Life and Times of
of Christ in heaven ", to the Pope as "sweet Savonarola ed. r8g6, pp. II3 f.).
Christ on earth " . Thomas. a Kempis (died 147J'). th~ cloistered
When we tllrn il'otn great mystics to moral AugustiJliart who preferred singing psalms to eating
reformers and pious recl uses. we discover them sal,mon, if incleed he be the author of the work
promoting similar ideas. The imitation of Christ, com.rMnly attributed to him, wrote a guide to
and the reproduction of His spiritual, if not of l:lis piety which b C01-J,"S the title " Of the Imitation of
physical experiences, are recommended to the Christ". Men ought, he says, to bnitate Christ's
general practice of sincere Christians. Savonarola life and manners if they wish to be truly enlightened :
(r45:Z-t498), whose attempts to establish Floren- their chief endeavour therefore should be to
tine society on a Christian basis and to make meditate on the life of jesus Christ (i. r). When
Christ the 1{log of Florence gained for bimsell the Jesus is present with lhe soul. everything is easy
396 ttROS: DEVCYflON TC Tli S1\CRETl JiUMANl'l'Y 397

and good ; no other comfort is worth anything : Ages, a.<; its puritaJtisrn was of media.oval puritan-
to 1:now how to hold converSe with Jesus and Jsm.
maintain it is great wisdom : " be thou humble and It is interesting to glance at tl\e progress which
peaceable, and Jesus will be with thee ; be devout Bernard's new devotion to the sacred manhood
and quiet, and Jesus will stay with thee" (ii. 8). made in England. Dr. Owst (Lilerat11re and
Jesus, he continues, now has many lovers ol His Pulpit in Medieval England, v. index) has shown
heavenly kingdom but few bearers of His cross; incidentally bow profound was the influence of
many people praise and bless Him only so long as Bernard's ideas and devotional practice both on
they receive consolations from Him : " but they English preaching and on the rudimentary religious
who love Jesus for the sake of Jesus and not ior drama that so vividly reproduced on the primitive
some special com(ort of their own bless Him in all stage the tone and substance of the sermons
tribultttion and an&>uish of heart as well as in the delivered from the pulpit. But even without the
highest comfort" (ii. n) : the King's higl1 road is evidence of the mass of sermons which survive in
the way of the holy cross. Jn all this insistence on print or manuscript, the new orientation o! piety
the companionship of the passion there is indeed is clearly revealed. " The Lay Folks' )fass Book"
profound tmtb, witb New Testament teaching at is an unofficial manual of instruction and private
the bottom of it. But it would t1ot be difficult so devotions for the use of tl1e laity, when they attended
to <cpteseJJt it as to suggest that the Christian is divine worship, but were unable to follow with
required to work out his own salvation for himself devout intelligence the Latin prayers. It was
alone, or at least to depend for it upon his privato composed apparently in Fnmch at the close of the
apprehension o( divine favour in isolation from the twelfth cenlur_y, ll)ld w:J,S later translated into
body of Christendom operative in the world at English verse; easy to memorise, it pNvided not
large. Mediaeval mystics and pietists were almost ouly an outline of teaching but a series of prayers
universally loyal to the corporate Church and to ft>r the verna~:nlar worshipper to offer at various
the means of grace ordained by Christ. But they moments in the service. It gives a most illumin-
combined this loyalty with o.n individualism in ating -picture of the religion in which careful
personal devotion which was later to play havoc pastors tried to train their people. Thl\ prayers
with the principlt!S o corporate discipleship. The which it provides are simple and edifying. But one
individualism of the Reformation was largely an point about them is truly astonishing to anybody
efflorescence of the individualism of the Middle wl10 is acquainted with the elementary principles
of liturgical worship; they are addressed not to mercy, Jesu, Jesu gramercy. Father, Son and
God the Father, as are all the prayers of the liturgy Holy Ghost, three Persons and one God, gramercy.
itsell, but to Jesus; in particular is this true of all Amen " (quoted in Comper. The Life of Richard
the prayers to be recited at the Sanctus and the Rolle p. I42). ~liss Comper points out the spiritual
consecration and during the canon of tile mass. kinship between the author of this prayer and
The minds of simple folk were being wholly Richard Rolle (c.1300-I349), the Yorkshire hermit,
directed, at the celebration of the mysteries of mystic, and poet, who sang so lyrically of Jesus
divine redemption, not to God but to the Mediator and His love. In one of his poems Rolle quotes an
between God and man. This was indeed a spiritual older verse-
injury, similar in principle to some from wbicll the Na.k~d is his white bre~$t
recent Liturgical .Movement in the Roman Catholic and red his bl6ody side ;
Church has sought to deliver the ordinary, untheo- wan was his fair hue,
his wmmds deep and wide.
1ogical layman of the present century. Another, Io five steads of his tlesh
far more trivial consequence of the current the blood gan down glide.
devotional tendency may be noticed in the cor-
But he had no need of the words of others to express
respondence of the Paston family during the
his sentiments, as may be judged from a few brief
fifteenth century, in which letters concluding with
extracts of his own composition-
some such phrase as 'Almighty Jesu have you in
J:lis keeping ', or ' J esu send you your desire ', are Jl\o~su, my joy and 11JY .Iovin~,
as frcq\1ent as those \vith a corresponding prayer Thcsu, my comfort clea.r,
Illll$u my God, lil<l$u my king,
addre..%ed to God. Ihosu wilhou ten peer. . . .
In an old pryroer, or layman's handbook to the
psalter, has been preserved a striking invocation of lhesu, in lhy love wound my thought
And lift my heart to the.e;
jesus meant for private use: "Jesu my Lord; lhesu, my saw! tbat thou dear bought
Jesu my God; Jesu my creator; Jesu my saviour: Thy lover make it to be.
Jesu my bliss; Jesu my succour; J esu my help;
or again-
J osu my comiort; Jesu my mirth; J esu my
solace; Jesu my leader; Jesu my teacher; Jesu In mirth he lives, night and day,
that loves that sweet Child;
my counsellor; Jesu my maker; J csu my founder; It is IJJ.C$11, forsooth I say,
Jesu my mercy : Jesu have mercy, Jesu Lord of all meekest and mHd :
Wroth fm him would all away. at the age of thirty, wherein she should experience
though he were never so wild;
He that in heart loved bim that day " aU manner of pains bodily and ghostly that I
fra evil he will him shild_ should have if I should die (with all the dreads and
tempests of the fiends) except the outpassing of the
Of Ihe~u nwst lisll speak,
lltat all my bale may bcte: soul", with the intention that she should "be
Methink my heart may aU to-break purged, by the mercy of God, and afterward live
when ! Otink on Utat sweet ; more to the worship of God because of that
In love laced he has my lbougb t
that I !<hall ne ,er forget; sickness". She got her request in full. Suddenly,
Full dear methink be bas me bought when both she and her attendants thought she was
";th bloody hands and feeL . . . about to expire, pains and paralysis left her, and
Na wonder i! T sighing be she was filled with desire for a " compassion such
and sitl\etl in sorrow be set, as a kind soul might have with our Lord jesus,
Ihcsu was nniled uron the tr-.e that f.or love would be a mortal man; and there-
and all bloody for-bet;
To thil>k on him is great pity, fore I desired to suffer with Him ". At this point
how tenderly he gret : her visions started, and on the head of the cn1cifut
This ha.~ he suffered, roan, for thee, which was being held out to her she seemed to see
if tllat tllou sin will let. . . .
the blood trickle from beneath the crown of thorns.
Ihesu is Love that lasts ay, Julian is particularly interesting, because in one of
til him is our longing; her visions, that of the Lord and His Servant,
Pesu the night turns to tlle day,
the tlawniog io til spring. there occurs an exceptionally positive and far
Ihesu thh1k on ns now '1J1d ay, reaching identification or Christ with rnanJcind,
for tbcc we hold our King; which she herself interprets as follows : " thus
Ihesu ~ive us grace, as thou wcll may,
tu love thee wilbouten ending. hath our good Lord J esus taken upon Him all our
blame, and therefore our Father nor may nor will
The Lady julian of Norwich was an anchoress, more blame assign to u~ than to His own Son,
whose visions or " shewings " occurred in 1373, dearworthy Christ.. - . For all mankind that shall
though she lived and continued to interpret them be saved by the sweet incarnation and blissful
until well into the next century. Julian manifested passion of Christ, all is the manhood of Christ ....
a marked craving to suJier with Christ. She had J esus is All that shall be saved, and All that shall
prayed that she might fall into a bodily sickness be saved is J esus" (Reve!.n.ti01tS of Divine Love, eel.
10 EROS: nEVO'!lON TO om SACREO HUMA.i'~iTY 403
Warrack pp. II7 f.). It was just about the same spiritual ascent; from it he meant the soul to rise
time that Long Will Langland, in "The Vision of to contemplation of God HimseU. It must be
Do-bet", introduced Christ Himself clad in the doubted whether it had that general effect on
dress of Piers the Plo'IVlll311 to joust against the poJ?ular religion. To a considerable extent, at
devil and to harrow hell. Like the philanthropic least, it would seem rather that the voice of the
citizens of Siena, English Langland was enabled to divine M:anllood threatened to r educe God incarnate
recognise the features of Christ in the honest poor to silence, a consequence that Bernard would l1avc
of his own times. regarded with horrified consternation.
Langland w:~s .doubtless exceptional. Later On all this mystical fervour the Reformation
mediaeval expressions of religious fervour followed descended llke a curtain, leaving only chinks
rather the mystical pattern than the sociological, through which its warmth could still rad iatc a
being content to find in the human character of glow. Luther was contemptuous of mystics,
Christ, and His sufferings undertaken on man's somewhat ungratefully, for mysticism had done
behalf, the p rincipal revelation of God and the much to prepare the ground for Protestant
chief stimulus to devotion. We can only quote individualism. He did, however, retain a fervour
one verse of the anonymous poem, attributed to of his own choice, doubtless derived, like so mnch
the fifteenth century, and entitled " Quia Amore of Iris actual theology (cf. Whitney, Rejormati.01~
Langueo ", but its whole contents are permeated Essays, p. 102), from the mediaeval examples by
with the spirit and language of Bernard's ex- '"hich he was so powerfully, though so unconscious-
position of the Song of Songs- ly, inftuenced. The distinctively Lutheran ethos
Upon this hill t found a tree, laid, as iL still does wherever it ,survives or has been
Under a tree a man ~itting; restored, immense stress on tbe preaching oi the
From head to foot wounded W (lS he ; Word of God, and this Word it both identifies with
His he~ rte blood r saw bleeding :
A se.cmly man to be a king, the living presence of Christ and m akes the object
A gracious face to look unto. of a deep devotion. But the Word and Christ so
t asked why be bad paining. regarded are emphatically divine. While Luther
Quia arnore langueo '-
was pure mediaeval-and late mediaeval at that-
" for 1 am sick of love" (Cant. ii. 5). Bernard, in his rejection of Christian rationalism and his
however, llad designed his new devotion to the insistence that the God of faith is solely the God
sacred humanily merely as the foundation of a revealed in Christ (cf. Harnack History of Dogma
404 ROS: DEVO't!ON 1'0 THE SA.GRED HUlliAlilTY 40S
vii. 197. 199). his Christology was in some respects pilation of a series of trade returns might excite the
almost 1\'Ionophysite and he showed no inclination bosom of a. Government cleric The so-called merit
towards the humanised cult \Vluch the mediaeval of Christ, be says, depends solely on the grace of
mystics had popularised. I nstead, he substitutes God which appointed this method of salvation for
expressions of a piety founded on the language of mankind; it originates not in His human nature
the New Testament, and especially on that of the but in God, who merely of His own good pleasure
Pauline epistles. He talks indeed in l1is letters appointed Him to be Mediator (~1rst. 2. 17) : and
about" the Lord J esus", but just as ofte.n about the bearing of the cross, .incumbent on every
''Christ "; the source of his pious phrases and Christian, is t:reated 1~ltogether morally, instead of
allusions is almost wholly scriptural; they breathe mystically, as just a branch of self-denial (ib. 3 8).
the air, not of the twelfth or fifteenth centuries, but To Calvin Christ is the Son of God, TlOt the Son of
of a Christianity as yet undisciplined by Hellenic Man; His humanity is merely tb.c veil behind which
reasoning and uninflamed by Oriental asceticism. Christ, though God, suffered li.is deity to be con-
Luther was very far from being a religious cealed, rather than make a conspicuous exhibition
primitive; but it w~ the primitive convention in of His true glory (ib. 2. 13).
which he liked to paint his thoughts. While Calvin plied his firm intellect in con-
\:Vhcn we turn from Luther to Calvin, the structing a scholastic theocracy, largely under Old
contrast with the tone or the Middle Ages is even Testament inspiration, and Luther employed his
more immediate and startling. Aiter an earlier incomparable vitality in spreading a subjective
effort to reform the French Church Calvin decided piety, the prevaiHng tendency in t he English Church
that the existing Church not 011ly was in error, was to rely more on ancient wisdom and solid
but was the seat o[ anti-Cbrist; accordingly he learning and to seek enlightenment from the inter
dema.nded of his iollowers a cl~~an breach "'ith pretations set on Scripture by the &>teat Fathers.
historic Christendom. His "Institutes" illustrate But the result was none the less to dam the slream
the completeness of the breach which he himself of mediaeval devotion and to chill the fervour of
made, in devotion even more decisively than in the people who were accustomed to practise it; for
doctrine. He treats of the tremendous themes of to the ancient Fathers the cult of the sacred
Christ's manhood and of man's Iedemption with- humanity was a thing unkD0\\11, Quite apart from
out a trace of unction; these subjects seem to stir Puritans and sectaries, who denounced it as being
his feelings no more profoundly than the com- half-hearted, the reformation of the English Church
was anything but a popular consummation; what Romanists to carry on the old tradition ; as by
fu:st gained affection for the calm and ordered Ricbard Whitford in his sixteenth-century
piety of the Prayer Book was its proscription under " Psalter of J esus", with its refrain of " Jesus,
the Commonwealth. But by r66o a cent ury of Jesus, Jesus"; or by John Austin (r6r3-166g),
spir itual turmoil had flowed and ebbed, washing whose "Devotions in the Antient Way" were
away many religious memories and obliterating republished, with amendments, by John Wesley;
many spiritual records; new loyalties had been or, among the poets, by Robert Southwell (d. 1595),
formed and resh enthusiasms evoked, and al- aut hor of "The Blllning Babe ", and Richard
though tbe administration of the Church remained Crashaw (d. 1649).
mediaeval, its devotion was established firmly on Within the sphere of the Counter-Reformation,
principles rather patristic lhan mystical. The on the other hand, the mediaeval devotion reigned
greatest revolution effected by the English Refor- supreme. The Capuchins well sustained by thei r
mation was the detltronement of St. Bernard, and powerful influence the Franciscan piety of which
lhe reassertion of control by Christian intellect over they were the heirs. Of one of them, Benet
Christian sentiment. Canfield (r563- r6rr), an Englishman by birth
The old strain of love for jesus in His manhoo<l though French by adoption, a contempo;rary wrote
did not entirely die away-a passion so evangelical that he was wont to contemplate the passion of
in its substance could scarcely suffer permanent Cluist as taking place, not on Calvary, but in
suppression without grave injury to Christianity human life around him : t.he. priest who celebrated
-but it was now restrained and balanced and no for lucre was the apostle who sold his Lord; when
longer filled the whole air of popular devotion. the Eucharist was received by the impenitent,
Echoes of :it arc heard, for instance, in Andrewes Ch:rist was delivered over to His enemies ; when
(rsss-r6z6). and in Donne (I573- I6Jr)- men prayed without sincerity He was mocked;
Markc in my heart, 0 soulc, where thou dost dwdl when they oppressed the poor they placed the
The picture ol Christ crucilicd, and Lell ' cross Qn His shoulders; when they committed
\~~lcllt~rthat countenance can thee <tffright. grievous sin they crucified Him. But it was from
1 earcs m hJS eyes quench the amasing light,
Blood fills his frownes, which from his piere'd head fell. Spain that the most conspicuous fruits of devotion
And can that tongue adjudge thee nnto hell, to our Lord's manhood were displayed. Various
Whtch pray'd forgivcnesse for his foes fierco s pight? attempts had already been made to reduce the
But in England, for the most part, it was left to practiee of meditation to a methodical system.
In the " Book of Exercises for the Spiritual Life ", years, until his death, to ministering among his
published in 1500 by the Benedictine Abbot Garcia fellow Christian slaves. His published devotions
de Cisneros of Montserrat, and still more jn the on the sufferings of Christ have fitly been called
"Spiritual Exercises" of Ignatius of Loyola (l49t- " meditations for martyrs"; and he died -pro-
rss6), the knightly founder of the Society of nouncing the name of Jesus.
Jesus, whose work was deepJy influenced by John of the Cross (1542- I59.I/, the confidant of
Garcia, meditation on the life of Christ wa.~ not Teresa, enj oyed the sweetest oonsolat-ion of his life
only enforced by every recommendation of piety when he was cruelly beate)) by footpads, because
but brotlght to the .higllest pitch of systematic so had ;men treated Christ. " On one occasion
development. when he was contemplating Chr.ist's dolorous cross,
As the inspiration of Ignatius seems to bave been the Crucified One appeared to him in a corporeal
Garcia, so that of Garcia was clear)y and con- vision, covered with wounds and blood, His bones
fessedly Bernard. The first stage in the con- dislocated, in the utter disfigurement to which His
templation of Christ incarnate, says Garcia, is to executioners had reduced Him. When John re-
draw ncar to Him with sweet affection and heart- covered from his ecstasy, he made a sketch, with
felt desire : " make Christ thy companion, let thy a sort of I ndian ink, which is now venerated in the
affection dwell ever on both His life and death, and Convent of tbe Incarnation," depicting the details
have thou joy in thy exercises through His presence of the vision (Fr. Bruno, O.D.C., St. jo}m of the
and the remembrance thereof" (cap. 49). Of the Cross, p. 133). Cast into a hideous dungeon, he
passion he remarks that it is the loftiest and most wrote spiritual lyrics, of whicl1 the following (of>.
perfect model for imitation; to imitate the p~tssion cit. p. 174) may serve as illustration-
is the highest way of existence and of religion, and .. Now, woe is me f " erie(! the Shepherd Lad,
should serve monks as their rule of life; so fru as .. A loved one's absence is mv torment here,
Who takctll uo delight to have me near,
possible, he advises, they should desire to be Wounded with love of whom, my heart is sad I '
despised and persecuted, deprived and ill-treated, Long waited he ; then, to a Tree above
as was Christ (cap. 57). It was in this spirit that Mounted. his sweet and yearning arm. be spread :
Fr. Thomas of Jesus, a Portuguese army chaplain And from his O\ltstretched arms he bangeth dead,
His sad heart wounded mortally with love.
who was wounded, captured, and enslaved by the
Moors in .1578, refused more than one opportunity Teresa herself (t5I5-1582), when she was young,
of obtaining ransom, and devoted hinlself for four meditated every evening on t he holy agony, and
4 "' EROS : OE.V<Y!ION TO T.H SACRED J.lU111AN!Tl( 1"
compassion for Christ suffering, and covered with Wounds, also very popular in England, apparently
blood, was " the master idea of St. Teresa's life" dates from the thirteenth century. That of tl1e
(Hoornaert, Saint Teresa in ll~r Writings, p. zn : Stations of the Cross is ultimately derived !rom-
cf. notes 47 on p. 397 & 56 on p. 403). Her the ancient pilgrimage of the Via Sacra at Jeru-
apprehension of Christ's manhood was intensely salem. Various reproductions were inaugurated
realistic. '' Her God is a personal God. Has it in Europe, diffc!ring in tl1eir details, and the modern
been sufficiently remarked how anthropomorphic form oi the devotion seems t o have talen shape in
is her Christ ? . The flesh which St. Teresa tbe si,.xteenth century. The devotion of the
em braces is true flesh; t be soul of Christ is for. Rosary is popular ly attributed to St. Dominic
her a true, human, soul ; she says that she sees (II70-I~zr). The attribution is without founda"
Christ: and sees Him in great detail. And what tion, The method of the rosary was already in
she does see of Hii:n, a hand, His loving eyes, sad use before his time, though the atTangement of
or provoked to anger, is, let us note, always the meditation in fifteen mysteries seems to date
luminous " (op. cit. p. zo8). Whether her realism only from the end of the fifteenth century, and
be considered spiritually healthy or pathologically even then considerable variety was shown in the
hor rible, it is exlremely remarkable. mysteries selected; bul the devotion was certainly
Specific devotions to different parts or aspects developed and fostered by the members of his
of the sacred manhood bad been developing since order.
the twelfth century, the impulse, and also the The most 01~tstanding of all these devotions, in
form, of several of them taking their origin from its bearing on the holy humanity, is that of the
Bernard h imself. The feast of the Holy Name of Sacred Heart, which again goes back. in essence to
Jesus was established comparatively late in tlre Bernard. It was fervently expressed in the prayers
Roman calendar, but was anticipated in mediaeval of the German Benedictine nun Gertrude (rzs6-
English usage ; the devotion was derived from I30I or I30Z) : " I praise, I bless, I glorify Thy
Bernard, immensely fostered by Bernardine of sweetest, kindE>.sl Heart, 0 Jesus Christ, my most
Siena (r38o-1:444), and greatly encouraged in true Lover," is the opening sentence in the collec-
England through the popularity of the hymn, tion of these prayers ; and she claimed to feel
(now known not to be earlier tban, but based Christ's heart beating against the heart of her own
upon Bernard's sermons), "Jesu dulcis memoria " soul (The True Prayers of St. Gertrude and St.
{Comper, Rolle p. 142). The devotion to the Five Mechtilde, 1936, p. ro7). The modem cultus of
the Sacred }{cart arises from the visions of Mar~ Soul of Christ, sanctify me,
Body of Chtist, save me,
guerite Marie Alacoque about the year 1676; it Blood of Christ, inebriate me,
was widely employed by the Jesuits as an antidote Water from the side of Christ, wash me,
to Jansenism. In the mediaeval devotio n the .Passion o Christ. strengthen me,
0 good Jesu, hear me,
Jieart of Christ appears to signify broadly the love Within T hy wounds hide me.
of His soul for men : in the modem fom1 of the
cultus it takes a more precise, and even materialistic It is interesting to note that Bishop Alldrewes
turn, though theologians define it carefully as adapted this prayer for his owrt use. However
symbolising all the interior and mental faculties strongly Christians who adhered lo the Reforma-
of Christ which contribute in any way to moral tion might deprecate certain manifestations of
action; with His physical heart are associated mediaeval or counter-Reformation devotion, the
His human arid divine love and the entirety of His love of J esus in His manbood was too deeply-
personal being. It is for this reason that within seated, too movin~. and too re.asonable to be
the last half century the Roman see has on several altogether denied expression, except by the
occasions checked recurrent tendencies to direct blindest and blackest of Protestant prejudice.
devotion towards other specific parts of Christ, Wherever spiritual unction was experienced, there
such as His soul and hand and face. These in some form devotion to the sacred humanity,
devotions, says Fr. Bernard Leeming, S.J.. in an once presented to the heart of Christians, could
intensely interesting article published in The not but speak out. A startling instance occws in
Cl~Jcrgy Review for July, I938, may be legitimate the Independent preacher Thomas Goodwin, a
for private and individual edification, hut might Puritan from Christ's, Cambridge, who was
well lead to most undesirable misunderstandi ng President of Magdalen, Oxford, from r6so to
and competition if they were sanctioned for public t66o, and attended Cromwell on his deathbed.
use. Yet they have mediaeval precedent. Ger- Goodwin wrote a popular work, " The Heart of
trude, fo instance, not only mystically kisses Christ in Heaven towards Sinners on Earth ",
each of the Five Wo~nds separately, but praises in which he dwelt in somewhat mystical language
Christ in His tive several senses and in His different on fbe retention by our Lord in glory of His
members (op. cit. pp. too ff., 66 ffJ. And t he human heart and feeli01,'$. He has even been
world-famou$ prayer so freely used by Ignatius thought, probably mistakenly, to have .inspired
belongs to t he same class- the mind o[ Marguerite 'Marie Alacoque. T he
..... "EROS:
learned and scholastic Presbyterian, Richard
subject, described in a copious title as "Looking
Baxter (r6rs-r69r), did not hold with extreme unlo jesus, or the Soul's Eyeing of Jesus as carry
enthusiasm; he even believed that the sectaries ing on the Great Work of Man's Salvation " . J~hn
were being led astray in their spirit ual extrava- Bunyan (t6z8-r688), that blacksmith most har-
gances by friars and Jesuits. Yet there peeps monious in his appreciation of the English country-
out, in "The Saints' Everlasting Rest" (published side, though for many years oppressed with harsh
r65o), a passage like the following. "And yet discords in his own soul, asserts that " Christ is so
dost thou not know him l why, his Hands were l)id in God from the natural apprehensions of the
pierced, his Head was pierced, his Sides were flesh, that he cannot by any man be saviugly
pierced, his Heart was pierced with the sting of known, unless God the Father reveaL~ him to
thy sins, that by these marks thou miglttest them" (Pilgrim's Progress, Everyman edtn., p.
always know him . . . . Hast thou forgotten since 177). Nevertheless he recommends the medicine
he wounded himself to cure tl1y wounds, and let prepared by Mr. Skill, " an ancient and well-
out his own bloud to stop thy bleeding? Is not approved physician ", which was" made ex came
the passage to his heart, yet standing open ? II et sanguine Christi ", and ordered to be taken
thou !mow him not by the face, the voice, the " fasting, in half a quarter of a pint of the tears
hands; lf thou know him not by the tears and of repentance" (ib . p. 274).
bloudy sweat, yet look nearer, thou maist know In general, however, Bunyan's piety, unlike
him by the Heart : That broken-healed Heart is his imagery, belongs not to the Middle Ages but
his, that dead-revived heart is his, that soul- to the Reformation. He was an admiring reader
pitying, melting heart is his : Doubtless it can be of Luthm, and the aspect of our Lord whicl1 is
none's but his, Love and Compassion are its certain always uppermost in his mind is that of the man-
Signatures" (part 4, chap. g, sect. 5) hood glorif1ed. He represents Christ as the King
Isaac Ambrose, another Presbyterian divine, and of the Celestial City, attended by Shining Ones
a Brasenose man, seems to owe not a little to with trumpets. In the speech of Prince Em
Ignatius of Loyola. Not only was he accustomed manuel to the citizens of :\iansoul, which concludes
to spend about a month every year in spiritual "The BoLy War", the exposition of redemption
rctr~at, in a small hut s.i:tua.ted in a wood near his is wholly scriptural in its language. ln '' Grace
home, but in 1653 he wrote a book that strongly Abounding" the Lord Jesus is ' ' man as well as
recalls the Jesuit in its methodical treatment of its God and God as well as man" (122). Bunyan
shows a vivid personal consciousness of the were formed on the model o1 contempor ary
Saviour : he records that on one occasion " my atheistical clubs. The members met weekly,
understanding was so enliglttencd " by a text of accepted practical rules of prayer and alms-
Scripture " that I was as though 1 bad seen the giving, su bscribed regularly to charitable causes,
Lord J esus look down from heaven, through the and made a monthly Communion; under J ames
tiles, upon me, and direct these words unto me" II, when need was felt for proclaiming their
(ib. 207). He had a tender affection for Christ, loyalty to the English Church, they began the
and meditated on His whole Life " from his con- habit of supporting the daily prayers in London
ception and birth even to his second coming to churches; and once a year U1ey attended a
judgement " (ib. 120). But in his fmal thought he sermon and celebrated a dinner. H omeck died
" was not now only for looking upon this and the in 16g6, but his societies continued to spread
other benefits of Christ apart, as of his blood. widely under William III and Anne; there were
burial, or resurrection, but considering him as a over forty of them in London alone by 1701,
whole Christ, as he in whom aJJ these, and aJJ and many others aJJ over England ; in the next
other his virtues, relations, offices, and operations year one was founded at Epworth by the father
met together, and that he sat on the right hand of of John and Chal'les Wesley. The type of
God in heaven" (ib. ZJ'!). devotion which they instilled is therefore of some
In the latter part of the seven teenth century the interest.
mystical approach to t he sacred humanity.received The exi:racts which follow are taken from
a striking impetus in the established C:hurch Horneck's volume of meditations and devotions
through the devot~ona1 p.reaching at~d writing of !or Holy Communion, enlitled " The Fire of the
Anthony Horneck. Horneck was a German by Altar" (thirteen th edition 1718, twenty-two years
birth, who came to England about r6sr. was after Horneck's deaLh) : they reveal expressively
educated in Oxford at Queen's antl was appointed the renewed attraction of the spb.;tual cliet con-
incu mbent of All Saints'. Having removed to cocted in Bernard's sermons on the Song of Songs,
London, b e was one of the prime movers in the. thouooh with a quaint admixture of more recent
establishment of the Religious Societies that sprang b
literary sauces. "Go, ye Fools ! Be enamour 'd
up in and after r678 ; he became their patron and with your Trifles, admire your Butterflies, doat
director, and drew up the constitution by which on yom sensual Pleasures : Here is one that looks
they continued to be regulated. The societies charming in his Tears, lovely in his J3lood, amiable
in his Wounds, and is more beautiful in the Midst models, ranging from " Eikon Basilike '' (1649.
of all his Distresses, than the brightest Virgin's -.nitten in the name of King Chades, probabLy by
Face, adorn'd with all the glittering Treasures of John Gauden, r6os- r66z). through the devout
the East" (p. 27). " Great Darling of the holy lav.yer, Chief Justice Matthew Hale (r6og-rfv;6,
Trinity, what Haste dosl thoi.L make to die! How "Contemplations Mor-..U and Divine" r676), Simon
dost thou run to redeem the Sons of Men I Nothing Patrick (r6z6-r707, Bishop of E ly, author of the
can hold lhee, nothing can restrain thee " (p. 35). communicants' manual" The Christian Sacrifice",
" Great Physician of Souls ! Thou earnest down twelfth edition 170.1:), to Law's Serious Call"
to prescribe me Physick, and that I might not be (1729). The chill of Hanover !ell like a frost
afraid to take il, didst take it before me, and of on all religious tendeme.'iS in the leaders of tlle
God becamest Man, that 1 might imitate thee in established Church. But English R.omanists
the Holiness of thy human Nature. This is it, 0 no less retained their independence of Con-
my Lord, that my Soul desires, even to set thee tinental examples, so that the " Meditations" of
before mine Eyes, to represent thee in lively good Bishop Challoner (r6gr-r78I) sound a far
Colours before my Mind, and to con!orm to thy more Caroline than ultramontane note. The chief
great Example ! 0 my Jcstts! Thy Spirit I source of mystical fervour lay in the Dissenting
want, which may change me into thy Image {rom movement a.nd in Dutch and German Pietism,
Glory to Glory (pp. 126 f.). " I rejoycc, 0 Lord, with which English Dissent ma.intained a close
in all the glorious Gifts, Perfections, Accomplish- devotional alliance, owing to the babit of Dis-
ments, Virtues, and G:tace!; of Christ Jesus" senh~rs. who were excluded from the English
(p. 138). The tone of tl1ese passages 1s not Universities, of going to Holland for their higher
exceptional; the whole manual is written in a education. How deeply John Wesley came under-
correspondio.g strain. Moravian in.fiucncc is well known. When he and
Ferv&lt prayers addressed to Christ, though George Whitefield captured many of ti1e survivors
couched in less flowery metaphor, are ~o be found of the Religious Societies of Queen Anne's reign,
among the devotions of men like Bishop :Ken as they did in London and Bristol, and intro-
(r637-I7u), the Nonjuror. But in general the duced their own forms of Chtistocentric piety
piety of the English Clii.Lrch is much better repre- among Lhe simple converts or Methodism, they
sented by writers of a more restrained pitch, were unconsciously, JJI the devotional as in other
content mainly with scriptural and patristic fields, undoing one of the principal achievements of
the English Reformation, and prepar1ng Lhe gT011nd embodied in His earthly members. Private prayer
for a 13Jgely uncritical imitation of Continental expresses the piety of single and separa.te memberS
devotion by certain followers of the Tractarians in of the body, and belongs to themselves as indi-
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. viduals, or at most to informal groups of
Before we leave this subject, one serious question individuals. We worship partly bcca"se we are
must be faced. We have toudt(:d lightly and corporately members of Chtist, partly because we
sporadicaJJy on a long religious development, are individually children of God. Ought corporate
noting some of its features, 'but making no attempt worship to be turned into a mere mass meeting
to appraise or criticise them. Nor, in the course of occupied by whatsoever exercises may appear for
so summary a treatment, would any such attem~t the moment to protnote subjective edification of
be justified. But something must be said about the spiritual herd, as it so often is to-day? Ought
the general problem raised by the bare fact that it not rather to present a deliberate plan by which
religious es:pression has thus developed and that Christian devotion should be directed in the aims
new attitudes of prayer have been assumed. We and methods of worship which best express the
are sometimes told that lex orandi lex credendi. proper attitude of mank-ind to God? If the
If this ma.'lim be accepted as true, in what sense latter thesis be cm:rect, then, while a wide latitude
is it true? It may mean either of two very will naturally be conceded to the peculiarities
d:ifiercnt things. On the one hand, it may simply displayed in individual apprehension of divme
point us to the historic liturgical tradition, with the things, yet the general outline of devotion presented
claim lhat therein is expressed in a' devotional in corporate liturgy ought not to l;le distorted, nor
medium the faith o( the Christian Chmch. Jn have its balance ove~thrown . in the prayers of
t11at case, it would tend to endorse the view tlHtl iudjvidual Christians. Further, the principles o{
the public liturgy supplies the general standards wocship embodied in the liturgy will not themsdves
to which private devotions should conform. be lightly allered or supplemented, without care-
Liturgical worship is the prayer of the whole f-ul scrutiny of tb.e proposed changes by a critical
corporate body, the Common .Pmyer-, in whit:h and rational theology. In that sense, and to that
private Cluistians play their individual part in extent the prayer of Christians can be used as a
confonnity and subordination to an ordered just index to the Christian faith. Guided and
system of psalmody and sacrament; it may authorised practice can be taken as evidence of
appropriately be called the prayer of Jesus Christ the nature of healthy belief.
't22 l;:HOS : DEVOTION TO T:l:ffi SACRED H'UMA.Nl'Tl{ 43
But there is an altogether different sense in which between God and His creatures. My object is
we are sometimes bidden to interpret the maxim. only to implore attention to llie fact tbat its
We are often told that some particular devotional valicUty has to be tested, and that the psychological
practice not only is desirable in itself, but must effect it has upon God's creatures is not the sole
be assum~ to be grounded in a right theology, test. The criterion of all experience lies rather in
because. 1t e?courages people to pray or ' helps God's truth than in man's reactions. God's truth
people m thmr prayers '. The suggestion here is embodied in univel'llal nature is the test of accuracy
that no belie. can be false which occasions good for natural science, and His truth furlher pro-
results, and that hom the pnyers that people cl.alrned through prophets and thinkers, and
actually say it is possible to deduce the faith in revealed perfectly by Christ, is the test of theo-
which they ought to believe. The argument rests logical accuracy. Individual ell:periences which
not on the admitted fact that people's prayer~ are at variance wilh the universal authority of
reflect thc1r working faith, but on the theoretical moral anti spiritual truth may or may not be called
assumption that a belief which ' works ' for the ' religious ' C:!.,"])eriences, but are certainly not
limited purpose of stimulating private devotion is evidence of true religion. Otherwise the dykes are
thereby. proven true. It implies that knowledge ovened to ev.ery inrush of irrational superstition
of the kmd of prayers which sti r human affections and spiritual self~decelt. Whal criticism could
efiects a genuine disclosure of religious truth : then be offered oi Syrian and Phrygian orgies in
'~hereas in reality sucll knowledge only effects a which most of the ancient Canaanite and Hellen-
diSclosure of human psychology. It is, in fact, a istic peoples believed that votaries experienced
nake~ ap~eal to a something called ' religious communion with their licentious deities? W.hat
expertence , often thought to afford direct evidence discrimination could be applietl against the nail-
for ultimate realities by honest Christians, who are studded plank of the fakir or the giddy ecstasy of
u.oaware that that particular commodity. though the dancing dervish? What right would Chris-
hckcted ' fhe troth of God , not scldo11l contains tians have to condemn as false the absolute claims
no deeper troth than that of man. Human and bloody mysticism of the TotaJjta.rian faith
experience requires to be authenticated before it which bas recently plunged Europe into a new war
can be treated as divine revelation. of religion? Do these instances appear remote
To say so much is not by any means to throw from the pr'ayers of simple believers? The reason
doubt on the vaJidity of personal communion is merely that those who find U1em thus remote
~+ EROS: DEV0110N TO 11ffi SACnED fr!Th(ANJ.TY 4~5

have never .bad religion presented to themselves God, for instance, were derived from extremely
in these exlrellle Iorms. Had they lived under commonplace experiences such as are enjoyed by
!Gag Ahab or the Emperor Caligula, on the sands univerSal mankind-
of Arabia or beneath the suu of India, or been
To iUc the mcanel Rower lhat blows Cl\n give
subjected to the absolutism of some modern system Thoughts that do often lie too tl<!cp for t~ars.
of amorality, their religious intuitions might well
have taken one of the Lorms that now occasion them For most men a more intense impression is required
surprise. Religious experience is to be reckoned before their spiritual faculties are consciously
an e.xperience of communion with the true God aroused, but a commonplace experience is equally
capable of becoming a religious experience. And
not merely when il is ravishing to the imagination
or the senses, but when it can be judged harmonious the fact that the meanest flower does not always
with truth already revealed. The ways of self- lift the beholder's heart to heaven, and thal the
deception are many and subtle : there is profound in tenser stimulus of. say, a revivalist meeting may
need for" testing the spirits ". equally well evoke a genuine con version or a
Religious C};-perience, t11en, does not authenticate pathological hypocrisy, sug~ests th at all expen-
itself by the mere fact of its occurrence, any more ence is, or can be, religious to the religious man, and
than prophecy; there are false prophets who are that nothing is religious to the irreligious. The
convinced that they arc messengers from God, and man of God is p.ware of God and walks with God and
there are religious people who with equal sincerity dwells with Gotland loves God. witl1 a fuller, degree
and error believe that their spiritual experiences of self-consciousness at some times than at others,
are given them by. inspiration of tbe Holy Ghost. no doubt , but with no essential intermission. He
But we may take a s tep further, and enquire does not say to himse!I, as he rises from his knees
whether there is rational warrant for th e notion and proceeds to the breakfast table, '1 l1a\1e
t hat any distinct k ind of experience, strictly to be J1nished my religious experience, now l'IL go and
called religious, exists at aU. What is it that experience some physical refresllmcn t '. .
constitutes a given experience as religious? l'ersonal communion with God, in worslnp both
Surely not any special quality in the experience public and individual, forms a vita l part of Chris
itself, but the use and consequent interpretation tian life . But it is far from coinciding exactly
which a man is led to make of it. The intimations with all that can be called religion. Formalism,
which disposed Wordsworth's thoughts towards indeed, may rob prayer of its ' religious' quality :
on the other hand, religion has a wider range than
is covered by set methods and habits of devotion
or by private rapture and ecstasy. 1t is a debased
theology that refers to a Christian's 'prayer life
in the same way that the press of the journalistic INDEX
gutter writes of the ' love life ' of a wanton-as il
AI\P.LAllO ~5, 9l. 06o
A.thanashs 79. 132, 14o-s1.
the prayer could be detached from the mote normal 1 76, , 7 g-r84, 8<> r.. 196,
1\ddition 337 fl. 200 1.. 206, 209. 213. . . sa..
occupations of human personality, The spiritual Adoptionlsm .s9. 63, ! 58 ct.. o66
Afacoquo. Marguontc .!\lane 2)7 f., 27?., 01)3, 307. 32J, 3'1.
life cannot be thus con'fi1ted in a private psycho- 334, 353. 355 r.. 365, 39
4 "' I.
Alhe1t ti11J Gro:.t 296 378, 387
logical enclosure, nor is it separable from ordinary Ale.x:aJJienos 85 . Athens T96
Alexandor of Alcxo..rulrta 140 L, At.t icus 257 f .
worldly activities except by the fact that a re-
Augustine 133. 158, 173. 14
zSt, 293. 303, 3<>1 . 379 a.,
ligious person, through God's grace, precisely be- .AI~xandor Ute Ctea.i 82
j\.loxandria, P<PIC o! so, 155. 387
cause he has already formed in his mind some 3'4 fl.
Ausustus 83
Alexandria. school or 132, 1~ Austin. John 407
delioite idea of who and what God is, is enabled to Ale:<Alldri;>., see oi"<S'> f .. 257 0., authority 19, 43 f.
see God in everything and everything in God. To 3191f.
t\lenndria, ynod of 155. Ba<xm, R<JS"r 3!19 f.
that supreme and only God-the everlasting 200 r.. 351 &rbarossa 103
allegory 117'-l'U, 271. 37~ &rth, Dr. K:ll'l 96, 158, 360 I.
Father, the Word who became man, the Spirit of Ambrose of Al~n.ndria 98, tor, Basil 39 f., 195""99 ~02 f ..
210 fl., Z I J, 232, ~3, 334
holy order and divine love-be worship, praise, Ambrose of Milnn 379 1., 38< Baxter, Ri<hard 4 t.j
Ambrose, bnac 41-1 .Becket, Thomas 152
and adoration from all earth and aU heaven, now Ammonins &ooas 97 &uediet 38<)
and for evermore. Androwes, t.ancelot 1~6. 413 Bomard 131 2$9. 384-389. 391,
Anselm 133, 35'l 397. 402 f .. 4~ 410!.. 417
Antioch, C1>ureh of ~o8 f., 57 :Berna.rdinc o( SHmn. 1 '0
f~evan, Dr. Edwyu 'l.~'2
Antioch, chool o! 216 f.. 39
zso, '>7 ''"'~70, 295 IT.. 3zr f .. Dible 28-32, 3~-37. 39 ff., ~l f
?9 f .. 93o 90, 107, IUS-I>~.
327 1. , 353 379 140, 207, 259. 27 1 Jl?, 349
Anthnn 5.'
Apollinans t95-242, 2.46. 261 f.; 358, 404 L
bonkproduction <J<J, 101 I .
-.az. 3 11 . ~3. 3~4 37s
Apollinaris son1or 199 f., 203 f Bright, Dr. W. 154
An:adius ss ]3unyan, John 415 f.
Arianism 143. 145. 148, 151 If., Burl<itt, ]')r. F. C. 79, 128
Bury, Dr. J. B. 24
"'3 5 6.
Ariomaniacs 355
355 f. Bozantino piety 389
.Aristotle 8r, t2Q, 135 33S
Arius IJJ 140 II . 145 175, 178, Callisto 49-.SJ 6-!-07, 70 79
187, 190, 195, 235 a., '7"- 160
Arsenius 1.16 ! , Ca!'Y-in r 5s, 4o4 r.
Canfield, 'Benet 407
asceti"" 76
Cnppadn<:ia, school oJ 3>. 1')6, nemophilus 2 5 t Garcia de Cisneros 4o8 Jgnat.ius of Loyoi,;,. 4 Q$, .112, 4'4
s.J. 282, ~<)6 llcposll 6, 79 Cauden, John 4 r9 isoorat~ce or Christ 327, 331>
Cal'))O)pborus 50 :f. Ofdymus ro8 George' ol Capr<Jrlo<i>l' '53 f!., iUu011nation H. 79
Cassian 389 DiO(]ore o! Tnrsus <J.O? c.. zs. 316 image 77. 28o f., 2$6
ca.tccllctica.l scJ..tt,lOI 94 fl.
~\t.thcl'iue nf Siena 394_
217 r;..
238 r.. 27Q. ~a._.s, George o! Laodlcea -200 lrnrrumence 189
D~ooy~us of A.te:xaodr:io, r4'2. G4rt:rudo ~ u f. individualism 383 f .. 396, 423
Ccl<~stine 297. Se ~~-'~ &"phcus p~onys~us of Rome J7S Cesuail 39l lnn(>ccl'lt 3 'r2
t:clt; 359
t.Oll16(erics .5~ .54
DJony::nus .. 1)$eudo~ J35 t~. ,so2. Gilson, Pro(. E. 131
381, 389 !.
GnrJtioin 75, 79 ., 83', 166 !..
lllspilo.Uon zS, 4Z'~ 59
314. 389 lntolcrnoce 3"3 fl., 353- 358
ChalMdon 2391., 270, 21)6-JOJ, Diosc:orus- 302. 3<20 172 l o"'' 3$9
321 Dissent 4 19 goodpiOMure ' 89 6'., 32~ Jronacu 32 n. 71 ll., 123, 3.55
<.:ha.Jionor, Richard ~ 19 Do.ld, Dr. c. H. 74 Goodwm. Thoma~ 113 Trisb. 359
<.:harlos I 4 rg DoDllmc 4 I I Ougory of Cappadocia. 148, irn1pt.iou :a.fZ.-1:46
Cbnrlcs edwanl, Prince , 53 Dona(j>-ts 364 1$0
C'hry~torn 24, 255 ff.. sR f., Donne, john 4o6 G<egory of Nazi31lzus .zo;, 2 rs. Jaoopunc ria Todi 390, 39J
2 75 c:z8~. '>95. 310, 319, 33So Duchesne 319 222 tf., '31 '252, 336 ju..,o.ism 412
357 f. Gregory nf NY""" 2!1, 213, Jehu ~o
Cbur~h 374, 376, .lSo. Se also e<:clesiastics 99, Jg8, 252 , , 58, 2U IJ., >235, 3'23 e ngllu: Khan 269
Clcru.eut of Ale>xandria 9$. , 24,
Cohunbin.i, Ci ovanui 393
313,J 18
t:cloc-ticistn 78
c(luta tion 104-108, 'l{)Q, 203 ff,.
Gregory U\e Wonderworlscr
103 .u. ic~dxl
toS. 11 r. [JJ, 2o8 r.
ero rnt.~ 92,
256. See also Jehu
J<>lln ol Antioch 263, 60 f(.,
4'9 Ha.drian 84 275. Jl~
cornm:ntaric~ 30, ro::, 1r2 f.,

E mauat:ionism J 591 t Qc.- 17, 11~10, Maitbow 4u; obn of the CrQl;S +09
"JO], 3 1 7 t76 ~ . . Har\over 419 oh!l of D~ lll3SC1lS ~7. 379
CommOtlu:; 51~ 63 ~nglib Church 405 I . lfarouck , 403 0Vlatl I 56, 206
Commonwf!altb ...f06 Ephesus 265-:268. 299, 31 7, :)21 .Heart, Sacred 4 u f. J udu Jscariot 319
Cornper, 3liss 3W Epbc'SuS, Bngandage of '- Hcavcnl) Alan :nslf. Jullan,empe<or '34 154 !,1<)6,
Cooslan t49 fl. y.zo .,.._,, a<>) ff.
Hebraism '3' r6o2
Con.tanl:!nel qo, 45- 1S,zsot. Hebrew 96 ulian, lady 400 f.

F.pictetus of Corinth 2Qt
<;onstno~ne H t.(9 Epphanius 40 f., 209 f., JS6 Heraclcon 1 r'2. nUus 150
<.:onstaolinople. S<.'tl of 2~59, Erige"''- John Scotus 3S9 herotiCll JO, 33, 43, <J.!, I t5, IJI, usti.nian 92
200, 320 r. Eros ~73 f. 364 r.
Constantius t 18-1;4 , 5 r ethena '4 Hennas tto l(Cil, TlronV1S oJ-[8
~ contrnetion , divln~ Jio tf.. Eucharist 376, 380, 388 bigbor erit.icism 10, n; IT. ltOIIO:<i$. JJ8, 341 L
COUJlCJlS 8 Eudi:rxlus 2-5 r Hilnry 189 Kill(!, Dr. B. I. 319
CV\Intet.. rt~formc.Hioil 4o7 Jl. l!:urwmius 213, ~..35 Hippolytus 19 rt , 56 fC C\1 Jl,. klng'S". divine ~2 f.
C.T:'t:ihaw, Riolnrrd <i<J? E usebius of Caesa.rea 38 16o 70, ll ~j, 166
Creed, Dr. J. M. ..,~r'. ..,~15 Eusebius oi N icomediO. 143- history 5 f .. 6 r. 61o '1~. 84 IT., l,..:-u)ftanc 35:9
Cl'eeds 7 i ., r.4 116. q8, JjO, 251 1>7, 1 ~1 f., 271, 377, 383 Langland, \Villiam 40-2
t:rib 39 ,Jstace of Antioch 209, :u6, Holy Spmt 58 B., 65, 107, 120, La.otliCC'".a rgg f.
Cr1!3, St:Ltioos <If 4 u 219. 238, 210, 27$. 276-2~2:, ~7. 161, 164, 179 f., 25<. 307, l.ataldo.. See Laodire;r
crusades 388 286, 356 354 f., 362 Latourette, Dr. K . S. 3<>.5
Cullc>d,., 153 custare ()( Sehaslo 196 Hornccl< o\nth<my 4 >6 I. L.1ud, William 313
c ulluro, claS$i03l 203 tr., 388 f. R'!tychos 3<. 320, 350, 358 Horus 92 l:,w, Jodaie Ij II.
<'Ultus 31 .,, J6<) II. Hooius lofJ, 149, 15r l.aw, \\'illiam 419
Cumborlaod, Dt~e oi 153 evolution t67- I7o, 2-44 human nature 76. 163 . ...7 r.. Lily Folks' Ma.ss Book 397 I.
Cynl or Ale.,andria 257. 201, ~J6, 28j. 300 f, JOJ (., 3J~ f., [A:Qrus 385
~63'"262, 288, 93 fi.. 297 ti., fo.taJism 77, 110 3H f., 311 ff. Set t<IM per i.ccmmg, F r. 13. 4 12
JOO f., JLL- 350, 352, 353 fl., feudal socioty 388 'onalit' l.co 239, a6y, 297, 320
3,8, 379 F lorence 39-4 f. 11 ypo.tlu. J 16, 3S T..<~onilks IJ3 I.
l?raJJois ~ss. 39' t. l..oontius 299, 348
OecJus H>Z fl:'auds, lltel'tU"y 2<'>6 T~!l~thl3 of Ant ioch '\75-377 Libcl'ius 151, 251
43Q !N'OEX
Liddon, Or. H. P. 8s N<~.Stl)riu$ ~39, 2~9 I., 255, 25$- progros. <>.
1151 Su bordi~ti<>nt~m t 71-11'). t87{.
Lleh:oumo. Dr. H . gQ 27-f, ~88, 291-<!98, JOO !., Prometheus 30.5 r ~ubstance ' r72, cSo- tS-4, 1.1)0,
Lightfoot 3511. 30~ 1., 3'7 fl .. 329-3~6. 354. prophecy 5?. J~7 I., 4'1 1J'J., 294
liturgy l~' 398, ~o I. JSO prymer 398 &uper~tition 77. 147, r6g, di7.,.
Lucian of Antiool\ 14~. 216 N"cwmao 91 psychology '228, 4:1:1 390. 413
Lull, Raymond J')J I'icaea '"' r.. 1]9. I So, 183 purital)ism 79$ 256, 30-3, 397, SullO. Henry 393
Luther 96, 103 f. 4 15. Noetus 6~ 405 Svcngnli 2 Jl.
1'lovatiaonun 31'2, 364 Pytba.gorns 166, r6S Syncsiu. ~~~. 382
Maccdunlus 251
Macb.iasolli 395 object' r8o-18J, 190, 29~, Quarlo<lecimans 54 Tamcrlaoe 69
.M:ilines 153 298. 32'1 t. tc:lcocope 340
Marcellus 38, t6o, 356 Old Testarll<nt 1 tS, 1 n, ~6. rationali;,m 9, 44 1., g6 I., 1o1- Teres. o(,\vila 409 (,
Marcia 51 See aiM Mareion ao7, lT<f, 12--4-1361 18,5, 291- ... Tertullian 34 r.. 66 r.. ~9. 134,
Ma.n:ion 77. 11 o order, ecx.lesiasti~"ll 366 389 I. 17l If.
Marcus 1\nl'dius 51. 6), 84 Orestes JJ- J16 Raven. Dr. C. E. 201 , . , . f., lea:tuol critiei$Jtl tQC), rJ6
~fary. St. 388 Orientalisrn ro-, f. nyl. Theodore of Mopsuest..a ~70,
Mary, church of St. 181 f. Ori~n S5 9-36. r~1 . r7s- redentption 22, J.7 215, lJO 284-295. )00, JO.j, 318 f., 303,
At.aximus tbe ConfWJSOI" JOt 1
178. J8o..... 33of. JJ6, 341, 235. il
.. 271, ~73 f .. )26
Theodore or Tarsus and Cat>-
368. 373 fl .
.Melelius of Antioch 209 Or~.genists 133. t 4"2, , 55 Reformatiou oJ. oo, 420 terbury 359
~lemnon of Eplh"'"$ 265, 267!. Orpnism r6ll religious experience 130 l .. 42'2- Tbeodoret 275, 295. 312, 318.
321 fl.. 32S. 351 358
Metllo<lism 419
l\iilan TSI
OWIIt, Dr. C . R. 397 o +?6.
~tetic.s ' 4 t 6 I. -t 19 Thoodosius I s
Millenarianism t 9S !XIIIO.fliSI>l 6t, 7;-78, 8t-$j, revel3.tioD -1:0 ff., ,.z, ;a. 11-1 f., 'l'beodosius II s8, 265, 168
missions 30:5 f., 359 96 f .. t1 7. 135. 161 i .. 167 II., u6 f .. 165. 2+1-Z+S 271 Theodotus of Antioch 39
Mohawmedo.oism 364 2 14 373 RoUe, llicha.rd 399 Thcodotus ol By<a.ntium 62 f.
Molllitl$Cn 31~ Pori 53 ff. romance 384 theology 7 fl., to ff.. 184188,
Monerg1sm ~oo Pas ton letters 398 Rome, Church of 53-57, 69 35l-3S4 365 f. 4 2>11.
M.ona.~biamsm r6s Patrick. Simon 419 Rome, S<.oe of '>53 f., sS 1.. 'Th:eopbllus ss ff.. 312, 3'5
moolts 149, 153 f.. 96, 259, Pm1l of Snrnoliat..'L 16<>, 21() 262. t, J02, 320 thCOTY 186
26], 31i, 315. 358 fl. Panlinus of An?oclt 209 Rosary 41 r Th~:otol<O$1-6r. 291
!l:lonopllJ'itisru 269, 09<}-3o3. P<:lngianhnn 262 , 303 f. Thornns Aquim'" 133. >96, 3~8
350, 404 pononrA> 67-70 Sabelli~nism 159-165, 186 ll., 1'holnas of ]csus ~uS
monotheism 58, 6o f.. ?7. 8.6, persecution See int'()J~r:.iJ1tO 196 Thomns n J{tmpi$ 395 f .
'39. 157. '79 r., 183.
also Triltity
s,. ' Pcr:.Jon ' 1 73, 190, -z8r, '2~7 ff.. Sabc:llius 64 1!. Tract:l\rio.nn 4 ZO
tra.diLlon 3-6, r r ff,l 2~-27,
298 Salisbury, Lor<l 99
MonotheJitism JOO ~rooMlity 162 ff., 18., c,. 190 J., salvatio11 13-77, 80-l\7, lJO. 36 C.. 39 (f., f1 ro
Monrnnism 59, 67. JSo 345-319 Sea aJ.<o human Sr.e oJso redemption Tr<tduchu\i$m "9
Murray, Dr: G. G. 1\. 8 1, H7 m~turo Sardica r4g, -201 tr1\0~ondunte 189
mystery reHg1ous 83 pcssimi$m 8r, 384 Savonarola. 394 f. Troves r18
mysticism 76, 135 I. Peter of A le:x.aJ\QrW, 252 schism S7 66, >99. ~<>'), ~<>!). 't'rinlty 6o f., <57 f., 163, 7-
Philip, emperor tM 299 363 I. 184' t89, 23? 2.8 o
N;unc, Holy 393, 1' Q ' physis ' 34.5 Schnondi 269 Tollinton, !)r. R. B. 1~2
Natu~s. Two 221 . , 2.18 I., Piottant .p 9 scl\olasticism 389 Tyndalo, W illiam 18
272 f., 294 97- J02, 320, Pil:).tQ J67 Sellers, Dr. R . V. 327 Tyro tOJ, t46l.
330 1., 336 f., 346 l., HS Jl., t>lnto y6, l3' 1:&2:, 166~ 16S r,. Septuagint c 1 1 f., J t6
369 t. 335 Sjcna. 39.2, 4oz unity ol Chrisl 240, 27cr282,
Ncct..uius 252 PloUnu~ 97, '3~ i., 162 Socrates !:icho1asdcus 266, 31G 2!!7 IT., 300, 32~. 38-333.
Nemesius ol mesa .33.1 Solia. See Sar<liet ~37. 349. 369 t.
Neoplatonism 78, 96. 135 r., poor 392, ""' soul of Christ ''I~ If.. 21M)S, u1llt:y of the Church 36o-368
Porp~yry ')6 r.. 11R
162, 26;, JO'l, 316 l'r:lxe!IS 63 276, 332 (., 336, 342 IT. unity of Cod. See monotheism
Nestorian Churcb 6') prayer 420 if., 425 1. Southwell, lt<>b<:rt i<>? aml Trinity

universities, mediaeval 53 ff. Wesley, john 407,17.i'9
\Ves-teott 99, 113
Valens tSsl., 251 Whitefield, Geo'l'e 4 , 9
Valentine 61 1.. 75. 128, t66. Whitford, lliehnrd 107
t89 Wlutney, Dr. J. P. 403
Vergil 83 William of St. T hierry 391
Vespasian 84 Word (LogO$) Gs, 17t, '74 ff.
Vidlet, Fr. A. R. 361 I. Wordsworth 424 I.
Vitalis 209 ff. Wou nds, Five -1 l
Watts, Isaac 387 Zephyrinus .s~, 63 a.

l'an.t rU A~O UOUI'ID Uf C tUtAT BIII7A.I~ BY RICEIAR-0 Cl.AY A~l) Co.. PAiliY, LTQ.,
JhJN<lAY, Surrou;,

Похожие интересы